Research > Research Inventory > Biomechanics: Trunk
The exercise pressor response to indoor rock climbing
Authors: Callender NA, Hart PW, Ramchandani GM, Chaggar PS, Porter AJ, Billington CP, & Tiller NB. | Year: 2020
Summary/Results:
Six trained male climbers were tested on two boulders (6b and 7a) and three training exercises (isometric pull-ups, weighted pull-ups, and campus boarding) while researchers directly measured blood pressure and heart rate through an arterial line. Results showed climbing produced very large spikes in blood pressure and heart rate, with some readings exceeding those seen in rowing or even maximal weightlifting. The highest pressures appeared during longer, body-tension-heavy tasks like the campus board, and climbers often held their breath or braced the trunk, which magnified the effect. Because bracing and breath-holding restrict blood flow, these responses may also limit oxygen delivery to the forearms, worsening pump. The study suggests that not only finger loading but also systemic tension and breathing strategies shape the cardiovascular and muscular stress of climbing.
Beta Angel note: Classic study. Should be required reading for trainers. What’s striking is how much the trunk and breath drive this response. The study recorded one climber hitting 273/189 mmHg — more than double a normal resting blood pressure, and higher than many Olympic lifters under max load. For coaches, the nugget is that body tension isn’t “free”: over-bracing and holding your breath can cut blood flow to the fingers and amplify pump. Teaching climbers to alternate between finger-dominant rests (where the trunk stays on but fingers relax) and body-dominant rests (where the grip holds just enough while the trunk softens for deep breaths) could be key to keeping both systems from blowing out.
Reference:
Callender, N. A., Hart, P. W., Ramchandani, G. M., Chaggar, P. S., Porter, A. J., Billington, C. P., & Tiller, N. B. (2020). The exercise pressor response to indoor rock climbing. Journal of Applied Physiology, 129(2), 404–409.
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/japplphysiol.00357.2020
Effects of ten weeks dynamic or isometric core training on climbing performance among highly trained climbers
Author: AH Saeterbakken, E. Loken, S. Scott, E. Hermans, V. Vereide, V. Andersen | Year: 2018
Summary/Results: Study authors sought to compare how two different classes of core workouts affect both (a) core tests, and (b) climbing-specific core tests, in 18 advanced-elite (~5.11c – 5.13c) climbers. Against expectations, study authors found that the “dynamic” core training improved performance in three isometric core tests (trunk flexion and left/right rotation), while the “isometric” core training improved performance in one climbing-specific core test with dynamic trunk and hip action. Beta-Angel Note: On a practical note, the authors first recommend caution in interpreting the results but also: dynamic core-training to increase oblique muscle strength with isometric core training to increase the “functional transfer” of gains to climbing performance.
Reference: PLoS One. 2018 Oct 10;13(10):e0203766. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203766. eCollection 2018.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30303973
Biomechanics > Trunk
Spinal range of motion and plantar pressure in sport climbers
Author: Hawrylak A, Chromik K, Ratajczak B, Barczyk-Pawelec K, Demczuk-Włodarczyk E | Year: 2017
Summary/Results: Researchers tested both (1) lumbar (lower back) and thoracic (upper back) range of motion, and (2) differences in pressure between the front and rear of the foot in 30 sport climbers and 30 physical education students. The lower back was tested in terms of bending forward and backward, rotating, and lateral- or side-bending. Researchers found that compared to the 30 students, sport climbers had (in general) better range of motion. Additionally, sport climbers showed greater average pressure toward the front of the foot. Beta-Angel note: the authors suggest that ROM was worse in sport climbers for “extension, rotation, and lateral thoracic flexion” – however, this leaves only flexion (bending forward) across both the upper and lower back, and lateral lumbar flexion (bending sideways through the lower back), which suggests a more nuanced picture regarding the overall range of motion. Clarification may be helpful.
Reference: Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2017;19(2):169-173.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28869622
Environmental design shapes perceptual-motor exploration, learning, and transfer in climbing
AUTHORS: Ludovic Seifert,1,* Jérémie Boulanger,1,2 Dominic Orth,1,3 and Keith Davids4 | Year: 2015
SUMMARY/RESULTS: 20 handhold standardized routes were used for 9 male participants whereby the changed variable was the hold orientation (horizontal orientation, vertical, and mixed). Hip and trunk movement is exhibited more on vertical and mixed hold routes than on horizontal hold routes. Additionally, more practice on these types of routes contributes to “exploratory” (defined as more trunk and hip movement) movement. Additionally, more time is spent route finding on these types of climbs, assuming a sub-maximal grade for the route. Double-edged holds may offer a safe environment for hold exploration.
REFERENCE: Front Psychol. 2015; 6: 1819.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4658451/
Effects of climbing-wall inclination on trunk muscle activation during various static climbing positions: implications for therapeutic climbing
AUTHORS: L. Donath, C. Grzybowski, H. Wagner | Year: 2014
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers measured the activation of the trunk muscles on 13 non-climbers in various climbing positions using different handholds and wall angles. Training on an inclined wall will at over 12 degrees will help activate the trunk musculature, but lifting a hand seems to be further required to increase activation of the oblique muscles.
REFERENCE: 2nd International Rock Climbing Research Congress, Sep 2014.
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/441095_f52f11ccc489434bb70b78ee10563b95.pdf
Postural adaptations in female elite rock climbers: the “climber‘s back”
AUTHORS: L. Rolland, L. Allet, C.Linhart, J-L. Ziltener | Year: 2014
SUMMARY/RESULTS: Researchers measured the extent of mobility in climbers by measuring the shape of the back, and the lengths of muscles in the chest, legs and pelvis, in 39 women grouped into elite climber and non-climber categories. Climbers did not appear to have a curvature of the back typical of male climbers, but may have less mobility (compared to non-climbers) in the back, in addition to shorter muscle lengths in the pelvis and hamstrings.
REFERENCE: 2nd International Rock Climbing Research Congress, Sep 2014.
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/441095_f52f11ccc489434bb70b78ee10563b95.pdf