Research > Research Inventory > Biomechanics: Power
Differences in Upper-Body Peak Force and Rate of Force Development in Male Intermediate, Advanced, and Elite Sport Climbers
Authors: Vereide V, Andersen V, Hermans E, Kalland J, Saeterbakken AH, Stien N. | Year: 2022
Summary: This study tested 78 male climbers on a 23 mm isometric pull-up to compare strength across IRCRA-defined grades, finding that elites produced much higher peak force, higher 2-second average force, and—importantly—were the only group clearly separated by rate of force development. The authors suggest these measures could help identify readiness to progress to harder grades, since they closely follow climbing ability. Because all force and RFD data came from combined attempts in one grip position and self-reported grades, future work separating max-force and RFD trials could strengthen the evidence.
Reference: Front Sports Act Living. 2022;4:888061. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.888061
OPEN SOURCE: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9274001/
Acute Effects of Post-Activation Performance Enhancement of 5RM Weighted Pull-Ups and One-Arm Pull-Ups on Specific Upper-Body Climbing Performance
Authors: Sas-Nowosielski K, Kandzia K. | Year: 2022
Summary/Results: This study tested whether heavy two-arm weighted pull-ups or one-arm pull-ups (24 advanced climbers, crossover design) could briefly boost explosive climbing power—useful information for warm-ups before dynamic moves. Because rest intervals, load intensity, and one-arm assistance levels varied naturally, the results should be viewed with caution; still, only the 5RM weighted pull-ups consistently improved Power Slap distance, force, speed, and power. One-arm pull-ups showed only a very small reach increase, and the authors note this may reflect slight technique changes rather than true power gains. Practically, the paper supports heavy weighted pull-ups as a reliable short-term “power priming” option, while one-arm pull-ups do not appear to function as an effective PAPE stimulus.
Reference: J Hum Kinet. 2022;84:206–215.
OPEN SOURCE: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9679189/
Effects of Two vs. Four Weekly Campus Board Training Sessions on Bouldering Performance and Climbing-Specific Tests in Advanced and Elite Climbers
Stien N, Pedersen H, Vereide VA, Saeterbakken AH, Hermans E, Kalland J, Schoenfeld BJ, Andersen V. (2021)
Summary/Results: Over 5 weeks, 2x/week campus board training improved bouldering performance (ES = 0.30) and moves to failure (ES = 0.87). The 4x/week group also improved moves to failure (ES = 0.76) and showed the greatest gains in rate of force development (ES = 0.57). Combined training groups outperformed controls in bouldering (ES = 1.42), pull-up strength (ES = 1.01), RFD (ES = 1.22), maximal reach (ES = 1.51), and moves to failure (ES = 0.85).
Sample size and ability: 16 advanced-to-elite male climbers (minimum redpoint 7a+); all had fingerboard experience but hadn’t trained on a campus board in the past 6 months.
Training Implications: Two sessions per week improved power-endurance (repeating hard moves under fatigue) and were best for bouldering performance. Four shorter sessions improved explosiveness (rate of force development) and also increased move endurance, though slightly less than the 2x/week group. Session frequency may be selected based on whether the goal is sustained effort or fast, forceful movement.
Open Source: NCBI PMC Article
Reference: Stien N et al. (2021). J Sports Sci Med, 20(3), 438–447.
Post-activation Potentiation Response of Climbers Performing the Upper Body Power Exercise
Authors: Sas-Nowosielski, K., & Kandzia, K. | Year: 2020
Summary/Results:
This study examined whether post-activation potentiation (PAP — a short-term boost in muscular force and power following heavy exercise) could improve climbing-specific explosive performance. Sixteen advanced-to-elite climbers were divided into a control group and a PAP group that performed weighted 5-repetition-maximum pull-ups before testing. Power was assessed with the IRCRA “Power Slap” test on a campus board, where climbers pulled explosively from a hang and slapped as high as possible. Results showed that only the PAP group improved, gaining on average 6.5 cm above baseline, while the control group showed no meaningful change. The effect appeared immediately and lasted up to eight minutes, which closely matches the rest intervals common in bouldering competitions. The authors suggest that PAP could be strategically used in training or as part of a pre-competition warm-up to enhance upper body power and improve performance in dynamic movements such as dynos.
Beta Angel note: The timing overlap with competition rotation makes this finding particularly relevant for coaches, as it points to a potential way of priming athletes for powerful climbing efforts. That being said, ensure that it is something relatively routine for them before attempting it before a competition.
Reference:
Sas-Nowosielski, K., & Kandzia, K. (2020). Post-activation Potentiation Response of Climbers Performing the Upper Body Power Exercise. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 467. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00467/full
Force–Velocity–Power profile in high elite boulder, lead, and speed climbing competitors
Authors: Levernier G., Samozino P., Laffaye G. | Year: 2020
Summary/Results: The researchers compared the pulling strength and speed of 24 world-class male climbers (11 boulderers, 8 lead climbers, 5 speed climbers) by testing pull-ups with different added weights. Using an accelerometer, they measured the relationship between force (how much load could be moved), velocity (movement speed), and power (force × speed). All three groups showed reliable performance measures, but boulderers stood out: they produced greater maximum power, maintained faster pulling speeds at higher loads, and showed more explosive profiles than lead or speed climbers. Lead climbers were steadier and more endurance-focused, while speed climbers’ advantage in competition likely depends more on their legs than arms. These results highlight how each climbing style shapes the upper-body demands, and suggest that bouldering may best prepare climbers for the combined Olympic format.
Reference: Levernier, G., Samozino, P., & Laffaye, G. (2020). Force–Velocity–Power profile in high elite boulder, lead, speed climbers competitors. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 15(9), 1201–1210. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-0437
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336832325_Force-Velocity-Power_profile_in_high_elite_boulder_lead_speed_climbers_competitors
Upper-limb power test in rock-climbing
AUTHORS: G. Laffaye, JM Collin, G. Levernier, J. Padulo | Year: 2014
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers tested 34 athletes of different abilities in order to see whether a novel methodology called the arm-board jump test, which requires an explosive pull up from two large holds and a requirement to slap a board as high as possible, is a reliable instrument for differentiating between climbers of different ability levels. The test can effectively differentiate between novice, intermediate, and elite climbers and shows a distinction in speed-power profiles, whereby boulderers tend towards quick and powerful, and route climbers are either quick and not powerful, or slow and not powerful. Beta-Angel note: Delaney Miller, the route climbing “power sloth”, wasn’t available for comment.
REFERENCE: Int J Sports Med. 2014 Jul;35(8):670-5
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257132173_Upper-limb_Power_Test_in_Rock-climbing
Sport-specific power assessment for rock climbing
AUTHORS: D. Nick, T. Dickson, G. Blackwell, G. Ellis | Year: 2011
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers tested 38 male and female climbers using a novel way of measurement called “the power slap” test, which requires an explosive pull up from a hanging position (either narrow grip or wide grip) and a requirement to slap a scaled board as high as possible. While both the narrow and wide grip tests were able to correlate with climbing performance, the researchers recommend the narrow test (which had a marginally better ability to correlate with performance) in differentiating between climbers of differing ability levels (novice, intermediate, advanced, and elite).
REFERENCE: Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness Vol 51 – No 3, May, 2011
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51635919_Sport-specific_power_assessment_for_rock_climbing