Anthropometry — Measuring the Climber

Research > Research Inventory > Kinesiology: Anthropometry — Measuring the Climber

Heart Rate Response, Duration, Grip Strength, and Anthropometric Characteristics in Recreational Indoor Rock Climbers

Authors: Smetanka RG, Armenta RF, Nessler JA, Newcomer SC. | Year: 2022
Summary: This study tracked heart rate and grip strength in 121 recreational climbers to see what a typical gym session actually demands. Climbers logged about 90 minutes per visit, spent meaningful time in exercise-intensity zones associated with cardiovascular benefit, and finished with a noticeable dip in grip strength. Boulder-only climbers worked at higher relative intensity but for shorter periods. Because the data come from unscripted sessions and heart rate alone, these findings mainly outline what recreational climbers tend to experience rather than define training standards.
Reference: J Strength Cond Res. 2022;36(3):832–837. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003540
Open Source: The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research

Tests and Procedures for Measuring Endurance, Strength, and Power in Climbing—A Mini-Review

Authors: Stien N., Saeterbakken A.H., Andersen V. | Year: 2022
Summary: This review mapped the main tests used to assess climbing endurance, strength, and power. Only a few show real validity for climbing performance—intermittent finger-flexor endurance tests, maximal finger strength on small edges, and pull-up–style strength assessments—while many others are only reliability-tested. The authors argue that the field needs clearer athlete descriptions and more validation work so coaches can trust these tests for tracking progress or comparing athletes.
Reference: Front Sports Act Living. 2022;4:847447. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.847447
OPEN SOURCE: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8931302/

Analysis of Competition and Training Videos of Speed Climbing Athletes Using Feature and Human Body Keypoint Detection Algorithms

Authors: Pandurevic D, Draga P, Sutor A, Hochradel K. | Year: 2022
Summary: This study turns ordinary speed-climbing videos into coach-ready metrics by extracting joint angles, center-of-mass motion, section speeds, and precise hand/foot contact times. The system demonstrates how different start styles—or errors like mistimed knee extension—show up clearly in these traces as measurable speed losses in specific wall segments. The approach could help coaches evaluate technique without added sensors, though accuracy still depends on 2D video quality and camera consistency.
Reference: Sensors. 2022 Mar 14;22(6):2251. doi: 10.3390/s22062251
Open Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955718/

The Load Structure in International Competitive Climbing

Authors: Winkler M, Künzell S, Augste C. | Year: 2022
Summary: This study analyzed real competition footage to map how elite climbers distribute actions, rests, and attempts across speed, bouldering, and lead, providing a baseline for performance analytics in each discipline. Speed showed highly repeatable sequences with very short movement times, bouldering followed a pattern of brief high-intensity efforts separated by short rests, and lead climbing unfolded as a ~4-minute effort shaped by many micro-rest behaviors rather than continuous upward movement. Because these rhythms depend on routesetting trends and the 2018 formats, the authors note that these values serve as evolving reference points rather than fixed training standards.
Beta-angel note: Women crimped far more than men in lead, suggesting grip-type distribution may be a meaningful performance variable. This paper implies that climbing success hinges less on total moves and more on how efficiently athletes manage transitions between movement and micro-rest states, a potential frontier for future performance analytics.
Reference: Front Sports Act Living. 2022 Mar 22;4:790336. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.790336
Open Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8980921/

Validity and Reliability of a Commercial Force Sensor for the Measurement of Upper Body Strength in Sport Climbing

Authors: Labott BK, Held S, Wiedenmann T, Rappelt L, Wicker P, Donath L. | Year: 2022
Summary/Results: This study compared the Tindeq Progressor directly to a force plate (lab “gold standard”) while 25 experienced climbers did one-arm rung pulls and 90° bent-arm lock-offs. Across two test days, forces from Tindeq and the force plate were almost the same on average, with very small typical error and very consistent repeat measurements, but only in static, controlled hangs and in relatively strong climbers. The authors conclude that, when you repeat the exact same setup (same edge, arm angle, and body position), this kind of load-cell device is accurate enough to track real training-induced changes in climbing-specific upper-body and finger-flexor strength over time.
Reference: Front Sports Act Living. 2022 Jul 22;4:838358. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.838358
Open Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9353027/

Integrating Wearable Sensors and Video to Determine Microlocation-Specific Physiologic and Motion Biometrics—Method Development for Competitive Climbing

Authors: M Breen, T Reed, HM Breen, CT Osborne, MS Breen | Year: 2022
Summary/Results: The authors built a system that lines up a climber’s sensor data (heart rate, breathing, how much the hips are moving) with the exact spot on the wall shown in video, so you can see how the body reacts at specific moves and rest positions. In one experienced climber on a ~9-min, 16.8 m lead route, they showed big spikes in heart rate and breathing on the crux with repeated attempts, clean separation of “working” versus “resting” sections based on hip movement, and different recovery patterns during on-wall rests that a coach could use to judge pacing and rest quality. This is still a method paper (one climber, one route, with ventilation estimated rather than directly measured), but it gives a practical template for doing route- and move-level physiological analysis in real climbing instead of only in lab tests.
Beta-angel note: Hey mom! Look, I’m on TV!
Reference: Sensors (Basel). 2022 Aug 20;22(16):6271. doi: 10.3390/s22166271
Open Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9412409/

Editorial: Training and testing in climbing

Authors: Andersen V, Baláš J, Michailov ML, Saeterbakken AH. | Year: 2022
Summary/Results: This editorial reviews 13 studies focused specifically on training and testing in climbing, highlighting that the field lacks consistent testing standards but is beginning to produce clearer evidence about what actually matters for performance. Across the collection, absolute finger force and the ability to produce force quickly were the strongest physical differentiators of climbing ability, and structured hangboard training (especially around ~80% of max effort) reliably improved strength and endurance more than regular climbing alone. The included work also showed that elite climbers outperform others on visual perception tasks (interpreting shapes, spacing, and spatial details), and that long-term climbers develop measurable structural adaptation in the fingers.
Beta Angel note: Elite climbers naturally allow small fluctuations in force during intermittent gripping—this “micro-variability” appears functional, not sloppy, and may be central to sustaining force on small holds.
Reference: Front Sports Act Living. 2022;4:1006035.
OPEN SOURCE: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9433113

Scoring Systems for Combined Events: Analysis and Alternatives after the 2020 Olympics


Michela Stinson (2021)

Summary/Results:

  • The paper critiques the Olympic climbing format where final rankings were based on multiplying discipline placements, showing that this system gave a major advantage to specialists who placed first in a single event—even with poor results elsewhere.
  • A comparison with alternative methods (like summing or square-rooting ranks) showed that more balanced athletes might have placed higher under different scoring approaches.
  • Sample: Olympic results from 20 men and 20 women; analysis of how ranking systems affect finals qualification and podium outcomes.

Training Implications:

  • Climbing teams should tailor preparation to the scoring system—emphasizing either standout event wins or consistent cross-discipline performance.
  • Awareness of scoring mechanics can inform risk-taking and pacing strategies in multi-discipline competitions.

Open Source https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.12635

Reference & Link to Source:
Stinson, M. (2021). Scoring Systems for Combined Events: Analysis and Alternatives after the 2020 Olympics. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.12635

 

An Examination of Olympic Sport Climbing Competition Format and Scoring System

Quang Nguyen, Hannah Butler, and Gregory J. Matthews (2022)
Summary/Results:
  • This paper examined the Olympic format where athletes compete in speed, bouldering, and lead, and their placements are multiplied to decide the winner. The authors found this system favors bouldering and lead specialists and puts speed climbers at a disadvantage.
  • The scoring method can also shift final rankings if a non-medal climber drops out—meaning results can unfairly depend on who else is competing.
  • Sample size and ability: Simulated and real data from the 2020 Olympics and 2018 Youth Olympics, including 20 Olympic climbers and 6 Youth Olympic finalists.
Training Implications:
  • The results support separating speed into its own event.
  • Strong performance in both bouldering and lead gives the best chance of success.
  • Winning a single event matters more than consistent middle placements.
Open Source https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.05310v3
Reference Nguyen, Q., Butler, H., & Matthews, G. J. (2022). An Examination of Olympic Sport Climbing Competition Format and Scoring System. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.05310.

 

Bayesian inference of the climbing grade scale

Alexei Drummond and Alex Popinga (2021)
Summary/Results:
  • This study used climbing log data to figure out how much harder each grade really is. They treated each attempt as a success or failure and ran thousands of simulations to find patterns in performance.
  • Going up one grade means needing about 2 to 3 times more tries to succeed. For sport climbing, each step required around 2.1–2.3x more attempts. For bouldering, it was closer to 3.2x.
  • Sample size and ability: 20 datasets from Australia, New Zealand, and Germany. One dataset included 100 climbers and 48,679 recorded sport ascents.
Training Implications:
  • One grade jump is a major step—expect many more failures, not just a small bump in difficulty.
  • Tracking both successes and failures gives a clearer picture of progress.
  • Bouldering grades jump faster than rope grades—plan sessions and expectations differently.
Open Source https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.08140v1
Reference Drummond, A., & Popinga, A. (2021). Bayesian inference of the climbing grade scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.08140.

 

Female excellence in rock climbing likely has an evolutionary origin

Summary/Results:
  • This paper explores why elite female climbers perform closer to men than in most other sports. By comparing female representation in top-level outdoor climbing to sports like sprinting, lifting, and endurance running, the author builds an evolutionary case for why climbing might be different.
  • Because women are proportionally more competitive in elite climbing (e.g., 3 of the top 90 climbers have sent 5.15a or harder), the author argues that climbing performance may rely more on traits with smaller sex differences—such as muscular endurance, flexibility, and spatial reasoning—than on traits like raw power or speed.
Sample size and ability: Performance data were drawn from verified outdoor ascents (grades ≥5.15a) and global rankings in Olympic lifting, sprinting, and distance running.
Training Implications:
  • Movement traits like grip endurance, problem-solving, flexibility, and body control may explain high performance across sexes and should be prioritized in training.
  • Coaches should avoid over-relying on sex-based assumptions, as these may obscure strengths in athletes whose climbing potential stems from non-maximal traits.
  • The relatively small gender gap in climbing suggests that training should emphasize individual profiling over stereotyped programming.
Open Source https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8562198/
Reference Carroll C. (2023). Female excellence in rock climbing likely has an evolutionary origin. PeerJ, 11, e15509.

Beta Angel Note: The paper links climbing performance to traits with smaller sex differences (e.g., endurance, flexibility, spatial cognition), but these traits were not directly measured—this is an interpretation based on performance patterns, not tested mechanisms.

 

The Effects of Prioritizing Lead or Boulder Climbing Among Intermediate Climbers


Nicolay Stien, Tor Frithjof Frøysaker, Espen Hermans, Vegard Vereide, Vidar Andersen, Atle Saeterbakken (2021)
Summary/Results:
  • In a 5-week intervention, climbers were assigned to either prioritize lead climbing or bouldering (2 sessions/week) while maintaining the other discipline (1 low-intensity session/week); researchers tested strength, endurance, and climbing performance before and after.
  • Both groups increased pull-up strength on jug holds (31.8% and 18.9% average force gains), but showed no significant gains in rate of force development or climbing performance (lead or boulder).
  • Forearm endurance improved only in the lead group (+25s; effect size 0.55), while isolated finger strength improved only in the bouldering group (+48N; effect size 0.35).
Sample size and Ability:

14 intermediate-to-advanced climbers (7 per group), ages ~27–28, with best redpoint grades ranging from 6b+ to 7b (French).

Training Implications:
  • Short-term (5-week) focus on bouldering may build finger strength without reducing lead capacity.
  • Prioritizing lead climbing can improve forearm endurance without degrading bouldering performance.
  • Low-intensity maintenance sessions (~RPE 3) in the non-prioritized discipline are likely sufficient to prevent performance decline.
OPEN SOURCE

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8100213/

Reference

Stien N, Frøysaker TF, Hermans E, Vereide VA, Andersen V, Saeterbakken AH. The Effects of Prioritizing Lead or Boulder Climbing Among Intermediate Climbers. Front Sports Act Living. 2021;3:661167. doi:10.3389/fspor.2021.661167

Performance Assessment for Rock Climbers


Authors: Nick Draper, David Giles, Nicola Taylor, Laurent Vigouroux, Vanesa España-Romero, Jiří Baláš, Ignacio Solar Altamirano, Franziska Mally, Ina Beeretz, Jorge Couceiro Canalejo, et al. (2021)

Summary/Results:

  • Out of 10 IRCRA-designed climbing-specific tests, only 4—finger hang, powerslap, two-arm bent-arm hang, and pull-ups—consistently differentiated climbers by ability and demonstrated strong validity and reliability.
  • Flexibility and strength tests showed limited usefulness; they may indicate a threshold level needed for climbing but didn’t distinguish performance once that threshold was passed.
  • The finger hang test explained the most variance in climbing ability across all levels, with female models explaining up to 58% of performance variance and male models up to 36%.

132 climbers from 7 countries participated, ranging from lower grade to elite, with self-reported grades used to categorize ability.

Training Implications:

  • Coaches can confidently use finger hang and powerslap tests to track adaptation and distinguish between ability levels.
  • Including other tests (like pull-ups or bent-arm hang) adds minimal performance insight and may not be worth the testing time.
  • Flexibility and core strength may matter up to a point, but after that, they likely don’t determine further performance differences.

Beta Angel Note: As climbers get better, their test results become more consistent. That’s what the drop in coefficient of variation (Table 4) shows. For practical use, this means advanced climbers not only perform better—they also perform more predictably—making the tests especially useful for spotting changes in training.

Reference & Link to Source:
Draper, N., Giles, D., Taylor, N., Vigouroux, L., España-Romero, V., Baláš, J., et al. (2021). Performance Assessment for Rock Climbers: The International Rock Climbing Research Association Sport-Specific Test Battery. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 16(9), 1242–1252.
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2020-0672

 

Anthropometry and Performance Characteristics of Recreational Advanced to Elite Female Rock Climbers

Authors: David Giles, Kimberly Barnes, Nicola Taylor, Corinna Chidley, Joel Chidley, James Mitchell, Oliver Torr, Edward Gibson-Smith, & Vanesa España-Romero (2020)

Goal: This study examined how finger strength, upper body power, flexibility, and anthropometrics differ across advanced and elite female climbers, and which traits best predict climbing performance.

Findings:

  • Elite climbers averaged 408 N in peak finger strength (±62 N) and 80 cm in power slap (±11 cm), compared to 344–357 N (±47–54 N) and 63–66 cm (±8–19 cm) in advanced climbers.
  • Finger strength and power slap explained 45% and 39% of sport climbing performance, and 53% and 60% of bouldering performance, respectively, after adjusting for body composition and training volume.
  • Elite climbers had lower body fat % and spent more time training per week.

Training Implications:

  • Female climbers seeking to improve performance should focus on absolute finger strength and upper body power as primary physical differentiators.
  • Despite matching the redpoint grades of 1990s World Cup finalists, climbers in this study had healthier body fat levels, reinforcing that extreme leanness is not a prerequisite for elite-level climbing.

Sample Size: 55 female climbers classified as Lower Advanced (V0–V3), Higher Advanced (V4–V6), or Elite (V7–V9) using the IRCRA scale
IRCRA Categories: ADV-L (IRCRA 12–15), ADV-H (IRCRA 16–19), ELT (IRCRA 20–24)

Access: Open Source

Reference & Link to Source:
Giles, D., Barnes, K., Taylor, N., Chidley, C., Chidley, J., Mitchell, J., Torr, O., Gibson-Smith, E., & España-Romero, V. (2020). Anthropometry and performance characteristics of recreational advanced to elite female rock climbers. Journal of Sports Sciences. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343601222

 

Anthropometry and performance characteristics of recreational advanced to elite female rock climbers

Authors: Giles LV, Callender B, Torr R, Randall T, Macdonald JH. | Year: 2020
Summary/Results: The authors assessed 55 female climbers ranging from advanced to elite level (IRCRA scale: French 6a+ to 8a+), using climbing-specific tests of finger strength, upper body power, flexibility, and body composition. Participants were evaluated during a 2-hour session at a national symposium using tests such as a “power slap” (a jump-to-reach test for explosive power) and climbing-specific finger dynamometry. Elite climbers had significantly greater finger strength and upper body power than lower-ability climbers. These two factors—especially when adjusted for skinfold thickness and training time—explained up to 60% of the variation in self-reported bouldering ability and around 45% in sport climbing. Flexibility, mobility, and traditional body metrics (like height and weight) did not differ strongly between groups, though elite climbers tended to have slightly lower body fat.
Beta Angel note: This is one of the most comprehensive datasets available on female climbers, and reinforces that movement capability—as defined by this series of tests, and highlighting finger force and explosive pulling—is important
Reference: Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Sep 10;17(18):6592. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17186592.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343601222_Anthropometry_and_performance_characteristics_of_recreational_advanced_to_elite_female_rock_climbers

A comparison of body composition assessment methods in climbers: Which is better?

Author: Arias Téllez et al. | Year: 2019
Summary/Results: The authors studied different body composition methods on climbers, including: (1) an x-ray absorption measurement tool, (2) a method measuring electrical flow through the body, and (3) either skinfold thickness measurements or a combination of skinfold and different perimeter/diameter measurements. When compared against the x-ray absorption measurement tool – DEXA: considered the standard for the study – the other methods either underestimated fat mass percentage or overestimated muscle mass and bone mineral content. The authors recommend the use of the Durnin & Womersley method for fat mass percentage over the method using electrical flow when DEXA can’t be used.
Reference: PLoS One. 2019; 14(11): e0224291.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6867696/

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

Author: Stien et al. | Year: 2019
Summary/Results: Authors tested 16 boulderers against 15 lead climbers using measurements of maximal finger strength (peak / average force), contact strength (RFD average), isometric lock-off capability, the speed (velocity) of a dynamic pull-up, and finger endurance (7 on, 3 off, at 60% of max). The boulderers beat the sport climbers in all tests except finger endurance – which wasn’t different between groups. Interestingly, they also found a consistent drop to 57-69% of force between using a large “jug” hold and using a “ledge” in an open-crimp grabbing position.
Reference: PLoS One. 2019; 14(9): e0222529.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6752829/

Determinants for success in climbing: A systematic review.

Authors: Saul et al. | Year: 2019
Summary/Results: Authors reviewed 108 climbing research papers and classified them according to different climbing “requirements”: physiological (muscle, heartrate, physique), biomechanical (grip, coordination, postural control, jumping) , psychological, training-related, and recovery-related. Beta-Angel note: The authors attempt to synthesize different articles’ conclusions in a simple way under distinct categories. Highly recommended to get an overview of climbing research – not a long read.
Reference: J Exerc Sci Fit. 2019 Jul; 17(3): 91–100.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6527913/#bib79

Physical and Physiological Determinants of Rock Climbing.

Authors: MacKenzie R, Monaghan L, Masson RA, Werner AK, Caprez TS, Johnston L, Kemi OJ. | Year: 2019
Summary/Results: This study recruited 44 males (maximal onsight climbing 5a-8a or 5.9-5.13b) and 33 females (maximal onsight climbing 5a-7b+ or 5.9-5.12c) to be tested for physical, physiological and psychological characteristics. In males, 23 of the 47 tested variables (50%) were correlated with climbing ability, whereas only 10 of 47 variables (20%) correlated with climbing ability in females. Shoulder power and endurance were the main determinants of climbing ability (77% in males, 62% in females). The main determinant test for males was maximum pull-ups and bent-arm hangs for females. The authors did a smaller 4-week training study: 6 males (6a-6c or 5.10b-5.11c) trained maximum pull-ups (n=3) or balance (n=3), and 6 females (5a-6b+ or 5.9-5.11a) trained bent-arm hangs (n=3) or leg-raise hangs (n=3). Athletes did 3 sets to failure with 4-minute breaks, 2x/week. When the main determinants improved (male max pull-up & female bent-arm hangs), the climbing grade increased by 2 (male) and 2.7 (female). Improvement of other variables (male balance & female leg-raises) did not correlate with an increase in climbing grade. This study found that the main determinants of climbing are trainable and focusing on shoulder power and endurance will improve climbing ability across sexes. Beta-Angel note from external reviewers: The authors acknowledge that the study did not measure other variables such as technique, economy, recovery, or resistance to fatigue, which other studies have shown to influence climbing ability (the authors acknowledge this). There’s a significant difference between 7b+ (5.12c) and 8a (5.13b), so it would be interesting to see how/if the results would change when 7c-8a (5.12d-5.13b) female athletes are included. Finally, the training portion of this study was restricted to beginner-intermediate level climbers.
Reference: Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019 Oct 14:1-12. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0901 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31094249

Reliability, Sensitivity, and Minimal Detectable Change of a New Specific Climbing Test for Assessing Asymmetry in Reach Technique

Authors: Čular D, Dhahbi W, Kolak I, Dello Iacono A, Bešlija T, Laffaye G, Padulo J. | Year: 2018
Summary/Results: The authors developed a testing protocol to assess asymmetry in a climbing-specific reach movement. Climbers would start with matched hands and then reach diagonally upward with one hand and then reset on the matched hold and alternate hands. During two trial sessions, the climbers preformed this test three times. The authors suggest that this test is both reliable enough and sensitive enough to determine the differences between left and right reaching abilities.
Reference: J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Jun 22.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29939903
Kinesiology > Anthropometry – Measuring the Climber

Effects of Rock Climbing Exercise on Physical Fitness among College Students: A Review Article and Meta-analysis

Author: L. Li, A. Ru, T. Liao, S. Zou, XH Niu, YT Wang | Year: 2018
Summary/Results: Researchers looked at Chinese and American databases to do a review of 9 studies which looked at the impact of climbing on one or more variables in climbers between the ages of 18-38. The indicators/variables included: (1) body competition (Body Fat %); (2) Body Function (Maximal Oxygen consumption, heart rate); (3) muscle power (handgrip strength, lower limb pedaling power, vertical jump); (4) muscle endurance (push-ups, pull-ups, sit-ups); and one indicator of (5) flexibility (sit-and-reach). The authors found that rock climbing significantly improved oxygen consumption, handgrip strength, lower limb pedaling power, vertical jump, push-ups, pull-ups, sit-ups, and sit-and-reach. Beta-Angel note: this study is not suggesting that heart rate and body fat percentage do not impact climbing, nor is it claiming that the variables affected by climbing, if trained individually, will improve climbing.
Reference: Iran J Public Health. 2018 Oct;47(10):1440-1452.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30524973
Kinesiology > Anthropometry – Measuring the Climber

Scoring Systems for Combined Events: Analysis and Alternatives after the 2020 Olympics
Michela Stinson

Summary/Results:

  • The paper critiques the Olympic climbing format where final rankings were based on multiplying discipline placements, showing that this system gave a major advantage to specialists who placed first in a single event—even with poor results elsewhere.
  • A comparison with alternative methods (like summing or square-rooting ranks) showed that more balanced athletes might have placed higher under different scoring approaches.
  • Sample: Olympic results from 20 men and 20 women; analysis of how ranking systems affect finals qualification and podium outcomes.

Training Implications:

  • Climbing teams should tailor preparation to the scoring system—emphasizing either standout event wins or consistent cross-discipline performance.
  • Awareness of scoring mechanics can inform risk-taking and pacing strategies in multi-discipline competitions.

Open Source https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.12635

Reference & Link to Source:
Stinson, M. (2021). Scoring Systems for Combined Events: Analysis and Alternatives after the 2020 Olympics. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.12635

 

The role of physique, strength and endurance in the achievements of elite climbers

Author: M. Ozimek, et al. | Year: 2017
Summary/Results: The authors looked at anthropometric as well as strength and endurance differences for both fingers and arms between a group of elite climbers (8c) and a group of advanced climbers (8a).  Finger strength and endurance, as well as arm pulling endurance, were statistically different between the two groups.  Arm strength was not.  The only statistically significant anthropometric differences between the two groups was calf size.
Reference: PLoS One. 2017 Aug 3;12(8):e0182026
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182026

Analysis of tests evaluating sport climbers’ strength and isometric endurance

AUTHORS: M. Ozimek, R. Staszkiewicz, R. Rokowski, A. Stanula | Year: 2016
SUMMARY/RESULTS: The researchers tested 16 variables broken up into physical variables (mass only), strength variables, and endurance variables.  The aim of the study was to test different ways of measuring climbing characteristics and see which were associated with climbing performance.  Finger strength test and muscle endurance tests were found to correlate with climbing performance.  The authors were surprised to find that the maximum strength on a pull-up bar did not appear associated with performance.
REFERENCE: J Hum Kinet. 2016 Dec 1; 53: 249–260.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5260593/

A physiological model for rock climbing: the first 2000 years

AUTHOR: P.B. Watts | Year: 2016
SUMMARY/RESULTS: In a keynote address at the 3rd Rock Climbing Research Congress Watts looked at historical information for climbing, including how the world’s most difficult route ascent has changed between 1960 and 2014, how research has evolved over the years, and how published research via Pubmed has changed between 1960 and 2015. A relatively steady increase in climbing ability has been seen with a possible plateau starting around 2010; performance physiology, biomechanics and sport psychology have become more pronounced research topics recently; and the pubmed search found 187 published studies, and 71% of which have been published since 2000. Beta-Angel note: At 50+ articles being published over the last two four year cycles, the Beta Angel team has indicated concern over an ability to keep the inventory up to date. The lead researcher, who foresees handing off inventory duties to unpaid interns, has indicated no such concerns.
REFERENCE: 3rd Rock Climbing Research Congress. Proceedings 2016, Telluride, CO
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/441095_76117ef587b34539bc29d428a39b366b.pdf 

Sport rock climbing: as a means to improve health-related physical fitness parameters

AUTHORS: D. Aras, C. Akalan | Year: 2016
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers looked at 19 adults to understand the effect of climbing on oxygen consumption, body composition, muscle strength, and muscle endurance by comparing a group that climbed and a group that did no physical training over the course of eight weeks. There was a significant difference between pre and post-tests in the percent of body fat, mass of body fat, maximum oxygen consumption, muscle strength, and muscle endurance.
REFERENCE: J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2016 Nov;56(11):1304-1310.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26329838

Determinant factors in climbing ability: Influence of strength, anthropometry, and neuromuscular fatigue

AUTHORS: G. Laffaye, G. Levernier, JM Collin | Year: 2016
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers assessed physical differences between three levels of climbers (notice, skilled, elite) to predict climbing ability while also assessing general and specific strengths through a series of tests. Researchers found that climbing appears to be more related to specific rather than general strength and that trainable variables explained 46% of the total variance in climbing ability, whereas the studied variables associated with body composition and muscle characteristics explain fewer than 4%.
REFERENCE: Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2016 Oct;26(10):1151-9.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26453999
PDF: http://www.academia.edu/28708199/Determinant_factors_in_climbing_ability_Influence_of_strength_anthropometry_and_neuromuscular_fatigue

The influence of strength abilities on sports performance in climbing

AUTHORS: J. Dosla, J. Mesko | Year: 2015
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers tested forty-six males (performance climbers ; recreational climbers; non-climbers) using two motor tests (maximum isometric finger strength and pull-up hang tests) and captured physical characteristics including height, weight, body fat percentage and characteristics associated with a body-type categorization system called somatotyping. Researchers found statistically significant differences in the pull-up hang and body fat percentage but not with any others, climbers were generally above-average height, below average body weight, and lower body fat percentage, while the average somatotype corresponds to ectomorphic mesomorph. Beta Angel note: See “The influence of somatotype components on success in sport climbing” for another take on somatotyping.
REFERENCE: 10th INSHS International Christmas Sport Scientific Conference, 2015.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315998608_The_influence_of_strength_abilities_on_sports_performance_in_climbing

The influence of somatotype components on success in sport climbing.

AUTHORS: M. Puletic, D. Stankovic | Year: 2014
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers looked at 31 male sport climbers, taking ten measurements in order to determine whether a body-type categorization system known as somatotyping has a correlation with successful rock climbing. Results showed that the “endomorph” had a negative influence on success, while the mesomorph and ectomorph had no influence.   Beta Angel note: See “the influence of strength abilities on sports performance in climbing” for another take on somatotyping.
REFERENCE: Physical Education and Sport Vol. 12, 2, (2014) 105 – 111
http://casopisi.junis.ni.ac.rs/index.php/FUPhysEdSport/article/view/292/206

The structure of performance of a sport rock climber

AUTHORS: A. Magiera, R. Roczniok, A. Maszczyk, M. Czuba, J. Kantyka, P. Kurek | Year: 2013
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers used thirty experienced sport climbers to assess forty-three variables and categorized those variables into physical, technical, and mental buckets – they then looked at the ability of those buckets to predict climbing performance and also how well those buckets complemented one another. Researchers found that each bucket of variables explained the structure of climbing performance similarly, but unequally: 38% (physical), 33% (technical) and 25% (mental). Beta Angel note: check out “Biometric model and classification functions in sport climbing” for more.
REFERENCE: J Hum Kinet. 2013 Mar; 36: 107–117.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3661882/

Somatic Profile of Competitive Sport Climbers

AUTHORS: Paweł Tomaszewski, Jan Gajewski, Joanna Lewandowska | Year: 2011
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers measured the body height, weight, arm span length and circumference of limbs, shoulder and pelvis widths, and % body fat in 21 male climbers with abilities ranging from 5.10d to 5.14b. Climbers exhibited significantly lower pelvis-to-shoulder ratio, longer lower extremities, and greater arm length and arm span compared to untrained students. Researchers do not believe results support the view that climbers are small in stature and of low body mass – they suggest that the differences in body size between trained and untrained climbers may be over-exaggerated and that the differences may be in specific body proportions. Beta-Angel note: Luckily Amazon has a good return policy for my shrinking pills.
REFERENCE: Journal of Human Kinetics volume 29/2011, 107‐113
http://www.johk.pl/files/11a.pdf

Biometric model and classification functions in sport climbing

AUTHORS: A. Magiera, I. Rygula | Year: 2007
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers created a model of rock climbing using 44 different variables assessed of 30 climbers in an attempt to understand which best explain performance as well as variability in rock climbing. The variables explain 93% of the performance, of which 9 variables are identified as best describing it while 10 variables best differentiate amongst climbers. Beta-Angel note: My kingdom for Magiera’s “Determinants of contestant development performance in sport climbing”!!! Also, check out “the structure of performance of a sport rock climber” for more.
REFERENCE: Journal of Human Kinetics vol. 18, 2007, 87-98
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239607487_Biometric_Model_and_Classification_Functions_in_Sport_Climbing

The Physiology of Rock Climbing

AUTHORS: Giles LV, Rhodes EC, Taunton JE. | Year: 2006
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers reviewed the state of climbing research to date with respect to physiology. In summary, the researchers conclude that success in climbing does not appear to be related to individual physiological variables but is the result of a complex interaction of physiological and psychological factors. Beta-Angel note: highly recommended to read the abstract as a very quick overview.
REFERENCE: Sports Med. 2006;36(6): 529-45
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16737345

Prediction of Indoor Climbing Performance in Women Rock Climbers

AUTHORS: CB wall, JE Starek, SJ Fleck, WC Byrnes | Year: 2004
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers measured multiple variables associated with muscular strength in three ability-based groups of six female climbers each on 2 climbing performance tests. Wall et al. found that hand strength and one arm lock-off strength correlated well with tested performance as well as a survey of past best performance, while climbing specific flexibility as well as anthropometric measurements did not.
REFERENCE: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2004, 18(1), 77–83
http://fjodde.se/00124278-200402000-00011.pdf

Physiology of difficult rock climbing

AUTHOR: Watts | Year: 2004
SUMMARY/RESULTS: This paper was strictly a review of other studies which described high-level climbing performance at or above the 5.11 grade. The author took this research and created a model of optimal performance by understanding an athlete’s profile based on anthropometry (human body measurement), muscular strength, power, and endurance, and aerobic (oxygen-based) and anaerobic (non-oxygen based) power and capacity, in addition to understanding activity analysis which includes: bioenergetic (production and use of energy at the cellular level) systems, energy expenditure, oxygen uptake requirement, and neuromuscular (related to nerves and muscles) recruitment.
REFERENCE: Eur J Appl Physiol (2004) 91: 361–372
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/75f0/8c4eef1d740e23f64af65c25a8fdb1bf382f.pdf

Physiology of Sport Rock Climbing

AUTHOR: A W Sheel | Year: 2004
Summary/Results: Authors describe the research into specific physiological effects of climbing including oxygen consumption, heart rate, blood pressure, blood lactate (a byproduct of the body’s use of simple sugars formed in association with muscular fatigue, often associated with being “pumped”), and muscular fatigue. Authors come to the conclusion that climbing utilizes a significant portion of whole body oxygen energy capacity, that there is an increased reliance on anaerobic (non-oxygen) energy pathways with greater difficulty, and that the determinants of climbing, while not clear, may be attributed to trainable variables rather than specific human body characteristics. Beta-Angel note: Yes! Take that mom and dad!
REFERENCE: Br J Sports Med. 2004 Jun; 38(3): 355–359.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1724814/pdf/v038p00355.pdf

Differences in strength between male and female competitive rock climbers

AUTHORS: D.M. Binney, T. Cochrane | Year: 2002
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Binney and Cochrane set out to investigate whether the difference between male and female strength is associated with a performance difference when body weight is taken into account. Researchers found that relative to body weight there were significant differences in elbow flexion, pull-up and arm adduction. However, there was no significant difference on any of the measured characteristics when controlling for % body fat (i.e. lean body mass) – supporting evidence that there may be a relationship between % body fat and performance. Beta-Angel note: It’s unclear based on the available abstract how differences in strength are being compared to performance – does anyone have this? That being said, the authors of the study do want to stress that their conclusions have potential health implications for female climbers, which is why this note is included in italics by the Beta-Angel team.
REFERENCE: Binney DM, Rolf CG. 2nd Int Conf Sci Tech Climbing & Mountaineering, April 2002. 
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmcNews/media/u_content/File/competitions/high_perfomance_archive/strength.pdf

A comparison of the anthropometric, strength, endurance and flexibility characteristics of female elite and recreational climbers and non-climbers

AUTHORS: Grant S1, Hasler T, Davies C, Aitchison TC, Wilson J, Whittaker A. | Year: 2001
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Study compared three groups of females: Elite rock climbers, recreational rock climbers, and physically active non-climbers, based on a battery of tests associated with six categories: finger strength, flexibility, bent-arm hang, and pull-ups. Researchers also looked at the influence of body mass, leg length, height, and age. Results suggest elite climbers have greater finger strength (four finger climbing-specific grip) than recreational climbers and non-climbers, and greater grip strength (non-climbing) than recreational climbers only.
REFERENCE: J Sports Sci. 2001 Jul;19(7):499-505.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11461053

Physiological and anthropometric determinants of sport climbing performance

AUTHORS: Mermier CM1, Janot JM, Parker DL, Swan JG. | Year: 2000
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Forty-four climbers (24 men, 20 women) with varying skill and experience climbed two routes on separate days to assess performance. Researchers measured anthropometric (height, weight, leg length, arm span, % body fat), demographic (climbing rating, years’ experience, hours training), and physiological (knee and shoulder extension, knee flexion, grip, and finger pincer strength, bent arm hang, grip endurance, hip and shoulder flexibility, and upper and lower body anaerobic power). Measures were indexed into a series of three components: training, anthropometric, and flexibility. Results indicate training component explained 58.9% of total climbing performance variance, while anthropometric and flexibility components explained .3% and 1.8% respectively.
REFERENCE: Br J Sports Med. 2000 Oct;34(5):359-65; discussion 366.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11049146

Competitive rock climbing: physiological and anthropometric attributes

AUTHORS: D.M. Binney, T. Cochrane | Year: 1999
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers used four measures to assess success of ten males and 8 females in British climbing competitions. Four measures are: maximum isometric crimp grip strength to body mass ratio, sustained crimp grip endurance at 60 and 40 percent of maximum voluntary contraction, climbing specific forearm endurance and body composition. Climbing specific forearm endurance is a key predictor of climbing performance in elite male and female rock climbers. Additionally, % body fat was inversely correlated with the success of elite female rock climbers. The other measures were not significantly related.
REFERENCE: Binney DM, Cochrane T. Journal of Sports Sciences, 1999; Vol 17(1): 11-12.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmcNews/media/u_content/File/competitions/high_perfomance_archive/attributes.pdf

Physiological responses to simulated rock climbing at different angles

AUTHORS: Watts; Drobish | Year: 1998
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers attempted to understand the physiological response of the body to rock climbing at different angles. Heart rate, the climber’s rate of perceived exertion and blood lactate (a byproduct of the body’s use of simple sugars formed in association with muscular fatigue, often associated with being “pumped”) increase with climbing angle, but oxygen consumption does not, and grip strength decreases. Beta-Angel note: Damn it, the kids I teach already hate me for the heart rate drills on a vertical wall – they’re going to love me when I put them on overhang!
REFERENCE: Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 30(7):1118-22 · August 1998
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13621570_Physiological_responses_to_simulated_rock_climbing_at_different_angles

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

AUTHORS: Grant S1, Hynes V, Whittaker A, Aitchison T. | Year: 1996
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Study compared three groups of males: Elite rock climbers, recreational rock climbers, and physically active non-climbers, based on a battery of tests associated with six categories: finger strength, body dimensions, body composition, flexibility, arm strength and endurance, and abdominal endurance. The greatest distinction was found in the bent arm hang and pull-ups. Additionally, significant differences (when looking at the influence on body mass and length) were obtained for: finger strength with four fingers (climbing), grip strength (non-climbing), pincer strength (climbing), and leg span. Results suggest that to attain “elite” status, climbers should consider training their finger strength, shoulder girdle strength and endurance, and hip flexibility.
REFERENCE: J Sports Sci. 1996 Aug;14(4):301-9.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8887209

Anthropometric profiles of elite male and female competitive sport rock climbers

AUTHORS: Phillip B. Watts , David T. Martin & Shirley Durtschi | Year: 1993
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers assessed 39 world-class climbers prior to an international World Cup Sport climbing championship for age, years of climbing experience, height, weight, height-weight ratio, % body fat, fat-free mass, hand and arm volumes, grip strength, grip strength, grip strength to body mass ratio, and climbing ability. Results indicate elite sport climbers are of small to moderate statute, very low % body fat, moderate grip strength, and high body mass ratio. Body mass and % fat may be primary adaptations in female athletes. Beta-Angel note: Who doesn’t dream of subjecting 39 specimens of awesome to a battery of tests?
REFERENCE: Journal of Sport Sciences, Volume 11, Issue 2, 1993
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02640419308729974?journalCode=rjsp20