Effects of ten weeks dynamic or isometric core training on climbing performance among highly trained climbers

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.

Neuromechanics of finger hangs with arm lock-offs: analyzing joint moments and muscle activations to improve practice guidelines for climbing

Introduction

Climbing imposes substantial demands on the upper limbs and understanding the mechanical loads experienced by the joints during climbing movements is crucial for injury prevention and optimizing training protocols. This study aimed to quantify and compare upper limb joint loads and muscle activations during isometric finger hanging exercises with different arm lock-off positions.

Methods

Seventeen recreational climbers performed six finger dead hangs with arm lock-offs at 90° and 135° of elbow flexion, as well as arms fully extended. Upper limb joint moments were calculated using personalized models in OpenSim, based on three-dimensional motion capture data and forces measured on an instrumented hang board. Muscle activations of upper limb muscles were recorded with surface electromyography electrodes.

Results

Results revealed that the shoulder exhibited higher flexion moments during arm lock-offs at 90° compared to full extension (p = 0.006). The adduction moment was higher at 135° and 90° compared to full extension (p < 0.001), as well as the rotation moments (p < 0.001). The elbows exhibited increasing flexion moments with the increase in the arm lock-off angle (p < 0.001). Muscle activations varied across conditions for biceps brachii (p < 0.001), trapezius (p < 0.001), and latissimus dorsi, except for the finger flexors (p = 0.15).

Discussion

Our findings indicate that isometric finger dead hangs with arms fully extended are effective for training forearm force capacities while minimizing stress on the elbow and shoulder joints. These findings have important implications for injury prevention and optimizing training strategies in climbing.

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.

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 core training on dynamic balance stability: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Core stability has a strong relationship with dynamic balance stability (DBS). The purpose of this review with meta-analysis was to analyse the effects of core training programmes from different studies on DBS. A literature search was performed using different databases. Subgroups analyses on duration, training frequency, total sessions, chronological age, training status, equipment and movements were performed. A random-effects model for meta-analyses was used. Thirteen studies were selected for the systematic review and 10 for the meta-analysis, comprising 226 participants. A moderate effect was noted for core training on DBS (p < 0.001; ES = 0.634). Greater DBS improvements were found in core training interventions with ≤6 weeks (ES = 0.714), after high volume (ES = 0.787) and more frequent interventions (ES = 0.787), as well as in younger participants (ES = 0.832). In addition, body weight exercises may be better than med ball, swiss ball or band resisted exercises. Core training improves DBS among athletes and a non-trained population, creating a more solid stable base that allows better lower extremity movements. This could be more effective considering different modulators ≤6 weeks intervention, >2 sessions per week, >17 total sessions, body weight core programmes and applied to ≤18.0 years old.

Tests and Procedures for Measuring Endurance, Strength, and Power in Climbing—A Mini-Review

The interest in climbing is rapidly growing among professional and recreational athletes and will for the first time be included in the 2021 Tokyo Olympics. The sport has also gained increased scientific attention in the past decades. Still, recommendations for testing procedures to predict climbing performance and measure training effects are limited. Therefore, the aim of this mini-review is to provide an overview of the climbing-specific tests, procedures and outcomes used to examine climbing performance. The available literature presents a variety of tests and procedures. While the reliability of some tests has been examined, measures of validity are scarce, especially for climbing-specific endurance tests. Moreover, considering the possible combinations of climbing performance levels, disciplines, and tests, substantial gaps in the literature exist. Vague descriptions of the participants in many studies (e.g., not specifying preferred discipline, performance level, experience, and regular climbing and training volume) further limit the current knowledge and challenge comparisons across studies. Regarding contraction types, dynamic strength- and power-tests are underrepresented in the literature compared to isometric tests. Studies exploring and reporting the validity and reliability of climbing-specific tests are warranted, and researchers should strive to provide a detailed description of the study populations in future research.

The Effects of Trunk Muscle Training on Physical Fitness and Sport-Specific Performance in Young and Adult Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The role of trunk muscle training (TMT) for physical fitness (e.g., muscle power) and sport-specific performance measures (e.g., swimming time) in athletic populations has been extensively examined over the last decades. However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of TMT on measures of physical fitness and sport-specific performance in young and adult athletes is lacking.

Objective

To aggregate the effects of TMT on measures of physical fitness and sport-specific performance in young and adult athletes and identify potential subject-related moderator variables (e.g., age, sex, expertise level) and training-related programming parameters (e.g., frequency, study length, session duration, and number of training sessions) for TMT effects.

Data Sources

A systematic literature search was conducted with PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus, with no date restrictions, up to June 2021.

Study Eligibility Criteria

Only controlled trials with baseline and follow-up measures were included if they examined the effects of TMT on at least one measure of physical fitness (e.g., maximal muscle strength, change-of-direction speed (CODS)/agility, linear sprint speed) and sport-specific performance (e.g., throwing velocity, swimming time) in young or adult competitive athletes at a regional, national, or international level. The expertise level was classified as either elite (competing at national and/or international level) or regional (i.e., recreational and sub-elite).

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods

The methodological quality of TMT studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. A random-effects model was used to calculate weighted standardized mean differences (SMDs) between intervention and active control groups. Additionally, univariate sub-group analyses were independently computed for subject-related moderator variables and training-related programming parameters.

Results

Overall, 31 studies with 693 participants aged 11–37 years were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the included studies was 5 on the PEDro scale. In terms of physical fitness, there were significant, small-to-large effects of TMT on maximal muscle strength (SMD = 0.39), local muscular endurance (SMD = 1.29), lower limb muscle power (SMD = 0.30), linear sprint speed (SMD = 0.66), and CODS/agility (SMD = 0.70). Furthermore, a significant and moderate TMT effect was found for sport-specific performance (SMD = 0.64). Univariate sub-group analyses for subject-related moderator variables revealed significant effects of age on CODS/agility (p = 0.04), with significantly large effects for children (SMD = 1.53, p = 0.002). Further, there was a significant effect of number of training sessions on muscle power and linear sprint speed (p ≤ 0.03), with significant, small-to-large effects of TMT for > 18 sessions compared to ≤ 18 sessions (0.45 ≤ SMD ≤ 0.84, p ≤ 0.003). Additionally, session duration significantly modulated TMT effects on linear sprint speed, CODS/agility, and sport-specific performance (p ≤ 0.05). TMT with session durations ≤ 30 min resulted in significant, large effects on linear sprint speed and CODS/agility (1.66 ≤ SMD ≤ 2.42, p ≤ 0.002), whereas session durations > 30 min resulted in significant, large effects on sport-specific performance (SMD = 1.22, p = 0.008).

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that TMT is an effective means to improve selected measures of physical fitness and sport-specific performance in young and adult athletes. Independent sub-group analyses suggest that TMT has the potential to improve CODS/agility, but only in children. Additionally, more (> 18) and/or shorter duration (≤ 30 min) TMT sessions appear to be more effective for improving lower limb muscle power, linear sprint speed, and CODS/agility in young or adult competitive athletes.

Effects of Two vs. Four Weekly Campus Board Training Sessions on Bouldering Performance and Climbing-Specific Tests in Advanced and Elite Climbers

This study examined the effects of two or four weekly campus board training sessions among highly accomplished lead climbers. Sixteen advanced-to-elite climbers were randomly allocated to two (TG2), or four weekly campus board training sessions (TG4), or a control group (CG). All groups continued their normal climbing routines. Pre- and post-intervention measures included bouldering performance, maximal isometric pull-up strength using a shallow rung and a large hold (jug), and maximal reach and moves to failure. Rate of force development (RFD; absolute and 100ms) was calculated in the rung condition. TG4 improved maximal force in the jug condition (effect size (ES) = 0.40, p = 0.043), and absolute RFD more than CG (ES = 2.92, p = 0.025), whereas TG2 improved bouldering performance (ES = 2.59, p = 0.016) and maximal moves to failure on the campus board more than CG (ES = 1.65, p = 0.008). No differences between the training groups were found (p = 0.107-1.000). When merging the training groups, the training improved strength in the rung condition (ES = 0.87, p = 0.002), bouldering performance (ES = 2.37, p = 0.006), maximal reach (ES = 1.66, p = 0.006) and moves to failure (ES = 1.43, p = 0.040) more than CG. In conclusion, a five-week campus board training-block is sufficient for improving climbing-specific attributes among advanced-to-elite climbers. Sessions should be divided over four days to improve RFD or divided over two days to improve bouldering performance, compared to regular climbing training.

The Effects of Prioritizing Lead or Boulder Climbing Among Intermediate Climbers

This study compared the effects of prioritizing lead climbing or boulder climbing on climbing-specific strength and endurance, as well as climbing performance. Fourteen active climbers were randomized to a boulder climbing training group (BCT: age = 27.2 ± 4.4 years, body mass = 65.8 ± 5.5 kg, height = 173.3 ± 3.8 cm) or a lead-climbing training group (LCT: age = 27.7 ± 6.1 years, body mass = 70.2 ± 4.4 kg, height = 177.7 ± 4.4 cm). The groups participated in a 5-week training period consisting of 15 sessions, performing either two weekly bouldering sessions and one maintenance-session of lead-climbing (BCT) or two weekly lead-climbing sessions and one maintenance-session of bouldering (LCT). Pre- and post-training, maximal force and rate of force development (RFD) were measured during isometric pull-ups performed on a jug hold and a shallow rung, and during an isolated finger-strength test. Lead-climbing and bouldering performance were also measured, along with an intermittent forearm endurance test. The pre-to-post changes were not significantly different between the groups for any of the parameters (P = 0.062-0.710). However, both the BCT (ES = 0.30, P = 0.049) and LCT (ES = 0.41, P = 0.046) groups improved strength in the isometric pull-up performed using the jug, whereas neither group improved force in the rung condition (P = 0.054 and P = 0.084) or RFD (P = 0.060 and P = 0.070). Furthermore, climbing and bouldering performance remained unchanged in both groups (P = 0.210-0.895). The LCT group improved forearm endurance (ES = 0.55, P = 0.007), while the BCT group improved isolated finger strength (ES = 0.35, P = 0.015). In addition to isometric pull-up strength, bouldering can increase isolated finger strength while lead-climbing may improve forearm endurance. A 5-week period prioritizing one discipline can be safely implemented for advanced to intermediate climbers without risking declined performance in the non-prioritized discipline.

Rehabilitation of Soft Tissue Injuries of the Hip and Pelvis

The athlete's hip is complex when it comes to the surrounding musculature-approximately 21 different muscles can cross the hip and pelvis region, all synchronously working to maintain pelvic stability and functional hip activities. Commonly injured muscle groups for high-level athletes include flexors, adductors, abductors, and/or proximal hamstring musculotendinous complex. These muscle groups work in harmony; however, each has an independent function and propensity for injury. Rehabilitation phases for each injury group can be broken down into 3 phases: acute management, strengthening, and return-to-sport or return-to-competition phase. Specific rehabilitation principles and modalities are described for each injury group.

Comparison of Grip Strength in Recreational Climbers and Non-Climbing Athletes-A Cross-Sectional Study

In recent years, climbing sports is on the rise making its Olympic debut in 2021. Physiological traits of professional rock climbers have been intensively studied, while recreational indoor climbers are less investigated, especially regarding grip strength and upper extremity proportions. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to understand what discerns the recreational climber from disparate recreational athletes. Therefore, we analyzed 50 recreational climbing (30.3 ± 12.7 years, 1.76 ± 0.09 m and 67.0 ± 14.0 kg) and 50 non-climbing athletes (26.4 ± 9.1 years, 1.78 ± 0.09 m and 73.2 ± 12.6 kg) to detect differences in their finger grip strength of seven different pinches. In addition, the upper extremity proportions were measured. Even in recreational climbers, almost all analyzed grips were stronger compared to other athletes (p < 0.05 in all but non-dominant fist, small to moderate effect sizes). Only the grip strength of the whole non-dominant hand was not significantly different (p = 0.17). Interestingly, differences between the dominant and non-dominant hand appeared to be larger in the non-climbing (all p < 0.05, all but one with small effect size) compared to the climbing cohort (pinch I/IV and pinch I/II+III+IV not different and mostly trivial). Circumference measurements showed that 10 cm below the lateral epicondyle, climbers exhibited significantly greater perimeter compared to non-climbing athletes (p < 0.05, small effect size). Our results show that recreational climbers have higher measured grip strength, but less profound differences between the dominant and non-dominant hand.

Clinical reasoning framework for thoracic spine exercise prescription in sport: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

The thoracic spine is critical for athletic kinetic chain functioning yet widely overlooked in terms of specific evidenced-based exercise prescription. Thoracic mobility, motor control and strength are required to optimise performance in sport and minimise excessive load/stress on other components of the kinetic chain.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and evaluate mobility, motor control, work capacity and strength thoracic exercises for use in athletes.

DESIGN

Systematic review involving expert reviewers at key stages: searches and screening (n=1), eligibility, evaluation, data extraction and evaluation (n=3). Key databases and social media sources were searched to 16 August 2019. Eligible exercises were thoracic exercises to promote mobility, motor control, work capacity and strength. A narrative synthesis enabled an outcome-based classification of exercises, with level of evidence of individual sources informing overall level of evidence for each outcome (Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine).

RESULTS

From 2348 sources (social media, database searches and other sources), 38 exercises were included. Sources included images, video clips and written descriptions of exercises. Exercises targeting all planes of motion were evaluated and classified according to outcome. Exercises comprised functional and non-functional exercises for mobility (n=9), work capacity (n=15), motor control (n=7) and strength (n=7). Overall level of evidence for each outcome was level 5.

CONCLUSION

This synthesis and evaluation of exercises has captured the scope of thoracic exercises used in 'practice'. Evaluation against an expert-derived outcome-based classification provides practitioners with a framework to facilitate exercise prescription. Evaluation of validity and effectiveness of exercises on outcomes is now required.