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

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.

Pull-Up Performance Is Affected Differently by the Muscle Contraction Regimens Practiced during Training among Climbers

Sport climbing performance is highly related to upper limb strength and endurance. Although finger-specific methods are widely analyzed in the literature, no study has yet quantified the effects of arm-specific training. This study aims to compare the effects of three types of training involving different muscle contraction regimens on climbers' pull-up capabilities. Thirty advanced to high-elite climbers were randomly divided into four groups: eccentric (ECC; n = 8), isometric (ISO; n = 7), plyometric (PLYO; n = 6), and no specific training (CTRL; n = 9), and they participated in a 5-week training, twice a week, focusing on pull-ups on hangboard. Pre- and post-training assessments were conducted using a force-sensing hangboard, analyzing force, velocity, power, and muscle work during three pull-up exercises: pull-ups at body weight under different conditions, incremental weighted pull-ups, and an exhaustion test. The CTRL group showed no change. Maximum strength improved in all three training groups (from +2.2 ± 3.6% to +5.0 ± 2.4%; p < 0.001); velocity variables enhanced in the ECC and PLYO groups (from +5.7 ± 7.4 to +28.7 ± 42%; p < 0.05), resulting in greater power; amplitude increased in the ECC group; and muscle work increased in the PLYO group (+21.9 ± 16.6%; p = 0.015). A 5-week training period effectively enhanced arm performance, but outcomes were influenced by the chosen muscle contraction regimens and initial individual characteristics.

Assessing climbers' pull-up capabilities by differentiating the parameters involved in power production

This study explored the capabilities of sport climbers to pull up with arms. The methodology aimed at assessing (i) concentric capabilities of arm muscles, (ii) body coordination skills (iii) characteristics of energy storage and (iv) capabilities to resist fatigue. Twenty-eight climbers were tested and the force exerted was recorded during three pull-up exercises: jump tests (with or without coordination, or preceded by an eccentric phase), incrementally weighted pull-ups and maximum number of pull-ups. Force, velocity, muscle power and muscle work were analysed using ANOVA with post-hoc tests and principal component analysis. Correlations with climbing level were also studied. Overall, jump test results showed that body coordination and stretch-shortening cycle phenomena contributed significantly to performance but only the body coordination was related to the climber's grade level. Muscle work and maximum number of pull-ups are correlated with climbing level which showed that the capacity to resist fatigue is another crucial capability of climbers arms. The development of force capacities appeared crucial for performing whereas the velocity capabilities seemed to originate from the climber's own characteristics/style without correlating with climbing performance. Our study provides the basis for evaluating these parameters in order to help trainers in the diagnosis process and training follow-up.

Top of the podium, at what cost? injuries in female international elite climbers

Objectives

Competitive sport climbing has made its way to the Olympic stage. This prestige has brought about route setting and training alterations which presumably affect injury epidemiology. Most of the climbing injury literature contains male climbers and lacks high performing athletes. Studies with both female and male climbers, rarely included separate analyses for performance level or sex. Therefore, injury concerns for elite female competitive climbers are impossible to discern. A former study examined the prevalence of amenorrhea in elite international female climbers (n = 114) and reported that 53.5% had at least one injury in the past 12 months, but injury details were excluded. This study's aim was to report these injury details and their associations with BMI, menstrual status and eating disorders of the cohort.

Methods

Online survey was emailed to competitive female climbers recruited through the IFSC database between June and August 2021. Data was analyzed using Mann-Whitney U, χ² and logistic regression.

Results

229 registered IFSC climbers opened the questionnaire and 114 (49.7%) provided valid responses. Respondents (mean ± SD; age = 22.9 ± 5 year) represented 30 different countries and more than half (53.5%, n = 61) reported an injury in the prior 12 months with the majority in shoulders (37.7%, n = 23) and fingers (34.4%, n = 21). Injury prevalence in climbers with amenorrhea was 55.6% (n = 10). BMI was not a significant predictor of injury risk (OR = 1.082, 95% CI: 0.89, 1.3; p = 0.440) while accounting for current ED over the past 12 months. However, the odds ratio for having an injury was doubled for those with an ED (OR = 2.129, 95% CI: 0.905, 5.010; p = 0.08).

Conclusion

With over half reporting recent injuries (<12 months) mostly to shoulders and fingers, development of new strategies for injury prevention in competitive female climbers are warranted. In addition, climbers with disordered eating behaviors and/or menstrual disturbances might be more prone to injury. More research in this population is required. Suitable screening to prevent these health issues and proper monitoring of these athletes are paramount to long-term athlete success.

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.

Optimization of an Intermittent Finger Endurance Test for Climbers Regarding Gender and Deviation in Force and Pulling Time

Performance diagnostics of finger strength is very relevant in climbing. The aim of our study was to find modalities for an intermittent finger flexor muscle endurance test that optimize the correlation of test performance with lead climbing performance. Twenty-seven female and 25 male climbers pulled with 60% MVC and a work-to-rest ratio of 7:2 s on a fingerboard until fatigue. The highest correlations, R = 0.429, were found for women when 9% deviation in the required force and 1 s deviation in the required pulling time was tolerated. For men, the optimum was reached with the same time deviation and a force deviation of 6%, R = 0.691. Together with maximum finger strength the repetitions explained 31.5% of the variance of climbing ability in women and 46.3% in men. Consequences from our results are to tolerate at least 7% force deviation for women and 5% for men and to terminate the finger endurance test quickly after the force falls below the threshold.

The Effects of 10 Weeks Hangboard Training on Climbing Specific Maximal Strength, Explosive Strength, and Finger Endurance

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of 10 weeks of hangboard training (HBT) on climbing-specific maximal strength, explosive strength, and muscular endurance. In total, 35 intermediate- to advanced-level climbers (8 women and 27 men) were randomized into a hangboard training group (HBT) or a control group (CON). The HBT program consisted of two sessions of 48 min per week using the Beastmaker 1000 series hangboard, and the following application to smartphone. Both groups continued their normal climbing training routines. Pre- and post-intervention, maximal peak force, maximal average force, and rate of force development (RFD) were measured while performing an isometric pull-up on a 23 mm deep campus rung and jug holds. In addition, finger endurance was measured by performing a sustained dead-hang test on the same rung. The HBT increased peak force and average force in 23 mm rung condition, average force in jug condition, and utilization rate øl,.- in peak force to a greater extent than CON (p = 0.001–0.031, ES = 0.29–0.66), whereas no differences were detected between groups in RFD (jug or 23 mm), peak force in jug condition, utilization rate in RFD, average force or in dead-hang duration (p = 0.056–0.303). At post-test, the HBT group demonstrated 17, 18, 28, 10, 11, and 12% improvement in peak force, average force, RFD in 23 mm rung condition, average force in jug condition, utilization rate in peak force, and dead-hang duration, respectively [p = 0.001–0.006, effect size (ES) = 0.73–1.12] whereas no change was observed in CON (p = 0.213–0.396). In conclusion, 10 weeks of HBT in addition to regular climbing was highly effective for increasing maximal finger strength compared with continuing regular climbing training for intermediate and advanced climbers.

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 Estimation of Critical Angle in Climbing as a Measure of Maximal Metabolic Steady State

Purpose: Sport climbing is a technical, self-paced sport, and the workload is highly variable and mainly localized to the forearm flexors. It has not proved effective to control intensity using measures typical of other sports, such as gas exchange thresholds, heart rate, or blood lactate. Therefore, the purposes of the study were to (1) determine the possibility of applying the mathematical model of critical power to the estimation of a critical angle (CA) as a measure of maximal metabolic steady state in climbing and (2) to compare this intensity with the muscle oxygenation breakpoint (MOB) determined during an exhaustive climbing task.

Materials and Methods: Twenty-seven sport climbers undertook three to five exhaustive ascents on a motorized treadwall at differing angles to estimate CA, and one exhaustive climbing test with a progressive increase in angle to determine MOB, assessed using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS).

Results: Model fit for estimated CA was very high (R² = 0.99; SEE = 1.1°). The mean peak angle during incremental test was −17 ± 5°, and CA from exhaustive trials was found at −2.5 ± 3.8°. Nine climbers performing the ascent 2° under CA were able to sustain the task for 20 min with perceived exertion at 12.1 ± 1.9 (RPE). However, climbing 2° above CA led to task failure after 15.9 ± 3.0 min with RPE = 16.4 ± 1.9. When MOB was plotted against estimated CA, good agreement was stated (ICC = 0.80, SEM = 1.5°).

Conclusion: Climbers, coaches, and researchers may use a predefined route with three to five different wall angles to estimate CA as an analog of critical power to determine a maximal metabolic steady state in climbing. Moreover, a climbing test with progressive increases in wall angle using MOB also appears to provide a valid estimate of CA.