Research > Research Inventory > Biomechanics: Quantifying Forces in Movement
Center of mass position does not drive energetic costs during climbing
Authors: Young MW, Dickinson E, Gustafson JA, Granatosky MC. | Year: 2024
Summary: The authors tested whether changing body position relative to the wall alters the energy cost of climbing, because biomechanical models often predict that keeping the center of mass closer to the wall and limiting unnecessary side-to-side movement should save energy. They used three climbing layouts to produce different movement patterns and measured both center-of-mass movement and oxygen use. Despite substantial differences in body position, metabolic cost was essentially unchanged. Climbing speed was much more closely related to energy cost, suggesting that under these conditions, how quickly climbers move matters more for metabolic demand than keeping the hips close to the wall or minimizing side-to-side movement.
Beta-Angel note: Beta-Angel note: Sick paper. Young and colleagues have studied vertical climbing mechanics across species, including tree frogs and three-toed sloths. Older biomechanical models often treated movement away from the wall or side-to-side movement as wasted mechanical work. This paper shows that “efficient-looking” movement is not necessarily metabolically cheaper. Extra movement—whether farther from the wall or farther side-to-side—may simply be too small a part of the total energy cost to matter much. Coaches should not automatically treat extra movement as inefficient: moving the hips farther out or farther sideways may still be useful if it improves stability, force direction, or security. In other words, “efficient-looking” climbing and effective climbing are not necessarily the same thing.
Reference: J Exp Biol. 2024;227(8):jeb246943. doi: 10.1242/jeb.246943
Open Source: https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.246943
Comparative kinetics of humans and non-human primates during vertical climbing
Authors: Young MW, English HM, Dickinson E, Kantounis SJ, Chernik ND, Cannata MJ, Lynch SK, Jacobson RN, Virga JQ, Lopez A, Granatosky MC. | Year: 2024
Summary: This study measured the forces climbers produced through individual hands and feet while climbing up a treadwall, then compared human force patterns with those of eight non-human primates climbing vertical poles. Experience did not make human climbers use less force or keep their bodies closer to the wall. Instead, one interesting difference was that experienced climbers showed a clearer relationship between body position and force: as their center of mass moved farther from the wall, the pulling and pushing forces needed to stay on the wall increased predictably. Humans also relied much more on their legs to move upward than the other primates and showed very fixed roles when holding themselves against the wall—the hands pulled while the feet pushed. Some non-human primates could switch between pulling and pushing with the same limb as its position changed. The simple, ladder-like treadwall and only eight experienced climbers limit how far these findings can be applied to real climbing.
Beta-Angel Note: “Stable force-geometry coupling” (a term not used in the paper) means that as body position changes, climbers adjust force in a predictable way. This may let experienced climbers move farther from the wall while still feeling how much force the position will require, making reaches, rotations, and lateral moves feel more controllable. The relationship was especially clear in the experienced climbers, although experience did not significantly change overall force patterns in the full statistical analysis. The paper therefore raises the possibility that experienced climbers are not producing less force, but are better at matching force to body position—which may help difficult positions feel more “trustworthy” to them than to less experienced climbers.
Reference: J Exp Biol (2024) 227(7): jeb247012. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.247012
Open Source: https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.247012
Motion Analysis of the Wrist and Finger Joints in Sport Climbing
Authors: Fischer G, Schneeberger M, Petter SA, Scheibler A-G, Wolf P, Calcagni M, Schweizer A, Reissner L. | Year: 2024
Summary: Eleven highly experienced climbers climbed the same short sequence while three-dimensional motion capture measured wrist and finger joint angles during crimp, half-crimp, open-hand, and campusing conditions. Average PIP angle (the middle finger-joint angle) differed between crimp, half-crimp, and open-hand grips, but individual ranges overlapped substantially; some climbers even produced joint angles under one grip instruction that resembled another. Open-hand gripping also showed two distinct patterns, which the authors strongly suspected reflected whether the little finger was used. Practically, grip type labels alone do not reliably tell us the joint positions a climber is actually using, particularly with open-hand grips.
Beta-Angel note: Open-hand gripping may be worth training as more than one grip: the authors suspect that three-finger drag and four-finger open-hand positions produce meaningfully different finger-joint mechanics. The study also suggests that grip mechanics depend on the climbing task itself, supporting the idea that grip training should include varied wall angles, body positions, and hold contexts rather than relying only on isolated hangboard positions.
Reference: Bioengineering (Basel). 2024 Apr 12;11(4):370. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering11040370
Open Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11048272/
Video Abnormal Behavior Recognition and Trajectory Prediction Based on Lightweight Skeleton Feature Extraction
Authors: Wang L, Ding C, Zhang Y, Zhou TH, Ding W, Ryu KH, Nam KW. | Year: 2024
Summary: The authors tested whether reducing pose data to a small set of “core” joints—while predicting briefly occluded joints from recent frames—can maintain fast, reliable action recognition and short-term motion prediction. Their lightweight model ran substantially faster than full-skeleton approaches while keeping useful accuracy, and their trajectory method performed best for near-future prediction (roughly the next 15–30 frames). Practically, although developed for surveillance, the approach shows how movement patterns can be identified and tracked in real time even when body parts are hidden, which is directly relevant to any domain with frequent visual occlusion and rapid movement transitions.
Beta-Angel Note: Not a climbing paper, but still relevant. For climbing, the value is lightweight skeletons plus short-horizon (where the body will be) prediction. This could enable automated tagging of key movement events (cut feet, hip turn-in, foot slips, hesitation before commitment) despite hands and feet disappearing. This aligns with recent interest in video tracking and analysis platforms.
Reference: Sensors (Basel). 2024 Jun 7;24(12):3711. doi: 10.3390/s24123711
Open Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11207788/
Design of a sensor network for the quantitative analysis of sport climbing
Authors: Colombo A, Maj R, Canina M, Fedeli F, Dozio N, Ferrise F. | Year: 2023
Summary: The authors developed a climbing wall with hidden force sensors behind standard holds to measure how climbers load hands and feet during real climbing, aiming to give coaches usable, immediate feedback rather than lab-only data. In 11 climbers ranging from novices to advanced, the system consistently captured hold-by-hold force patterns and showed that more skilled climbers often started with higher hand force and then reduced it over time. This pattern likely reflects an early learning or problem-solving phase rather than inefficiency, suggesting the system could help track how technique stabilizes across attempts, though conclusions are tentative due to the small sample and single, fixed drill.
Beta Angel Note: The researchers engaged coaches to assess their needs. Coaches and clinicians explicitly asked for (1) clear hand-vs-foot load information, (2) sensors that are invisible and do not change movement, (3) full use of normal commercial holds, (4) fast setup and reconfiguration, and (5) feedback shown on a wall map in body-weight–intuitive units for immediate use during sessions.
Reference: Front Sports Act Living. 2023 Feb 20;5:1114539. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2023.1114539
Open Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9986317/
Neuromechanics of finger hangs with arm lock-offs: analyzing joint moments and muscle activations to improve practice guidelines for climbing
Authors: Exel J, Deimel D, Koller W, Werle C, Baca A, Maffiodo D, Sesana R, Colombo A, Kainz H. | Year: 2023
Summary: This study tested how elbow position during finger dead hangs changes shoulder and elbow loading while (hopefully) training the forearms. In 17 recreational climbers, finger flexor muscle activity stayed similar across full extension vs 135° and 90° lock-offs, but shoulder and elbow joint loading and upper-arm/back muscle activity increased as the elbow bent. This could lead to simpler hangboard guidelines: use straight-arm hangs to train finger force while reducing unnecessary shoulder/elbow stress, though this was a controlled 22 mm edge hang, not real climbing moves.
Beta-angel note: The term neuromechanical matters here because the authors show that changing elbow angle does not change how hard the finger flexor muscles are being driven, but it does change where the load goes in the rest of the arm. In practical terms, hanging with bent elbows does not make the fingers work harder; instead, it shifts more stress to the elbow and shoulder joints through higher joint moments and higher activation of muscles like the biceps, trapezius, and latissimus.
Reference: Front Sports Act Living. 2023 Oct 20;5:1251089. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2023.1251089
Open Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10623130/
Finger flexion to extension ratio in healthy climbers: a proposal for evaluation and rebalance
Authors: Devise M, Pasek L, Goislard De Monsabert B, Vigouroux L. | Year: 2023
Summary: This study asked whether climbers develop a large strength gap between finger flexors and extensors, and whether training can change it. In 78 experienced climbers, flexors were about six times stronger than extensors, and this gap increased with climbing level; only short-term, high-intensity extensor training improved extensor strength and shifted the ratio. The authors suggest the test could help identify extreme imbalances, but because neither injury nor climbing performance was measured, the practical impact of the ratio remains unclear.
Beta Angel note: Climbers averaged a flexor-to-extensor ratio of ~6, compared with ~3–4 reported for non-climbers in earlier studies, showing a climbing-specific shift rather than a normal human baseline. The paper does not show this shift is harmful, only that it exists and responds to high-intensity extensor training.
Reference: Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. 2023 Nov 23;5:1243354. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2023.1243354
Open Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10701375/
Comparative Biomechanical Characteristics of One-Arm Hang in Climbing for Beginners and Qualified Athletes
Authors: S. Kozin, D. Safronov, Z. Kozina, H. Kniaz, O. Proskurnia, K. Prontenko, O. Lahno, V. Goncharenko, A. Kholodniy | Year: 2020
Summary/Results:
This study analyzed the one-arm hang technique after a jump, comparing 20 beginner and 20 experienced male climbers. Qualified climbers used a more active posture with trunk and leg engagement, a smaller shoulder-clavicle angle, and a more tilted spine. In contrast, beginners maintained a vertical body position and relied heavily on the passive structures of the shoulder. The findings suggest that experienced climbers distribute muscular effort across a larger kinematic chain, reducing joint stress and improving hang control.
From a training perspective, these results highlight the importance of developing not just upper body strength but also trunk and leg coordination. Teaching dynamic hangs should focus on full-body integration to reduce shoulder strain and improve movement readiness after catching a hold.
Reference:
Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 20(Supplement issue 6), 57–66.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340816605_Comparative_biomechanical_characteristics_of_one-arm_hang_in_climbing_for_beginners_and_qualified_athletes
3D Visualization of Body Motion in Speed Climbing
Authors: Lionel Reveret, Sylvain Chapelle, Franck Quaine, Pierre Legreneur | Year: 2020
Summary/Results:
This study used a video-based 3D modeling system to track a female elite climber during a speed climbing ascent. Instead of relying on physical sensors, researchers created a full-body digital model (3D avatar) from lab-based recordings and applied it to real-world drone footage. This allowed them to estimate the climber’s center of mass (COM) based on whole-body shape, rather than a single marker on the harness. The 3D avatar revealed moments where the climber moved away from the wall or slowed down—particularly during dynos and directional changes—and helped visualize how certain movements impacted vertical speed and body control.
Beta-Angel note: The value of this work is in giving coaches and researchers a way to see where climbers lose vertical efficiency and why. It’s especially useful for identifying how off-axis or excess movement—like pushing too far from the wall—may reduce speed without needing a full lab setup.
Reference:
Front. Psychol. 2020 Sep 28;11:2188. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02188
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02188/full
Kinematic and EMG analysis of horizontal bimanual climbing in humans.
Authors: MacLean KFE, Dickerson CR. | Year: 2019
Summary/Results: The authors compared the kinematic (geometry or mathematics of motion) and muscular demands during a bimanual horizontal climbing task (i.e. monkey bars) between 15 climbers and 15 non-climbers through motion-capture and electromyography (EMG – measuring electrical activity of the muscle tissue) of the elbow, thoracohumeral, trunk, and 12 shoulder muscles. The 15 climbers presented different joint motions (specifically elbow flexion and internal rotation, and less thoracohumeral elevation) and activated the shoulder musculature at a lower percentage of their maximum, similar to previous studies on chimpanzees and other primates. Compared to the non-climbers, the climbers used slightly more efficient climbing kinematics and reduced muscular activity, which suggests that climbing experience in modern humans can moderately lead to more efficient and evolutionarily relevant kinematics. Beta-Angel note: A study giving more credence to brachiation’s role in climbing. Udo should love this.
Reference: J Biomech. 2019 Jul 19;92:11-18. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.05.023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31176461
TEST-retest reliability of kinetic variables measured on campus board in sport climbers
Authors: Abreu EAC, Araújo SRS, Cançado GHDCP, Andrade AGP, Chagas MH, Menzel HK. | Year: 2018
Results/Summary: The authors put a force plate on the first rung hold(s) of a campus board as a proof of concept. They tested and retested the impulse (change in movement – center of mass displacement) and peak force (highest force tested – ability to maintain force on the holds) of 22 sport climbers (5.11d to 5.13b) on two separate days using both a concentric (fire) upper-body lunge and a plyometric (drop and fire) upper-body lunge. Both impulse and peak force were consistent between the two days of testing, demonstrating the two measures and set-up as a potential testing protocol – however, errors were higher in the “drop-and-fire” protocol, indicating the “fire”-only (concentric) protocol may be better for assessment, if not necessarily training.
Reference: Sports Biomech. 2018 May 16:1-14.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29768095
Biomechanics > Quantifying Forces in Movement
Assessment of climber performance: A multi-centre trial
AUTHORS: N. Draper, D. Gile1 , N. Taylor , I. Solar Altamirano, M. Arias Téllez , J. Baláš , J. Kodejška , V. España-Romero , G. Gallo Cabeza de Vaca , L. Vigouroux , G. Josseron , F. Mally I. Beeretz | Year: 2016
SUMMARY/RESULTS: The International Rock Climbing Research Association presents data from six countries and 114 participants on preliminary findings behind their development of a suite of tests to measure physiological performance. Tests included foot-raise with and without rotation, finger strength, finger hang, power slap, both two-arm and one arm bent-arm hang, pull-ups, plank, and 90 degree leg raise. Results indicate that foot-raise both with and without rotation, as well as the leg raise, did not appear to correlate with climbing performance. However, significant relationships were found with all other tests and climbing performance.
REFERENCE: 3rd Rock Climbing Research Congress, Proceedings, 2016.
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/441095_76117ef587b34539bc29d428a39b366b.pdf
Body position and technique effects on displacement in the dyno maneuver in rock climbing
AUTHORS: K.C. Phillips, R.L. Jensen | Year: 2014
SUMMARY/RESULTS: 13 recreational climbers were measured for the vertical change in hand position in squat jumps (arms fully extended down) and “counter-movement” (arms parallel with ground with a quick countermove) jumps across three different starting positions for a dynamic move. While the researchers saw no difference in increased height of the hand as a result of different jump techniques in recreational climbers, they suggest that elite climbers probably have developed the skill to use it effectively. Beta-Angel note: this appears to be an article testing a simple dynamic jump vs. a jump executing a ‘plyometric’ muscle contraction. If that’s the case, then it appears to suggest a “learning-oriented” theory behind why a plyometric “drop” may not be particularly helpful in spite of other evidence (such as from other sports) to the contrary.
REFERENCE: 2nd International Rock Climbing Research Conference, Sep 2014
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/441095_f52f11ccc489434bb70b78ee10563b95.pdf
Surface electromyography measurements of stabilizing ventral muscles in therapeutic climbing
AUTHORS: F. Mally, A. Sabo, F.K. Fuss | Year: 2014
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers measured the muscle activation of four muscles (ab, oblique, chest, and quad) in 2 males and 1 female during two phases on a climbing wall: holding on with both hands, and loosening the left hand. Though there were significant differences where activation occurred and to what extent, researchers found a cross-activation of muscles in the right side of the body from the unweighting of the left hand.
REFERENCE: 2nd International Rock Climbing Research Congress, Sep 2014
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/441095_f52f11ccc489434bb70b78ee10563b95.pdf
Computer models offer new insights into the mechanics of rock climbing
AUTHORS: Russell, S., Zirker, C., Blemker, S. | Year: 2012
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers built computer models to describe the interplay of kinematics (the motion of the limbs and joints) and kinetics (the effect of forces on that motion). The researchers found that climbing experience mattered for kinematics, that more experienced climbers extended their muscle fibers to a more optimal length, and that experienced climbers minimize fatigue whereas inexperienced climbers minimize the force applied on the joint.
REFERENCE: Sports Technology, Volume 5, 2012, Issue 3-4
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19346182.2012.749831?journalCode=rtec20
Influence of steep gradient supporting walls in rock climbing: biomechanical analysis
AUTHORS: Noe, Quaine, Martin | Year: 2001
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers looked at reaction forces and variations of rock climbing in vertical and overhanging positions, focusing on a quadrupedal state and a tripedal state. Researchers found that horizontal force on the overhang in the quadrupedal position was less important, suggesting that equilibrium was easier to maintain than on a vertical wall. The tripedal state had less extensive contralateral supporting force transfer in the overhanging position.
REFERENCE: Gait and Posture, Volume 13, Issue 2, April 2001, Pages 86–94
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966636200000989
The effect of body position and number of supports on wall reaction forces in rock climbing
AUTHORS: Quaine, Martin, Blanchi | Year: 1997
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers measured the effect of releasing the right hand from a quadrupedal posture in two positions: (1) close to the wall, and (2) away from the wall. In the close-to-wall position, the transfer of the force was smaller than when the body was further from the wall and force stayed on the right side of the body.
REFERENCE: Journal of Applied Biomechanics, Volume 13, Issue 1, Feb. 1997
http://journals.humankinetics.com/doi/abs/10.1123/jab.13.1.14