If we are going to take issue with First Female Ascents (FFAs), then let’s also take a look at categorizing climbing and climbers by age. Those questioning the validity of FFAs argue FFAs set women back because we tell women they have lower aptitude or potential than men; that a route sent for the first time by a female after a first ascent (FA) by a man is special or noteworthy. They argue women’s limits are the same as men so why is an FFA noteworthy? We shouldn’t be surprised or shocked when a female sends something that was FAed by a male. see discussion by Paige Claasen
I take the same exception to limiting climbers by age. I’ve read a few articles recently where performance expectations are divided up by age groups, as if there are inherent differences between climbers of different ages. see Climbstrong or Neil Gresham or another Gresham
Do mature climbers need to train less dynamically compared to younger athletes? To me, it is all too similar to how we used to think about differences between the genders; men are dynamic and powerful; risky, women are static and fingery; hesitant. Performance Rock and Ice, written in the 1990s has a whole chapter on the differences in aptitude for power between men and women. I think we now know this type of wrongful thinking previously limited women (look at the very successful powerful women on the circuit today, AP below) and I believe ageism also limits climbers.
Climbing training articles also refer to research that indicates elite strength athletes start losing 3% strength /year during their 30s (and 1% thereafter). I’m going to assume these numbers come from actual research but I couldn’t find any supporting literature. Even if true, does research pertaining to elite strength athletes actually apply to rock climbers? There is a difference between elite strength athletes and rock climbers especially in terms of strength as it relates to ageing.
The problem with applying peak performance research of elite (and often male) strength athletes to climbers, is, I would wager, any climber, elite or novice is nowhere near, and never will be near, their peak muscle strength potential (not to be confused with climbing strength potential).
Let’s define what I mean by muscle strength potential. It is an athlete’s lifetime genetic aptitude for muscle strength that usually occurs in the mid to late 20s. In order to approach maximum potential, strength athletes devote a large amount of time and energy to strength training, sacrifice most other normal life pursuits, have specific restricted nutrition requirements, and have ridiculous motivation until they finally come very close to their aptitude.
From my observation, rock climbers do not even come close to devoting that much of their attention to muscle strength gains. To improve as a rock climber, hours and hours must be devoted to skills development alone. Some of our most elite climbers might have never engaged in a single squat or bench press in their entire lives and some apparently eat donuts for nutrition! So do rock climbers ever approach their lifetime muscle strength potential to ever see a strength decline from their peak? Very likely never. Why do I care? Because this means that thankfully, we as climbers don’t have to worry about losing any percentage of our hard-earned strength each year. We can actually get physically stronger throughout our entire lifetime because we never come close to our actual muscle strength potential. This is good news for those of us past our lifetime peak that could stand to have a little more muscle strength.
Strength athletes on the other hand will succumb to age related factors because they come very close to their peak in muscle strength. They may lose strength on the order of about 3%/ year in their 30s and 1% thereafter assuming these numbers are correct. Since this percentage is presumably based on a regression equation of some robust sample size (most of this type of sport’s research is based on very few subjects, sometimes <10), some subjects would be under and some would be over the curve. i.e., some of the subjects may not have lost any strength, and some lost more than expected. Is it appropriate to apply this regression equation to climbers who are not strength training? I don’t think so.
Imagine a very simplistic hypothetical best case scenario (figure below) of a normal person who begins climbing at 15 (red line). They begin at 40% of their current muscle strength potential and amazingly increase their muscle strength at 1.5% per year throughout their life by climbing. (Note: I am not referring to climbing strength). The climber continues to make strength gains of 1.5% per year into their 40s and beyond. Their maximum lifetime potential has decreased by 3% per year after 30 and then stabilizes at a decline of 1% per year after age 40 (grey line). The hypothetical climber gets stronger until age 72, when finally they will not be able to realize any more strength progression because they have met the cap on their own potential which has been steadily declining, i.e., you can still make huge strength gains even if your potential has declined.