Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this study was to examine differences in perceived exertion (RPE) and physiological responses for climbers of different abilities completing an identical route low and high above the ground.Materials and MethodsForty-two male (N = 18) and female (N = 24) sport climbers divided into three groups, lower-grade (N = 14), intermediate (N = 14), and advanced climbers (N = 14), completed two visits to a climbing gym, separated by 7 days. In a random order, the climbers completed a close-to-the-ground ascent (treadwall) and climb to height (climbing gym). Immediately after the test, climbers provided their RPE (6–20). Indirect calorimetry was used to assess physiological response during the ascent and recovery.ResultsThe mean (±standard deviation) RPE was higher for lower-grade climbers when ascending the route on the wall (RPE = 12 ± 1) when compared to the treadwall route (RPE = 11 ± 1, P = 0.040; d = 0.41). For all ability groups, the physiological response was higher on the climbing gym wall as opposed to the treadwall: ventilation (P = 0.003, ηp2 = 0.199), heart rate (HR) (P = 0.005, ηp2 = 0.189), energy cost (EC) (P = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.501). The RPE demonstrated a moderate relationship with physiological variables (R2 = 0.14 to R2 = 0.45).ConclusionClimbing to height induced a greater metabolic stress than climbing at a low height (treadwall) and led to higher RPE for lower-grade climbers. In this study, RPE appeared to be a good proxy measure of the physiological demands for advanced climbers but not for intermediate and lower-grade climbers. Therefore, using RPE in climbing with less experienced athletes may perhaps overestimate actual exercise intensity and should be interpreted carefully.
Highlights
Sport climbing is a sport that can improve aerobic fitness and health (Rodio et al, 2008; Aras and Akalan, 2016)
The physiological response was higher for ascending to height in comparison to climbing low to the ground for VE (+7.7%, P = 0.003, ηp2 = 0.199), heart rate (HR) (+4.5%, P = 0.005, ηp2 = 0.189), and energy cost (EC) (+14.0%, P = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.501)
rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was a good indicator of physiological demands in advanced climbers on easy routes
Summary
Sport climbing is a sport that can improve aerobic fitness and health (Rodio et al, 2008; Aras and Akalan, 2016). Indoor climbing walls try to replicate outdoor rock climbing conditions, Perceived Exertion and Physiological Response utilizing artificial holds and structures to create predefined routes typically of 15–25 m in height. In ascending a route at an indoor wall, climbers are exposed to physiological and psychological stress, according to the overall difficulty and climbing style used (Hodgson et al, 2009; Draper et al, 2010; Dickson et al, 2012; Fryer et al, 2013). Treadwalls, mechanical or motorized ergometers equipped with climbing holds, provide a physiological challenge where the risk of fall or fear from height is minimal. This type of ergometer enables the analysis of physiological responses to climbing in a controlled setting. Treadwalls can be altered to assess the effect of speed or inclination at submaximal or maximal intensity on physiological response in climbers (Watts and Drobish, 1998; España-Romero et al, 2009; Fryer et al, 2018; Limonta et al, 2018; Heil, 2019)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
