Influence of climbing style on physiological responses during indoor rock climbing on routes with the same difficulty.

* de Geus B,
* Villanueva O'Driscoll S,
* Meeusen R.

Faculteit LK, Dept. Human Physiology and Sports Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium.

The objectives of this study were to (1) continuously assess oxygen uptake and heart rate; (2) quantify the extent to which maximal whole-body cardiorespiratory capacity is utilized during climbing on four routes with the same difficulty but different steepness and/or displacement. Fifteen expert climbers underwent a maximal graded exercise test (MT), on a treadmill, in order to assess their maximal physiological capacity. After MT, four sport routes, equal in difficulty rating but different in steepness and/or displacement, were climbed. Oxygen uptake and heart rate were continuously measured. Respiratory exchange ratio (RER) was calculated. Blood lactate concentration and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were taken before and directly after climbing. Data were expressed as peak values (HRpeak, VO2peak and RERpeak) and as averages over the entire climb (HRavg, VO2avg and RERavg). During climbing, higher HRpeak and HRavg were found in routes with a vertical upward displacement in comparison to traversing routes with a horizontal displacement. The average absolute and relative oxygen uptake was significantly lower in the traversing route in comparison with the three other routes. The traverse is done at a lower percent of the running maximum. Comparing four routes with the same difficulty but different steepness and/or displacement shows that (1) routes with an upward displacement causes the highest peak and average heart rate; (2) routes with a vertical displacement on overhanging wall is physiologically the most demanding; (3) the traverse is physiologically the less demanding.

Darn it, I _never_ would have believed these things without a peer review:


Duh !

Pascal

Physiology of difficult rock climbing.

* Watts PB.

Exercise Science Laboratory, Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Northern Michigan University, 1401 Presque Isle Avenue, Marquette, MI 49855, USA. pwatts@nmu.edu

The purpose of this review is to explore existing research on the physiological aspects of difficult rock climbing. Findings will be categorized into the areas of an athlete profile and an activity model. An objective here is to describe high-level climbing performance; thus the focus will primarily be on studies that involve performances at the 5.11/6c (YDS/French) level of difficulty or higher. Studies have found climbers to be small in stature with low body mass and low body fat. Although absolute strength values are not unusual, strength to body mass ratio is high in accomplished climbers. There is evidence that muscular endurance and high upper body power are important. Climbers do not typically possess extremely high aerobic power, typically averaging between 52-55 ml.kg(-1).min(-1) for maximum oxygen uptake. Performance time for a typical ascent ranges from 2 to 7 min and oxygen uptake (VO2) averages around 20-25 ml.kg(-1).min(-1) over this period. Peaks of over 30 ml.kg(-1).min(-1) for VO2 have been reported. VO2 tends to plateau during sustained climbing yet remains elevated into the post-climb recovery period. Blood lactate accumulates during ascent and remains elevated for over 20 min post-climbing. Handgrip endurance decreases to a greater degree than handgrip strength with severe climbing. On the basis of this review, it appears that a specific training program for high-level climbing would include components for developing high, though not elite-level, aerobic power; specific muscular strength and endurance; ATP-PC and anaerobic glycolysis system power and capacity; and some minimum range of motion for leg and arm movements.

Use of 'chalk' in rock climbing: sine qua non or myth?

* Li FX,
* Margetts S,
* Fowler I.

Perception Action Laboratory, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, UK. f.x.li@bham.ac.uk

Magnesium carbonate, or 'chalk', is used by rock climbers to dry their hands to increase the coefficient of friction, thereby improving the grip of the holds. To date, no scientific research supports this practice; indeed, some evidence suggests that magnesium carbonate could decrease the coefficient of friction. Fifteen participants were asked to apply a force with the tip of their fingers to hold a flattened rock (normal force), while a tangential force pulled the rock away. The coefficient of friction--that is, the ratio between the tangential force (pulling the rock) and the normal force (applied by the participants)--was calculated. Coating (chalk vs no chalk), dampness (water vs no water) and rock (sandstone, granite and slate) were manipulated. The results showed that chalk decreased the coefficient of friction. Sandstone was found to be less slippery than granite and slate. Finally, water had no significant effect on the coefficient of friction. The counter-intuitive effect of chalk appears to be caused by two independent factors. First, magnesium carbonate dries the skin, decreasing its compliance and hence reducing the coefficient of friction. Secondly, magnesium carbonate creates a slippery granular layer. We conclude that, to improve the coefficient of friction in rock climbing, an effort should be made to remove all particles of chalk; alternative methods for drying the fingers are preferable.

Anthropometric, strength, endurance and flexibility characteristics of elite and recreational climbers.

* Grant S,
* Hynes V,
* Whittaker A,
* Aitchison T.

Institute of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, UK.

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.

Energy expenditure and physiological responses during indoor rock climbing.

* Mermier CM,
* Robergs RA,
* McMinn SM,
* Heyward VH.

Center for Exercise and Applied Human Physiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque 87131, USA.

OBJECTIVES: To report the physiological responses of indoor rock climbing. METHODS: Fourteen experienced climbers (nine men, five women) performed three climbing trials on an indoor climbing wall. Subjects performed three trials of increasing difficulty: (a) an easy 90 degrees vertical wall, (b) a moderately difficult negatively angled wall (106 degrees), and (c) a difficult horizontal overhang (151 degrees). At least 15 minutes separated each trial. Expired air was collected in a Douglas bag after four minutes of climbing and heart rate (HR) was recorded continuously using a telemetry unit. Arterialised blood samples were obtained from a hyperaemised ear lobe at rest and one or two minutes after each trial for measurement of blood lactate. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between trials for HR, lactate, oxygen consumption (VO2), and energy expenditure, but not for respiratory exchange ratio. Analysis of the HR and VO2 responses indicated that rock climbing does not elicit the traditional linear HR-VO2 relationship characteristic of treadmill and cycle ergometry exercise. During the three trials, HR increased to 74-85% of predicted maximal values and energy expenditure was similar to that reported for running at a moderate pace (8-11 minutes per mile). CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that indoor rock climbing is a good activity to increase cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular endurance. In addition, the traditional HR-VO2 relationship should not be used in the analysis of this sport, or for prescribing exercise intensity for climbing.

I call Bullshit on this "study." John Stannard (PhD, physics) did his own study on this years ago and measured a roughly 30% increase in the coefficient of static friction when chalk was used. If you don't like chalk--that's fine, and there are some legitimate reasons for not using chalk, but increased performance is certainly not one of them.

Curt

There is little research and what there is, isn't very good. I don' t expect definite answers; I'm not that naive. But I don't think people should be advocating their training regimens as anything more than their opinions.

One point I think is interesting. Many people say that you need to train isometric strength as different angles as the strength from one doesn't transfer to others. According to the data, that's only true in the shortened (<90 degrees) position of a joint angle. This post may not be too coherent, but I'm goofing off at work.

It all depends on what level/definition of proof you're willing to accept as proof. I didn't completely discount the value of anecdotal, empirical experience, but it is what it is.

taping the base of your finger won't prevent A2 pulley ruptures. corpse hands prove it. look at the related articles, as they're interesting too.

abstract

Taking it as a given that more clinically based knowledge of climbing is a good thing, I don't think we should discount empirical knowledge at all if its of a certain kind. The reason for this is that mechanics and kinesiology provide us with powerful tools for understanding movement and how to train it. For example, there are well defined methods for qualitative and quantitative observations that have long been established in Kinesiology. If one is using these methods to assess the performance of a climber this produces perfectly valid information without being the sort of thing that is subject to peer review.
I guess I just want to make sure that the desire to better understand the current research environment does not contain within it the idea that peer-review research is superior to other well established and perfectly legit scientific or empirical methods. peer reviewed studies serve an important function, but rigorous qualitative observations (for example) of climbing movement are of greater importance at this historical moment, but they are not the sort of thing that would necessarily be of interest in the world of peer-reviewed journals.

Here's a list from Eric Hoerst's site:

http://trainingforclimbing.com/new/research.shtml

Note that the "finger taping/cavader" study, and the "chalk reduces friction" study are excluded. Hoerst has commented in his book that he thinks those studies are crap science. No, he is not a scientist. But he has spent many years researching, interviewing doctors, training climbers, etc. and I consider him knowledgeable in this topic.

Still, there must be some reason that the findings of that study do not correlate with real-world climbing experience. I, for one, would like very much to know why the results of that study do not reflect what other direct observations demonstrate--i.e. that chalk increases the coefficient of friction between your hand and the rock. Any thoughts?
Curt