Comparison of finger flexor resistance training, with and without blood flow restriction, on perceptional and physiological responses in advanced climbers.

This study compared perceptional and physiological responses of finger flexor exercise performed with free flow and blood flow restriction (BFR). Thirteen male advanced climbers completed three sessions of finger flexor resistance exercise at (1) 40% of MVC (Low) and (2) 75% of MVC (High) and (3) BFR at 40% of MVC (Low + BFR) in a randomized and counterbalanced order. Rate of perceived exertion for effort (RPE) and discomfort (RPD), session pleasure/displeasure (sPDF), exercise enjoyment (EES), lactate concentration and oxygen saturation were recorded after the last set. Both low-intensity sessions induced higher RPD than High (p = 0.018-0.022, ES = 1.01-1.09) and High was perceived as more enjoyable than Low-BFR (p = 0.031, ES = 1.08). No differences were found for RPE or sPDF (p = 0.132-0.804). Lactate was elevated more after High than the Low-sessions (p < 0.001, ES = 1.88-2.08). Capillary oxygen saturation was lower after Low + BFR compared to the other sessions (p = 0.031, ES = 1.04-1.27). Finally, the exercise volume was greater in Low compared to High (p = 0.022, ES = 1.14) and Low + BFR (p = 0.020, ES = 0.77). In conclusion, among advanced male climbers, performing Low + BFR led to a similar exercise volume but was perceived as more discomforting and less enjoyable compared to High. The Low session yielded similar responses as the Low + BFR but required a much greater exercise volume.

Differences in Upper-Body Peak Force and Rate of Force Development in Male Intermediate, Advanced, and Elite Sport Climbers.

The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in climbing-specific strength and rate of force development (RFD) between intermediate, advanced, and elite male sport climbers. Seventy-eight male climbers were recruited and divided into groups based on the International Rock Climbing Research Association (IRCRA) numerical (1-32) grading system (intermediate (10-17) group (IG; n = 28)), advanced (18-23) group (AG; n = 30) and elite (24-27) group (EG; n = 20). Peak force (F peak) and average force (F avg) were measured while performing an isometric pull-up on a 23 mm thick campus rung. RFD was calculated from the onset of force to maximal peak force. The elite group performed better in all test parameters than the advanced (F peak: 39.7%, ES = 1.40, p < 0.001; F avg: 45.6%, ES = 4.60, p < 0.001; RFD: 74.9%, ES = 1.42, p = 0.001) and intermediate group (F peak: 95.7%, ES = 2.54, p < 0.001, F avg: 131.1%, ES = 5.84, p < 0.001, RFD: 154.4%, ES = 2.21, p = 0.001). Moreover, the advanced group demonstrated greater F peak (40.1%, ES = 1.24, p < 0.001), F avg (59.1%, ES = 1.57, p < 0.001) and RFD (45.5%, ES = 1.42, p = 0.046), than the intermediate group. Finally, climbing performance displayed strong correlations with F peak (r = 0.73, p < 0.001) and F avg (r = 0.77, p < 0.001), and a moderate correlation with RFD (r = 0.64, p < 0.001). In conclusion, maximal force and RFD in a climbing specific test are greater among climbers on higher performance levels. Independent of climbing level there is a moderate-to-strong association between maximal and rapid force production and climbing performance.

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.

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.

Upper body rate of force development and maximal strength discriminates performance levels in sport climbing.

The aim of this study was to assess and compare the maximal force and rate of force development (RFD) between intermediate, advanced and elite climbers using several different methods for calculating RFD. Fifty-seven male climbers (17 intermediate, 25 advanced, and 15 elite) performed isometric pull-ups on a climbing-specific hold while the RFD was calculated using several absolute (50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 ms from onset of force) and relative time periods (25, 50, 75, 95, and 100% of time to peak force). The maximal force was higher among elite climbers compared to advanced (ES = 1.78, p < 0.001) and intermediate climbers (ES = 1.77, p < 0.001), while no difference was observed between intermediate and advanced climbers (P = 0.898). The elite group also showed higher RFD than the other two groups at all relative time periods (ES = 1.02-1.58, p < 0.001-0.002), whereas the absolute time periods only revealed differences between the elite vs. the other groups at 50, 100 and 150 ms from the onset of force (ES = 0.72-0.84, p = 0.032-0.040). No differences in RFD were observed between the intermediate and advanced groups at any time period (p = 0.942-1.000). Maximal force and RFD, especially calculated using the longer periods of the force curve, may be used to distinguish elite climbers from advanced and intermediate climbers. The authors suggest using relative rather than absolute time periods when analyzing the RFD of climbers.

Comparison of climbing-specific strength and endurance between lead and boulder climbers.

Albeit differences in climbing-specific strength of the forearms have been demonstrated between lead and boulder climbers, little is known about the potential differences in force and power output of the upper body pulling-apparatus between disciplines. The aim of this study was to compare the climbing-specific upper-body strength and finger flexor endurance between lead and boulder climbers, as well as to examine the relative utilization of force when testing on a ledge hold compared to a jug hold. Sixteen boulder climbers (red-point climbing grade 17.9 ± 3.3) and fifteen lead climbers (red-point climbing grade 20.5 ± 3.5) performing on an advanced level volunteered for the study. Peak force, average force and rate of force development (RFD) were measured during an isometric pull-up, average velocity in dynamic pull-up, and finger flexor endurance in an intermittent test to fatigue. The isometric pull-up was performed on a ledge hold (high finger strength requirements) and on a jug hold (very low finger strength requirements). Boulder climbers demonstrated a higher maximal and explosive strength in all strength and power measurements (26.2-52.9%, ES = 0.90-1.12, p = 0.006-0.023), whereas the finger flexor endurance test showed no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.088). Both groups were able to utilize 57-69% of peak force, average force and RFD in the ledge condition compared to the jug condition, but the relative utilization was not different between the groups (p = 0.290-0.996). In conclusion, boulder climbers were stronger and more explosive compared to lead climbers, whereas no differences in finger flexor endurance were observed. Performing climbing-specific tests on a smaller hold appears to limit the force and power output equally between the two groups.

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

This is the first study to compare the effects of isometric vs. dynamic core training and characterize core-training adaptations using climbing-specific performance and core strength tests in elite climbers. The aim of the study was to compare the effects of attending a progressive core-training program on climbing performance. 19 advanced and elite climbers (7.3±5.6 years climbing experience, red point skill grade 19 IRCRA) were randomized into a dynamic (DCT) or isometric (ICT) core training group and trained twice weekly for ten weeks. The climbers were tested using two climbing-specific core tests (body lock-off and body-lift) and four non-specific core strength tests-one dynamic (superman) and three isometric (trunk flexion and trunk rotation left and right). Between group comparisons showed no differences between the groups at post-test (p = 0.328-0.824) and neither group demonstrated greater improvement compared with the other (p = 0.300-0.926). The ICT group demonstrated 10.8% and 29.6% improvement in trunk flexion and body-lift (p = 0.029-0.037 with no improvement in body lock-off and rotation (p = 0.101-0.343). The DCT group demonstrated 5.0-14.9% improvement in the core strength tests (p = 0.012-0.043), a non-significant 33.8% improvement in body-lift (p = 0.100) and no improvement in body lock-off (p = 0.943). In conclusion, none of the training groups demonstrated greater improvement than the other and both dynamic and isometric core training improved climbing-specific test performance. Dynamic training was slightly more favorable although not significantly superior to isometric core training in improving core strength.

The effects of high resistance-few repetitions and low resistance-high repetitions resistance training on climbing performance.

The aim of the study was to compare the effects of different strength training intensities on climbing performance, climbing-specific tests and a general strength test. Thirty lower grade and intermediate-level climbers participated in a 10-week training programme. The participants were randomized into three groups: high resistance-few repetitions training groups (HR-FR), low resistance-high repetitions training groups (LR-HR) and a control group (CON) which continued climbing/training as usual. Post-testing results demonstrated statistical tendencies for climbing performance improvements in the HR-FR and LR-HR (p = 0.088-0.090, effect size = 0.55-0.73), but no differences were observed between the groups (p = 0.950). For the climbing-specific tests, no differences were observed between the groups (p = 0.507-1.000), but the HR-FR and LR-HR improved their time in both Dead-hang (p = 0.004-0.026) and Bent-arm hang (p < 0.001-0.002). The HR-FR and LR-HR improved their 12RM strength in pull-down (p ≤ 0.001), but not the CON group (p = 0.250). No differences were observed in the CON group in any of the tests (p = 0.190-0.596) with the exception of improvement in Bent-arm Hang (p = 0.018). The training groups reduced their climbing sessions during the intervention compared to the CON group (p = 0.057-0.074). In conclusion, HR-FR and LR-HR training programmes demonstrated an 11% and 12% non-significant improvement in climbing performance despite a 50% reduction in climbing sessions, but improved the results in strength and climbing-specific tests. None of the training intensities was superior compared to the others.