Open hand vs. half-crimp: Do climbers assume differences in their own maximal finger strength that do not exist?

Introduction Many climbers believe that they are stronger in crimp finger position than in open hand position. However, compared to open hand, crimped fingers are associated with higher pulley forces increasing the risk of injuries. Climbing expertise may influence the estimation of strength, i.e., the better the climber, the better the self-assessment. This study therefore aimed to find out whether climbing expertise influences self-assessment of finger flexor strength in half-crimp and in open hand position. Methods Data was collected at the Hands-On Science Booth of the Climbing World Championships in Bern. Participants had to fill out a questionnaire including a self-assessment of their climbing expertise and of their maximum finger strength for both hands as well as both finger positions. Afterwards, maximum finger strength was measured on an instrumented campus board: Participants placed the to-be-measured hand on a self-selected rung (depth of 23 mm) and then tried to transfer as much force as possible from their feet to their fingers. Results The analysis was based on 38 intermediate and 36 advanced climbers. Due to the limited number of participants in the lower grade (n = 0) and elite (n = 2) level, those skill levels were not considered. Advanced climbers generated significantly greater forces than intermediate climbers across all four measured conditions (t-tests, all p < 0.01). For both groups, neither in the dominant nor in the non-dominant hand a significant difference in maximum force was observed, e.g., dominant hand, intermediates: or advanced climbers: . Intermediate climbers did neither over- nor underestimate their strength in half-crimp position compared to open hand (paired t-test, p = 0.91 for dominant, p = 0.077 for non-dominant hand). In contrast to the dominant hand, advanced climbers significantly overestimated their strength in half-crimp position for the non-dominant hand (on average 9%, Cohen’s d 0.64, p < 0.01). Discussion/Conclusion Our results confirm the positive correlation between finger strength and climbing level. We also confirm that on a 23 mm rung, greater forces can be generated with in open hand compared to half-crimp (Winkler et al., 2023). With larger hold depths, force generated in open hand significantly increases (Amca et al., 2012), while for smaller holds, force exerted in half-crimp position exceeds that of open hand (Winkler et al., 2023). Hence, at least for larger holds, we recommend adopting an open hand position as preventive measure against finger injuries. Advanced climbers may tend to inaccurately self-assess their strength due to their greater engagement with peers, potentially leading to the circulation of misinformation. Note that participants were instructed to provide a general self-assessment of their strength rather than for a 23 mm deep rung, i.e., they may have had a smaller hold in mind. References Amca, A. M., Vigouroux, L., Aritan, S., & Berton, E. (2012). Effect of hold depth and grip technique on maximal finger forces in rock climbing. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(7), 669-677. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.658845 Winkler, M., Künzell, S., & Auguste, C. (2023). Competitive performance predictors in speed climbing, bouldering, and lead climbing. Journal of Sport Sciences, 41(8), 736-746. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2023.2239598

PurposeThe primary aim of this study is to determine the principal somatic and motor determinants for elite climbers.MethodsTwenty climbers were examined [age: 28.5±6.1 years].The runners were divided into two groups based on their climbing level, according to the International Rock Climbing Research Association (IRCRA). Elite climbers represented a 8b-8c Rotpunkt (RP) climbing level (n = 6), and advanced climbers represented an 7c+-8a RP level (n = 14). The following measurements were assessed: height, weight, lean body mass, upper limb length, arm span, and forearm, arm, thigh and calf circumference. The BMI, Rohrer ratio, and Ape Index were also measured. The following motor tests were assessed: a specific test for finger strength, an arm strength test, and a test of muscle endurance (hanging from 2.5 and 4 cm ledges). In addition, pull ups were used to measure muscle resistance to fatigue.ResultsElite climbers recorded significantly higher values for finger strength than advanced climbers (129.08 vs. 111.54 kg; t(18) = 2.35, p = 0.03) and arm endurance (33.17 vs. 25.75 pull ups; t(18) = 2.54, p = 0.02). In addition, the calf circumference was significantly lower in elite climbers than that in advanced climbers (34.75 vs. 36.93 cm; t(18) = 3.50, p = 0.003).ConclusionThe results suggest that elite climbers have greater finger strength and arm endurance than advanced climbers.

There is limited information on the anthropometry, strength, endurance and flexibility of female rock climbers. The aim of this study was to compare these characteristics in three groups of females: Group 1 comprised 10 elite climbers aged 31.3 ± 5.0 years (mean ± s ) who had led to a standard of ‘hard very severe’; Group 2 consisted of 10 recreational climbers aged 24.1 ± 4.0 years who had led to a standard of ‘;severe’; and Group 3 comprised 10 physically active individuals aged 28.5 ± 5.0 years who had not previously rock-climbed. The tests included finger strength (grip strength, finger strength measured on climbing-specific apparatus), flexibility, bent arm hang and pull-ups. Regression procedures (analysis of covariance) were used to examine the influence of body mass, leg length, height and age. For finger strength, the elite climbers recorded significantly higher values ( P < 0.05) than the recreational climbers and non-climbers (four fingers, right hand: elite 321 ± 18 N, recreational 251 ± 14 N, non-climbers 256 ± 15 N; four fingers, left hand: elite 307 ± 14 N, recreational 248 ± 12 N, non-climbers 243 ± 11 N). For grip strength of the right hand, the elite climbers recorded significantly higher values than the recreational climbers only (elite 338 ± 12 N, recreational 289 ± 10 N, non-climbers 307 ± 11 N). The results suggest that elite climbers have greater finger strength than recreational climbers and non-climbers.

There has been remarkable development in the scope and quality of rock climbing in recent years. However, there are scant data on the anthropometry, strength, endurance and flexibility of rock climbers. The aim of this study was to compare these characteristics in three groups of subjects-elite rock climbers, recreational climbers and non-climbers. The 30 male subjects were aged 28.8 +/- 8.1 (mean +/- S.D.) years. Group 1 (n = 10) comprised elite rock climbers who had led a climb of a minimum standard of 'E1' (E1-E9 are the highest climbing grades) within the previous 12 months; Group 2 (n = 10) comprised rock climbers who had achieved a standard no better than leading a climb considered 'severe' (a low climbing grade category); and Group 3 (n = 10) comprised physically active individuals who had not previously done any rock climbing. The test battery included tests of finger strength [grip strength, pincer (i.e. thumb and forefinger) strength, finger strength measured on climbing-specific apparatus], body dimensions, body composition, flexibility, arm strength and endurance, and abdominal endurance. The tests which resulted in significant differences (P < 0.05) between the three groups included the bent arm hang (elite 53.1 +/- 1.32 s; recreational 31.4 +/- 9.0 s; non-climbers 32.6 +/- 15.0 s) and pull-ups (elite 16.2 +/- 7.2 repetitions; recreational 3.0 +/- 4.0 reps; non-climbers 3.0 +/- 3.9 reps); for both tests, the elite climbers performed significantly better than the recreational climbers and non-climbers. Regression procedures (i.e. analysis of covariance) were used to examine the influence of body mass and length. Using adjusted means (i.e. for body mass and leg length), significant differences were obtained for the following: (1) finger strength, grip 1, four fingers (right hand) (elite 447 +/- 30 N; recreational 359 +/- 29 N; non-climbers 309 +/- 30 N), (2) grip strength (left hand) (elite 526 +/- 21 N; recreational 445 +/- 21 N; non-climbers 440 +/- 21 N), (3) pincer strength (right hand) (elite 95 +/- 5 N; recreational 69 +/- 5 N; non-climbers 70 +/- 5 N) and (4) leg span (elite 139 +/- 4 cm; recreational 122 +/- 4 cm; non-climbers 124 +/- 4 cm). For tests 3 and 4, the elite climbers performed significantly better than the recreational climbers and non-climbers for any variable. These results demonstrate that elite climbers have greater shoulder girdle endurance, finger strength and hip flexibility than recreational climbers and non-climbers. Those who aspire to lead 'E1' standard climbs or above should consider training programmes to enhance their finger strength, shoulder girdle strength and endurance, and hip flexibility.

Cognitive-behavioural processes during route previewing in bouldering

BACKGROUND: Previous research has shown that rock climbing (RC) may provide youth with adequate moderate levels of physical activity (PA). However, time spent in vigourous PA has not been addressed in this population. PURPOSES: 1) To determine how much vigorous physical activity RC provides for youth 8-18 years, and 2) To compare recreational and elite youth climbers in estimated energy expenditure, average heart rate (AHR), peak heart rate (PHR), and estimated calories (kcals) burned overall and per minute. METHODS: Data were collected from recreational climbers (7 males, 8 females; mean age = 10.8 ± 3.0 years), and elite climbers (4 males, 10 females; mean age = 13.5 ± 1.8 years) from the UK. To determine time spent in vigourous PA, minutes (mins) spent with target heart rate (THR) > 159 beats per minute (bpm) (Armstrong et al., 1991) were assessed. Average and peak heart rate in bpm, and energy expended (kcals) during single bouts of climbing were estimated via Polar HR monitors. As males and females did not differ in time at a given exercise intensity (p > 0.05), their results were combined in each group. Differences between groups (recreational vs elite) were tested with ANCOVA, controlling for the age difference in the two groups. RESULTS: Recreational and elite youth climbers did not significantly differ in time at the vigourous level of PA, although the elite climbers averaged 36.3 ± 14 mins in vigourous activity, and the recreational climbers averaged 23.0 ± 14 mins. AHR ranged between 120-156 bpm for the elite climbers, and 120-140 bpm for the recreational climbers; this difference was not significant. Estimated total kcals also did not significantly differ, although elite climbers burned more kcals than recreational climbers (419 vs 257). CONCLUSIONS: Time in vigourous PA was higher than previously assessed in youth climbers. Minimal differences existed between elite and recreational climbers in most components assessed. Small sample size could contribute to the lack of difference, as could the older average age of the elite climbers. In addition, the results could be due to the fact that the recreational climbers were fairly advanced (i.e., closer to the elites) in skill level.

Introduction. Studies have demonstrated an important role of muscle strength and endurance in climbing. However, little research has explored the speed parameters of the muscles of climbers. This study aimed to evaluate biomechanical indices of the functional status of the upper limbs in climbers. Material and methods. Group G1 (n = 3) were athletes who were able to climb 8c+/9a climbing routes using the red-point style and 7c+/8b routes with the on-sight style. Group G2 (n = 5) comprised climbers who were able to climb 8a/8b+ and 7b+/8a routes, respectively. Maximum muscle torques were measured in the elbow and arm flexors and extensors. Hand grip tests, dynamometric arm strength tests, and laboratory endurance tests were conducted. Results. Strength parameters in both joints were similar in the two groups of climbers. Maximum absolute values of hand grip, crimp grip, and global arm force in hanging did not differ between the groups. Furthermore, significant differences were found for relative indices (from circa 3% to circa 12%). No significant differences were recorded for the parameters of muscle speed. Furthermore, no significant effect of the subjects’ skill level on the results of endurance tests was found. The results obtained in the groups of athletes (G1, G2, and G1+2) were compared with the values recorded in a control group of students (GC, n = 48). Conclusions. Elite climbers were found to have an advantage over the controls only in strength and muscular endurance. No significant differences were observed in the results of speed tests in the muscles of the athletes and students examined in the study. The climbers (G1 and G2) differed in the strength potential of their muscles, but only when relative force indices were analysed. No differences were found in the biomechanical variables of speed and muscular endurance. Conventional tests are typically not a valuable diagnostic tool for the evaluation of climbers.

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.

ABSTRACTHanging ability on small depth edges is one of the most limiting factors in climbing. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of a hanging ability indicator measured on an adjusted depth edge. Forty voluntary sport climbers (34 men) were divided into an advanced group (AG; n = 22) and an elite group (EG; n = 18). Climbers performed three sustained finger tests following a test–retest design: (a) maximum hanging time on a 14-mm edge depth (MHT_14), (b) minimum edge depth in which climbers could hang for 40 s exactly (MED_40) and (c) maximum added weight test on the MED_40 edge depth (MAW_5). EG performed better than AG in all tests. The regression analyses showed that the MHT_14 test and MAW_5 test explained a 35% and 69% of the climbing sport level in AG and EG, respectively. All the tests were reliable (ICC3,1 values ranging from 0.89 to 1.00). The MAW_5 and MHT_14 tests demonstrated to be valid and reliable hanging ability indicators for EG and AG, respectively. The measurement of hanging ability on adjusted depth edges might be a key factor in elite climbers, but not necessary in lower level climbers.

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.

Marcolin, G, Faggian, S, Muschietti, M, Matteraglia, L, and Paoli, A. Determinants of climbing performance: when finger flexor strength and endurance count. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-Aim of the study was: (a) to compare finger flexor strength and endurance among climbers and nonclimbers; (b) to predict climbers' level of ability using climbing-specific strength tests and prolonged fatigue protocols. 17 advanced climbers (ADV), 17 intermediate climbers (INT), and 15 nonclimbers (NOCLIMB) performed a maximal finger grip test on a climbing-specific device, a maximal handgrip test, 20 intermittent isometric maximal contractions (E1), a suspension test on a bar till exhaustion, and again 20 intermittent isometric maximal contractions (E2). Strength values were normalized to body weight (%BW). The handgrip test failed to discriminate ADV from INT. Maximal finger flexor strength differed among ADV (59.90 ± 9.42 %BW), INT (46.75 ± 8.40 %BW) and NOCLIMB (36.40 ± 6.51 %BW) (p < 0.0001; ηp: 0.586). ADV showed the best suspension time (58.55 ± 14.87 seconds) followed by INT (32.55 ± 16.87 seconds) and NOCLIMB (17.20 ± 14.30 seconds) (p < 0.0001; ηp: 0.563). ADV showed the best endurance performance in both E1 and E2. The highest correlations with climbers' ability scores were obtained with sport-specific tests (maximal finger strength, r = 0.60, p < 0.0001; bar suspension, r = 0.69, p < 0.0001) and at the highest level of fatigue (E2, r = 0.74, p < 0.0001). Strength and endurance gain more importance in determining climbers' ability if assessed with finger specific tests and after prolonged fatigue.

Torr, O, Randall, T, Knowles, R, Giles, D, and Atkins, S. The reliability and validity of a method for the assessment of sport rock climbers' isometric finger strength. J Strength Cond Res 36(8): 2277-2282, 2022-Isometric strength of the finger flexors is considered to be one of the main physical determinants of sport rock climbing performance. We set out to determine the test-retest reliability and criterion validity of a low resource maximal isometric finger strength (MIFS) testing protocol that uses a pulley system to add or remove weight to/from a climber's body. To determine test-retest reliability, 15 subjects' MIFS was assessed on 2 occasions, separated by a minimum of 48 hours. Body mass and maximum load were recorded on both occasions. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) between visits for all variables were very good (ICC > 0.91), with small bias and effect sizes-particularly when expressed as a percentage of body mass (ICC = 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.93-0.99). To determine the criterion validity of MIFS and climbing ability, data of 229 intermediate to higher elite climbers were compared. Pearson's product moment correlations demonstrated good agreement, again particularly between total load when expressed as a percentage of body mass and climbing performance ( r = 0.421-0.503). The results illustrate the sensitivity of a simple test for the determination of MIFS in intermediate to height elite climbers from an ecologically valid, climbing specific test that only requires equipment found at most climbing walls. This low resource test protocol for the assessment of isometric finger strength has wide-reaching utility, for instance when assessing strength before and after a training intervention or when prescribing load intensities for exercises aimed at improving maximal finger strength.

Aim: the aim of this publication was to establish the importance of body build, strength and endurance abilities in achieving high results by climbers at higher elite/elite rock-climbing levels. Method: The study comprised 15 climbers with elite [n = 9] and higher elite [n = 6] training. The age of elite climbers was at an average of 33 years with SD = 8.2 years, and higher elite was, on average, x_ = 25.6 years, with SD = 7.6 years. The climbing efficiency was determined by the best RP and OS rock-climbing result in the last year. Selected somatic features were measured: body height, body mass, adipose tissue, upper limb length, circumferences of the forearm, arm, thigh and shank. Moreover, the following indices were calculated: Rohrer, slenderness and upper limb length. Finger strength was evaluated in the Grip-open 1 test. The absolute strength values were expressed per kg of body mass in the Grip-open 2 test. Fatigue resistance was measured in isometric contraction of the forearm muscles on a 2.5-cm hold - Hang 1, and 4-cm hold - Hang 2, while arm strength was assessed using the pull-up test. Results: Higher levels of the upper limb length index was noted among climbers at the highest rock-climbing compared to the elite group. Moreover, in all of the conducted motor tests, higher elite climbers scored better than those elite. In these trials, high correlation coefficients were reported between the results of motor tests and the results of RP and OS. RP - Grip-open 2 = 0.71, OS - Grip-open 2 = 0.70, RP - Hang 1 = 0.68, OS - Hang 1 = 0.72, RP - Hang 2 = 0.67, OS - Hang 2 = 0.73. The RP result was explained in 63% by the system of variables: finger strength plus fatigue resistance in isometric contraction on a larger slat. On the other hand, the OS result was explained in 77% by the same system of variables. Conclusions: Climbers with the highest rock-climbing level should have similar or even more favourable values of those somatic features considered significant than climbers representing the elite level. A high level of finger strength and fatigue resistance in isometric contraction of the forearm muscles significantly determines the effectiveness of climbing at higher elite/elite levels.

Estimation of finger muscle tendon tensions and pulley forces during specific sport-climbing grip techniques

The rate of upper limb force development (RFD) is one of the important performance factors in sport climbing. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of various force-time indicators for the assessment of finger and shoulder girdle strength in climbing. Ten male lead climbers (climbing ability: advanced; IRCRA: 22 &amp;plusmn; 2) performed two RFD and two maximal strength tests for the finger fl exor and shoulder girdle muscles (one-arm finger hangs and lock-off s, respectively). The maximal strength tests were used to assess maximal force (Fmax). The RFD tests were used to assess: peak force (Fpeak); time for reaching force representing 25%, 50%, and 75% of the body weight (T25%BW, T50%BW, T75%BW ); and absolute and relative RFD indicators (e.g., RFD at 200 ms and 95% Fpeak, respectively). The reliability of the finger fl exor RFD indicators was high (intrasession intraclass correlation coefficients - ICC between .760 and .973; intersession ICC between .883 and .955). Intersession reliability of the finger fl exor T50%BW and T75%BW reached excellent values (ICC = .949 and ICC = .978, respectively). Reliability of the finger fl exor and lock-off Fpeak and Fmax was also high (ICC between .850 and .966). Consistency between Fpeak and Fmax was not satisfactory, though. These variables differed significantly (p = .035) in the finger flexor tests, and ICC was moderate (.605) in the lock-off tests. Most of the lock-off force-time indicators had moderate or poor reliability. Finger flexor and lock-off Fmax/kg and T50%BW correlated significantly (p &lt; .05) with the climbing ability (R = .805, R = .653, and R = -.703, respectively), while lock-off force-time indicators did not. T50%BW was the most reliable and valid force-time indicator in advanced climbers. RFD indicators were reliable, but muscle strength appeared more important than RFD in advanced climbers