Hangboard training in advanced climbers: A randomized controlled trial

Assessing the Impact of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation-Based Fingerboard Training versus Conventional Fingerboard Training on Finger Flexor Endurance in Intermediate to Advanced Sports Climbers: A Randomized Controlled Study

Competitive climbers engage in highly structured training regimens to achieve peak performance levels, with efficient time management as a critical aspect. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) training can close the gap between time-efficient conditioning training and achieving optimal prerequisites for peak climbing-specific performances. Therefore, we examined potential neuromuscular adaptations resulting from the NMFES intervention by analyzing the efficacy of twice-weekly NMES-supported fingerboard (hang board) training compared with thrice-weekly conventional fingerboard training over 7 training weeks in enhancing climbing-specific endurance among intermediate to advanced climbers. Participants were randomly divided into the NMES and control groups. Eighteen participants completed the study (14 male, 4 female; mean age: 25.7 ± 5.3 years; mean climbing experience: 6.4 ± 3.4 years). Endurance was assessed by measuring the maximal time athletes could support their body weight (hanging to exhaustion) on a 20 mm-deep ledge at three intervals: pre-, in-between- (after 4 weeks of training), and post-training (after 7 weeks of training). The findings revealed that despite the lower training volume in the NMES group, no significant differences were observed between the NMES and control groups in climbing-specific endurance. Both groups exhibited notable improvements in endurance, particularly after the in-between test. Consequently, a twice-weekly NMES-supported fingerboard training regimen demonstrated non-inferiority to a thrice-weekly conventional training routine. Incorporating NMES into fingerboard workouts could offer time-saving benefits.

The Connection Between Resistance Training, Climbing Performance, and Injury Prevention

BACKGROUND

Climbing is an intricate sport composed of various disciplines, holds, styles, distances between holds, and levels of difficulty. In highly skilled climbers the potential for further strength-specific adaptations to increase performance may be marginal in elite climbers. With an eye on the upcoming 2024 Paris Olympics, more climbers are trying to maximize performance and improve training strategies. The relationships between muscular strength and climbing performance, as well as the role of strength in injury prevention, remain to be fully elucidated. This narrative review seeks to discuss the current literature regarding the effect of resistance training in improving maximal strength, muscle hypertrophy, muscular power, and local muscular endurance on climbing performance, and as a strategy to prevent injuries.

MAIN BODY

Since sport climbing requires exerting forces against gravity to maintain grip and move the body along the route, it is generally accepted that a climber`s absolute and relative muscular strength are important for climbing performance. Performance characteristics of forearm flexor muscles (hang-time on ledge, force output, rate of force development, and oxidative capacity) discriminate between climbing performance level, climbing styles, and between climbers and non-climbers. Strength of the hand and wrist flexors, shoulders and upper limbs has gained much attention in the scientific literature, and it has been suggested that both general and specific strength training should be part of a climber`s training program. Furthermore, the ability to generate sub-maximal force in different work-rest ratios has proved useful, in examining finger flexor endurance capacity while trying to mimic real-world climbing demands. Importantly, fingers and shoulders are the most frequent injury locations in climbing. Due to the high mechanical stress and load on the finger flexors, fingerboard and campus board training should be limited in lower-graded climbers. Coaches should address, acknowledge, and screen for amenorrhea and disordered eating in climbers.

CONCLUSION

Structured low-volume high-resistance training, twice per week hanging from small ledges or a fingerboard, is a feasible approach for climbers. The current injury prevention training aims to increase the level of performance through building tolerance to performance-relevant load exposure and promoting this approach in the climbing field.

A Finger in the Game: Sport-Specific Finger Strength Training and Onset of Injury

INTRODUCTION

Strength training has proved to be an effective way to prevent injuries, but the evidence of the impact of strength training on finger injuries is lacking. A fingerboard is a sport-specific tool used by climbers for strength training of fingers. In this study, we searched for associations between fingerboard training and finger injuries in climbers with different lengths of climbing experience and levels of performance.

METHODS

A web-based survey was used to collect information on self-perceived pain or injury in fingers (SPIIF) and regular fingerboard training (RFT). The survey was administered to the Finnish climbing community. Data were analyzed using contingency tables; chi-square was used to evaluate statistical significance.

RESULTS

No significant correlations between SPIIF and RFT were found when analyzing all the participants (n=434) together. In climbers with 6 y or more in the sport, SPIIF was not common and RFT was negatively associated with SPIIF (χ2 [1, n=200]=4.57; P=0.03). In contrast to this, in male climbers who had been climbing for less than 6 y and had advanced to 7a level or higher (French lead/Font bouldering), SPIIF was common and RFT was positively associated with SPIIF (χ2 [1, n=75]=4.61; P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that doing RFT may prevent SPIIF in climbers with a long background in the sport as fingerboard training can help build stronger fingers and thereby stronger tendons and ligaments. Climbers with fewer years in the sport and less adaptation to the fingers should be cautious with their training loads and RFT to avoid finger injuries and pain.

Physical performance testing in climbing-A systematic review

Due to the increasing popularity of climbing, the corresponding diagnostics are gaining in importance for both science and practice. This review aims to give an overview of the quality of different diagnostic testing- and measurement methods for performance, strength, endurance, and flexibility in climbing. A systematic literature search for studies including quantitative methods and tests for measuring different forms of strength, endurance, flexibility, or performance in climbing and bouldering was conducted on PubMed and SPORT Discus. Studies and abstracts were included if they a) worked with a representative sample of human boulderers and/or climbers, b) included detailed information on at least one test, and c) were randomized-controlled-, cohort-, cross-over-, intervention-, or case studies. 156 studies were included into the review. Data regarding subject characteristics, as well as the implementation and quality of all relevant tests were extracted from the studies. Tests with similar exercises were grouped and the information on a) measured value, b) unit, c) subject characteristics (sex and ability level), and d) quality criteria (objectivity, reliability, validity) were bundled and displayed in standardized tables. In total, 63 different tests were identified, of which some comprised different ways of implementation. This clearly shows that there are no uniform or standard procedures in climbing diagnostics, for tests on strength, endurance or flexibility. Furthermore, only few studies report data on test quality and detailed information on sample characteristics. This not only makes it difficult to compare test results, but at the same time makes it impossible to give precise test recommendations. Nevertheless, this overview of the current state of research contributes to the creation of more uniform test batteries in the future.

Strength Training in Climbing: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT

Langer, K, Simon, C, and Wiemeyer, J. Strength training in climbing: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 37(3): 751-767, 2023-The aim of this review was to provide an overview of the state of research on strength training in climbing and to answer the question how climbing performance, maximum grip strength, upper-limb strength endurance, maximum upper-limb strength, and upper-limb power as dependent variables are affected by different types of training. Moreover, we addressed the question which training methods and training parameters are most effective in increasing climbing and bouldering performance. Searches of MEDLINE (PubMed), SPORTDiscus, ProQuest, and Google Scholar were conducted for studies that met the following criteria: (a) examining effects of training on at least one of the dependent variables, (b) controlled longitudinal design with pretest and posttest, and (c) detailed information on training parameters and subjects. Twelve studies were included into the review. The quality of the studies was rated according to the PEDro scale, and the training interventions were classified according to training method (maximum strength [MS], hypertrophy [HYP], and endurance [END]), specificity (specific, semispecific, and unspecific), and static or dynamic exercises. For 9 of the 12 studies, effect sizes were calculated and the treatments compared. The results showed (a) positive effects of strength training on all variables, (b) a trend toward a mixture of MS and HYP or END training, (c) a trend toward semispecific exercise, and (d) similar effects for dynamic and static exercise with a trend toward a mixture of both. Coaches and athletes are recommended to combine static and dynamic semispecific exercises in a HYP and MS or END training.

Effects of climbing- and resistance-training on climbing-specific performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effects of climbing and climbing-and-resistance-training on climbing performance, and strength and endurance tests. We systematically searched three databases (SPORTDiscus, SCOPUS, and PubMed) for records published until January 2021. The search was limited to randomized-controlled trials using active climbers and measuring climbing performance or performance in climbing-specific tests. Data from the meta-analysis are presented as standardized difference in mean (SDM) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Eleven studies are included in the systematic review and five studies compared training to a control group and could be meta-analyzed. The overall meta-analysis displayed an improvement in climbing-related test performance following climbing-specific resistance training compared to only climbing (SDM = 0.57, 95%CI = 0.24-0.91). Further analyses revealed that finger strength (SDM = 0.41, 95%CI 0.03-0.80), rate of force development (SDM = 0.91, 95%CI = 0.21-1.61), and forearm endurance (SDM = 1.23, 95%CI = 0.69-1.77) were improved by resistance-training of the finger flexors compared to climbing training. The systematic review showed that climbing performance may be improved by specific resistance-training or interval-style bouldering. However, resistance-training of the finger flexors showed no improvements in strength or endurance in climbing-specific tests. The available evidence suggests that resistance-training may be more effective than just climbing-training for improving performance outcomes. Importantly, interventional studies including climbers is limited and more research is needed to confirm these findings.

Effects of Different Hangboard Training Intensities on Finger Grip Strength, Stamina, and Endurance

Climbing-specific training programs on hangboards are often based on dead-hang repetitions, but little is known about the real intensity applied during such effort. The aim of this study was to quantify and compare the effects of different training intensities (maximal, high submaximal, and low submaximal intensities) on the fingers' physiological capabilities using a hangboard fitted with force sensors. In total, 54 experienced climbers (13 women and 41 men) were randomly divided into four groups, with each group following different training intensity programs: maximal strength program performed at 100% of the maximal finger strength (MFS; F100), intermittent repetitions at 80% MFS (F80), intermittent repetitions at 60% MFS (F60), and no specific training (control group). Participants trained on a 12 mm-deep hold, twice a week for 4 weeks. The MFS, stamina, and endurance levels were evaluated using force data before and after training. Results showed similar values in the control group between pre- and post-tests. A significantly improved MFS was observed in the F100 and F80 groups but not in the F60 group. Significantly higher stamina and endurance measurements were observed in the F80 and F60 groups but not in the F100 group. These results showed that a 4-week hangboard training enabled increasing MFS, stamina and endurance, and that different improvements occurred according to the level of training intensity. Interestingly, the different intensities allow improvements in the targeted capacity (e.g., stamina for the F80 group) but also in the adjacent physiological capabilities (e.g., MFS for the F80 group).