Image of Taylor rehabbing a torn meniscus (climbing-related) and his wife, Jennifer, climbing with a brace on after ACL surgery (climbing-related).
“THOUSANDS BREAK OR SPRAIN ANKLES IN LATEST GLOBAL SPORTS CRAZE”
Dr. Peter Buzzacott requested I share the following press release. He’s the author of a 2019 study titled “Rock Climbing Injuries Treated in US Emergency Departments, 2008-2016.”
THOUSANDS BREAK OR SPRAIN ANKLES IN LATEST GLOBAL SPORTS CRAZE An international team researching rock climbing injuries have found the number seen in Emergency Departments doubled in just the last nine years. Their article in the latest issue of the journal Wilderness and Environmental Medicine reports the number is now almost 5,000 per year in the US alone. Fractures were the most common injury, at 27%, followed by sprains and strains at 26%. Falls were the most common cause of the injuries, with broken ankles the most common fracture. With the growth in popularity of indoor climbing gyms and competition climbing included as one of next year’s Olympic sports, the researchers fear the number of serious injuries will likely continue to grow. “We encourage all rock climbers to wear the appropriate safety gear, gain experience gradually and, most importantly,…” said Dr Jim Chimiak, one of the study’s co-authors, “we recommend everyone focus on a good belay. At least 60% of these injuries were from falling and a quarter of those falls were from a height more than 6m (20ft). Proper belay techniques, training for falls and optimizing the use of (protection) gear is essential.” A belay is where a climber is attached by a rope to an anchored climbing buddy who can arrest a fall before impact. The youngest climber in this study was 7 years old and the eldest was 77, but the great majority were around 25 years of age. While most climbing injuries do not require a visit to the Emergency Department, that many thousands of active rock climbers are presenting at Emergency Departments with sometimes serious injuries is of grave concern to the research team, who admit they cannot tell whether the growth in rock climbing injuries is because climbers are trying riskier manoeuvres, or because of recent growth in the popularity of rock climbing, a problem known as the “newbie syndrome”.
Chris Neve, Director of Canada Strong Climbing, Youth Development Coordinator for Climbing Escalade Canada (CEC) and Coach for Canada’s Youth National Climbing Team, has invited me (Taylor Reed) to moderate a discussion of climbing research to coaches in August. Below is the official poster for the conference.
I’ll be joining Chris as well as presenters Steve Bechtel (Strength & Conditioning), Dr. Jared Vagy (Injury Prevention), and Kelly Drager (Nutrition and Integrated Support Team). I’m excited for this opportunity, and hope you can come out and join us.
It looks like Chris will be doing something different this year, with the presentations having significantly more time for targeted discussion. I think this will be a fantastic opportunity to not only learn but push our understanding of the sport forward, and I look forward to taking what I learn back to the research community. I hope I get the opportunity to see you there! Here’s the website.
This past week, Michael Francis Brooks had me on his radio show (CLIMBTALK Radio 1190) so I could speak to his listeners about the expansion of science in climbing. I’m still learning how to chat on radio, but take a listen if you have 14 minutes. It starts around 18 minutes and lasts until minute 32. I learned a lot from doing this radio show, and I’m excited to work on my talking points.
The following is the website version of the March Newsletter – Click this link to subscribe so you can be updated automatically. We promise not to bother you often. 😉
New Section on the Beta Angel Website
While a lot of climbing research looks backward, some research studies test experimental protocols to see what kind of effect they have over time. Since the articles often write up the protocols in a fairly in-depth manner, I decided to reproduce that training for your benefit. Take a look at the first three training protocols, which include finger strength, contact strength, and core training. SEE EXPERIMENTAL TRAINING
Talent development data from a winning program is in!
The Bend Endurance Academy recently did really well at the USA Climbing Bouldering Youth National Championships (placing 8th out of 88 teams), and now we have some data on what makes their program effective. If you don’t remember the TDEQ, it takes past research on all of the non-sport specific “environmental” factors that influence elite athlete development and provides information on it in an easy-to-digest format. Bend Endurance Academy’s coach and I collaborated on the analysis and I wrote it up, in the hopes that you can take advantage. Enjoy! READ MORE
Consulting at the Bouldering Youth National Championships
The Beta Angel Project’s Director went to Bend, Oregon to consult with a handful of youth athletes at the USA Climbing Bouldering Youth National Championships.The job of a coach at these events often involves: (1) preparing athletes physically and mentally; (2) monitoring events that may require an understanding of performance issues and technical rules, and; (3) discussing new ideas and future improvement with coaches and competitors. Below are pictures of Taylor with three athletes he regularly consults with: Arabella Jariel, Charlie Osborne, and Abigail Humber. SEE CONSULTING SERVICES >
Sent from Collaborators
Tom Randall over at Lattice Training sent me a fantastic article on how we should potentially rethink how ‘atrophy’ and ‘cell death’ work. The suggestion in the article is that the cells may not be entirely gone. Since individuals frequently undergo a ‘cycle’ of muscle development and degeneration, past cell degeneration may be an advantage for later improvement. I sent the article over to a few people, including Eva López, for possible practical applications to climbing. SEE THE ARTICLE ON THE “FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY” WEBSITE
Updates to the Research Inventory
Help make the content on the Beta Angel Project a living resource! If you want me to qualify or change anything in these summaries, contact me!
As the Beta Angel Project has reached the end of its first full year of existence, I wanted to reflect back on a few quantitative and qualitative observations from the previous year, as well as some strategic insights.
In January, I am finally getting around to a creative approach I took to some data. I basically dived into how climbers rest across the course of a route, and how different it can be even for climbers who are really good. That, and an update to Beta Angel’s PubMed Search Strategy (how we find all the articles in the research inventory) from giant of climbing medicine Dr. Volker Schöffl, are available in the Data Collection section.
I published a story on Rock & Ice’s website about my trip to Tokyo, Japan to learn from the Japanese and Russian National Teams. While there, I got a chance to brief the teams on the state of speed climbing science. That article can be viewed here. I enjoyed my time in Japan immensely, learned an enormous amount about how the Japanese National Team is preparing for the Olympics, and made some great friends. Something that didn’t make it into the article is that I participated in a time honored tradition and exchanged shirts with a Russian climbing coach. Thanks Stas!
I added a consulting section to my website. If you need direction, analysis of climbing movement, and/or specific guidance about how to approach your training, get in contact with me.
Science & Community
And I added a section to my website dedicated to the relationships I’m exploring with training communities. It’s called Science & Community. There’s a lot of practical stuff there as we learn better how to bridge science and practice. If you’re interested in having me take a small part in your community, either through a single topic or an ongoing relationship, reach out.
“… to understand the complex nature of talent development, researchers and practitioners must look beyond the individual athlete and include the environment in their investigations and practice.” – Henriksen, Stambulova, and Roessler in Riding the Wave of an Expert (2011)
Climbing needs to up its game. Lately, I’ve been reading talent development studies to understand what researchers of more established sports are doing to understand the factors which contribute to success. One approach these researchers use is looking at the overall environment, as opposed to the specific individual, to understand success at the elite level. Today, I’m going to tell you about an easy-to-use questionnaire that can help us better facilitate success in our sport’s athletes – both at the elite level and below.
The Talent Development Environment Questionnaire (TDEQ) is a tool used by researchers and practitioners to assess whether the athlete’s environment can be more supportive than it currently is. I found it useful because there are 59 questions, and each question is based on peer-reviewed research with supporting evidence. Below I’m going to provide you with instructions for the questionnaire as well as some potential uses. But first, here’s a look at one part of the questionnaire:
The first step is to provide the questionnaire to an athlete. Each of the 59 questions is classified under 7 different overall headings, called “factors.” The factors are:
Does development facilitate long-term success;
Communication between coach and athlete;
The coach’s understanding of the athlete;
The athlete’s support network;
The challenges and supports in the environment, and;
Key features of the foundations of development.
Each question is answered on a 6-point scale from “agree strongly” to “disagree strongly”. Several of the questions are reversed, however, so that an answer of “Strongly agree” actually ranks a higher score (6) rather than a lower score (1). A lower overall score is better. In theory it’s possible to score as low as a 59 (all questions scored as a 1) or as high as a 354 (all questions scored a 6).
I spoke with Dr. Russell Martindale by e-mail, the researcher involved with developing the questionnaire. He recommended the easiest way to use the questionnaire is to have the athlete fill it out and then go over any items that are answered in a concerning way (e.g. such as a “5” or “6” on the scale) which may indicate weaknesses or areas for improvement. He also recommended highlighting which areas are strengths for the athlete.
I gave this questionnaire to a few of my athletes, scored them, and then sat down with them. They said it took about 15-25 minutes to complete. Scoring their answers took me only 5 minutes but speaking with them about 10-20 of those answers took about 1-2 hours. As a result, there is ample opportunity to turn this into a great multi-session opportunity to improve the athlete’s overall environmental structure of success.
I was primarily concerned with answers in the 4, 5, and 6 range, which usually (but not always) were associated with disagreeing with the question. On a few items, like “My coach is good at helping me to understand my strengths and weaknesses in my sport,” one of the kids who I consult with only “agreed a little” – a score of 3. This athlete has multiple coaches and I happen to pride myself on analysis of strengths and weaknesses. I was expecting a 1 or a 2 and instead had a rude awakening. Surprised I admitted this? Please don’t be. The Beta Angel Project prides an open culture to improve. It turned out, I had been teaching this athlete advanced concepts but had neglected to provide them feedback on what they were good and bad at. Mea culpa.
You don’t necessarily need to score the entire questionnaire to make use of it. In fact, coaches can simply read the questions to get an idea of what they could be doing differently without ever handing it to one of their students. This questionnaire provided a significant amount of personal reflection for me.
One challenge you may come across is trying to figure out how to prioritize the weaknesses or areas of improvement. Possibilities to prioritize include:
Prioritizing within factors. Look at the order of questions. The questions are ranked based on a statistical method called “factor analysis”, which essentially determines how important each question is to the factor. If you have two questions which ranked poorly, and one is the first question and the other is the tenth question, then consider prioritizing the first question.
Another area of interest may be comparing between athletes or comparing athletes between sports if you happened to have scores from other sports. This may help us determine what environmental problems are more prevalent in climbing.
Comparing between factors. If you score each of the factors separately, you might be able to get a sense of the relative priority. However, you would at the very least have to change each score into a percentage to compare due to differing numbers of questions per factor, and even then, it’s not what’s called an “apples-to-apples” comparison so consider this option last.
I wanted to know whether it would be acceptable to use this tool with climbers, so I asked Dr. Martindale. Dr. Martindale wrote to me: “Although it is clear that there are sport or context specific elements of development environments, the TDEQ is not designed to capture these. The only caveat to that, is that climbing wasn’t one of the sports that was used to develop the questionnaire. However, until there is something else more applicable, then I would say it is useful to use it.”
Dr. Martindale gave me a few papers on how researchers are diving into specific environments in order to analyze the elite level of a particular sport. These research studies include soccer (sorry, Dr. Martindale, U.S. audience) where researchers in the UK used this questionnaire to analyze the characteristics of that particular sport; and kayaking, where Danish and Swedish researchers used one analytical lens to describe the kayak-specific environment, and a second analytical lens to identify what factors provide the specific environment (in this case, a kayaking school) its success.
To make a long story short, researchers in the climbing world now have a new tool to analyze climbing success and coaches have a new tool to help their athletes. I recently provided the questionnaire to James (name changed to protect the innocent), a head coach at a climbing gym. James and I had a phone call discussion after he had gone through the questionnaire with some of his athletes. James not only found highlighting the strengths of an athlete’s environment to be particularly helpful, he was able to identify trends for improvement across multiple athletes. I was pleasantly surprised at several innovative approaches and resources he developed for his program as a result of using the questionnaire.
We have a great opportunity to keep pushing our sport and validated research can help light the way. It’s not perfect for our sport yet, but who knows, maybe an enterprising researcher will read this and decide to change that. Perhaps it’s my next project. Dr. Russell’s research is available to be read for free at this link.
What have I been up to today? Skip to the end to read my opinions about this research within the context of strength training for climbing overall.
Today, I worked on re-writing a short summary of one of the most important research contributions to date on the impact of strength training to climbing performance. The summary I had originally written wasn’t particularly good. I didn’t have access to the article so what I wrote reflected my own confusion over the training protocols. Thankfully, a beta angel eventually sent me a copy of the research so I could peruse it. However, it also represented a learning situation for me.
Espen Hermans, the Norwegian researcher who worked on the study, had e-mailed me months ago to help me but unfortunately I hadn’t returned his e-mail. I may have had over a dozen projects and a full-time job at the time, but I pushed back replying because I had struggled to understand. I normally respond quickly to researchers and climbers who contact me, but I failed on this one. Rather than ignore the fact that I was dense and slow, I’ve decided to constructively chastise myself by doing a short write-up and showcasing my mistakes, along with the research, to the world. The older pre-change summary is transcribed below:
The effects of high resistance-few repetitions and low resistance-high repetitions resistance training on climbing performance
Author: E. Hermans, V. Andersen, AH Saeterbakken | Year: 2016 Summary/Results: Researchers tested the impact of two experimental protocols: a high-resistance, low-repetition protocol vs. a low-resistance, high-repetition protocol in low- and intermediate-grade climbers over the course of ten weeks. The study also included a group that climbed/trained as “usual”, and all groups had their training controlled for intensity. While both experimental protocols showed improvement in climbing performance in spite of a 50% reduction in climbing, the improvement was not statistically significant. Beta-Angel note: We’re particularly interested in how this related to the control (“usual” climbing) group. However, we don’t have access. Note, the same author who completed “Effect of maximal- and local muscular endurance strength training on climbing performance and climbing-specific strength in recreational climbers: a randomized controlled trial” was also responsible for this study. More information on the protocols and results would be helpful. Please contact us. Reference:Eur J Sport Sci. 2017 May;17(4):378-385. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27863457
And here is the new summary:
Summary/Results: Researchers tested the impact of two protocols: a high-resistance, low-repetition protocol vs. a low-resistance, high-repetition protocol in low- and intermediate-grade climbers over the course of ten weeks. The exercises included pull-down, bench press, rowing, shoulder press, biceps curl, forearm press and forearm curl. The study also included a group that climbed/trained as “usual”, and all groups had their training controlled for intensity. Tests for performance as a result of the intervention included: climbing performance on a route, time of a 90° bent-arm hang, time of a 25 mm deadhang, and a 12 repetition pull down on a machine. While both protocols suggested improvement in climbing performance in spite of a 50% reduction in climbing, the improvement was not statistically significant. It may be more accurate to say that they “maintained” climbing performance in spite of a drop in climbing volume. Interestingly, improvement was significant for the deadhang tests across both experimental groups (however, this effect was mitigated by a post-test analysis that controls for statistical errors). Beta-Angel note: UPDATE! Received the paper! Psyched! Note, this is the same author as that of “Effect of maximal- and local muscular endurance strength training on climbing performance and climbing-specific strength in recreational climbers: a randomized controlled trial” which was presented at the IRCRA conference in 2016.
More importantly, however, is that this write-up was sent to Espen and he thought I captured the right aspects of his work. If he had hated it, thought I missed something; preferred I emphasize something else, he then could have e-mailed me and said: “Taylor, you’re being dense.” Then it’s my job to get that information to the practitioners: athletes, coaches, climbers who want to strength train, Fjord horses. My audience all.
Now, please don’t go run and take this blog post to your nearest Coach and say: “Look, Taylor showed me research that proves strength training doesn’t improve climbing performance!” That is NOT what this particular study was designed to prove. The most interesting aspect of this research was how climbing performance was able to be maintained IN SPITE OF a drop in climbing volume in both protocol groups.
Science is and always must be iterative. The author of the above study recognized a number of issues with their own work, including a smaller than desired sample size, low climbing volume among the experimental and control groups, and an inability to prove their hypothesis that their particular strength and/or endurance training protocols definitely improve climbing performance. We must all be reflective on our time and work so that science builds.
And in spite of the author’s constructive criticisms of their own work, this research is really fascinating! It is much more nuanced than my simple summary can do justice. The interesting insights came in numerous places: it used a route with progressive changes in difficulty to assess climbing performance over the period of the study, but didn’t stop there, preferring a suite of measures to test aspects directly related to climbing performance. The actual analysis is top notch, and they ran post-analysis checks to protect against certain statistical errors. And most importantly, it’s a new protocol which can be used again and improved. The authors suggest that future changes could:
“Emphasize the importance of having similar climbing training volume between the training groups;”
“Include participants with a better climbing performance level,” and;
“Examine training interventions with greater transferability and specificity than the current study by focus[ing] on local forearm fatigue training.”
Indeed, a community of climbers I am involved in saw the summary and made some constructive comments. Former Bouldering national champion, Sports Medicine Expert, and champion of strength training, Dr. Natasha Barnes, suggested that it could be interesting to do the same protocol with free weights as opposed to machine-based exercises to see how the results change.
I recently began a collaboration with Tom Randall from Lattice Coaching and Training. Here is the post which we collaborated on, as well as some of the practical options and considerations which the Lattice Climbing community came up (see the “from Taylor” section at the end) with to help develop provide a direction for additional Rate of Force Development (RFD)-related protocols.
Recently we’ve been in touch with Taylor at the Beta Angel Project about a cross-collaboration. We’d noticed that he’s equally as psyched about climbing research as we are!
To introduce you to his work we’re going to start on a very popular topic: the rate of force development in the fingers, or what is commonly thought of as contact strength.
While this is a relatively new measurement, compared to assessing finger strength, there is some existing work on the subject. Below is a short synopsis of the research. It’s a little over-simplified but hopefully communicates the information.
If you’re short for time then the key points are:
Rate of Force Development (RFD) is a relevant indicator of climbing performance when it is measured later in the contraction phase.
At least one protocol has been tested on elite-level Boulderers and was found to be effective.
It may be a good measure of fatigue in Lead Climbers, as well as a discriminator of skill level in Boulderers.
If you love delving into the details then read on!
Researchers have measured the RFD at different points in the contact of the hold. Working with the French National Team they have designed a specific protocol and have found that the measure may have utility in measuring fatigue in the fingers. They have compared how this measure (and other more traditional measures) fare when correlated against climbing performance. They have also looked at how training RFD may transfer between grip types. A collection of the existing research on this subject is available on Beta Angel.
Two articles (Levernier & Laffaye, and Vereide et al.) presented at the 2018 International Rock Climbing Research Association conference in Chamonix, France are not in the inventory yet as they are not available to the public. Both papers looked at different ways of measuring RFD to find out which worked best, such as Average RFD, Relative Peak RFD, RFD at 95% of maximum finger force, and an interval of time blocks between 0-300 ms. They found that Average RFD associated well with performance and that the best associations with climbing performance happened later in the contraction. They concluded that lead climbing isn’t a particularly explosive sport when it comes to contraction, but that there are major distinctions between skill levels when it comes to bouldering (possibly more so than finger strength).
So what do you think of this research? Where can it go and how can we use it? A few questions Taylor thought we might be interested in: is it worth trying to improve the logistics of measuring RFD and incorporate it into Lattice’s suite of measures? Do you see relevance for it as a measure of fatigue in addition to its use as a measure related to finger strength? Given the relationship with the speed of contraction and other climbing-related injury research suggesting potential associations between shock-loading and injury, he is also curious how the training community perceives the risk (possibly at different skill levels).
The resulting conversation trended to the practical: how do we train it. The community considered three protocols but also how to measure the fatigue aspect. The three protocols were as follows:
(1) A hangboarding protocol used on the French National Team which was built and studied by researchers.
(2) Campus Boarding
(3) Limit bouldering (possible with a carefully-designed System Board)
The Hangboarding protocol from the Levernier/Laffaye research had a 40 minute careful warm-up with time to familiarize themselves with the test edges, and they controlled for circadian rhythm and temperature. It involved a one-arm hang at a 90 degree lock-off. An update from the lead researcher showed me that they trained on two different grip types (open-hand, half-crimp) but measured three: open-hand, half-crimp and a full crimp. The grips were apparently between 25 – 6 mm. If they held for longer than 6 seconds, the researchers would increase the difficulty by changing the hold. If they fell below 120 degrees of flexion in the elbow, the attempt was discontinued. The fact that the researchers appeared to be careful about attempting to monitor and minimize injury, and that this has only been used on elite-level Boulderers, led me to be reticent regarding recommending this particular protocol in the absence of an experienced trainer.
The community also discussed campus boarding. One note I made to the community regarding the campus board was the potential I’ve anecdotally noticed for climbers to treat a campus board as more of a lock-off and gentle “grab” rather than a fast reaction requiring a quick “hit”. On the one hand a “lock-off” may increase the time on the anchored hand, but it could also increase the time of the contact which may not be productive. On the other hand, injury research is pretty clear that a shockload in a crimp position is one of the primary mechanisms of injury to the pulleys. I also had questions: “would doing a small move then a big move be better? The reverse? A double clutch? I’m not familiar enough with the RFD literature from other sports to even hazard an “evidence-based” guess.”
The idea of limit bouldering (LB) represented interesting potential. Only doing a handful of moves at your maximum would simulate the 4-6 second max contraction, although it might also increase the uncontrolled nature of the shockloading. Additionally, the community was concerned about measuring it for reproducible results. The community recommended combining LB with a carefully-designed, possibly symmetrical system board which could improve the measurement potential by allowing “control of hold size, move distance, and and problem creation” (Lattice Community Discussion). It could also provide more specificity to climbing. The Lattice Trainers considered the possibility of looking at a force plate combined with a climbing hold. I noted that the researchers of the French National Team study used a “Power Grip Manipulandum” dynanometer.
Lastly, we looked at a few of the results of some studies which suggested that RFD may fatigue quicker than maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). One community member thought it may be useful to look at the ratio of MVC to best boulder problem. He/she hypothesized that as an imprecise but potentially suggestive metric: “Climbers with a high MVC but low max send might indicate underlying strength without the ability to turn it on quickly. In those climbers training RFD might be more important. High send, low MVC…might mean more hang boarding to raise MVC, less campus/limit bouldering” (Lattice Community Discussion).
It was an interesting discussion. I look forward to more work with the Lattice Training Community.
In a small town of 9,000 permanent residents and 80,000 hotel beds nestled in the conifer-forested Alps and towered over by the 15,777 ft. “White Mountain” or Mont Blanc, climbers from 29 countries came to nerd out, climb, and drink wine. And the Beta Angel Project partook in all of the above. I wish I could highlight all of the research, but this article is focused on the research that is the most practical for my needs as a climbing coach. However, there are some pieces of research (notably RFD and hangboarding) I remain cautious about as a youth coach even as I note their utility for older athletes. Additionally, the intent of this summary is not to point out flaws in any of the research – there were plenty of challenging questions to researchers at the conference, most of them warranted. Rather, it’s to give you a taste of how I intend to be a little more creative in my approach to high-end athletes on both rock and in competition.
Science, and its application toward practice, builds. I may get something wrong here, or I may go further than the researcher intended. If you are a researcher or climber and have a question, comment, clarification, or … most important, a practical consideration associated with the research, please e-mail me at Taylor@beta-angel.com. In September of 2018, I’ll be publishing any comments I get to my website’s spotlight section: https://beta-angel.com/spotlight/. I’ll include responses in an attempt to be as transparent as possible.
Foresight into Training
Before we get into the research itself, let’s imagine for a moment, how a coach might see the practical implications of the work he viewed at a research conference. Arabella is six clips up a sport route. Through her earpiece, Arabella’s coach whispers an oxygen stat he’s monitoring from the ground which is being fed from a non-cumbersome cordless monitor on her forearm. He presses a button and a hold lights up to her left which she transitions over to. After a minute of recovery the hold switches colors and a new path up the wall is illuminated. The route has changed to suit her physiological needs. She finishes the route, and lowers off. Her coach sets a tablet in front of her transfers his eye tracking data to it from the glasses he’s wearing. Arabella watches herself climb; a shrink-wrapped cone maneuvers around her while climbing fluency statistics pop up on the screen for hip jerk, geometric entropy, and stationary time on the route. Her eyes flit back-and-forth in split-screen mode to a previous attempt where she’s able to compare measures of fluency. Little clouds of green, orange, and red coalesce around certain parts of her body as she moves, indicating the eye tracking technology her coach uses to track what he’s looking at any given time.
The route Arabella is training on has been specially-crafted with both ergonomic holds and route-setting designed to avoid injury. However, sometimes you push it just a little too hard. Jennifer has her feet on a specially-designed platform and she monitors the amount of force being put into the hangboard through an app on her phone connected to the platform which is electronically adjusted for her weight. She’s using a protocol that involves one arm hangs in order to shore up weaknesses in her non-dominant arm. She finishes the set and steps off the platform, placing her forearms into a specially-modified cold water bucket that allows her fingers to stay above the water but helps her forearms recover between sub-maximal hangboarding which stresses her fatigue resistance. Jennifer isn’t sure if she should continue her protocol due to a tweak in her finger. The gym she’s at has a professional physio who’s there during major training periods to monitor athletes and take questions from gym members. The physio tests Jennifer’s finger using a series of pinches, palpations, flexion/extension, and questions about pain developed by national level climbing team physios. Jennifer is told to cease hangboarding for the night but that that the injury is minor and she’ll be able to get back to climbing shortly using the physio’s evidence-based rehab protocol.
The physio returns to monitoring Darren who is about to race up a speed wall. Darren shouts encouragement to Jennifer: “You’ll come back stronger than ever!” Jennifer shouts back: “You’re going to break 6 seconds before I’m hangboarding again. You’re so close!” Darren’s coach flips two drones on which track Darren from the side and from the back. Darren sails up the wall. Each hold he touches measure split times and the drones tracking him provide three dimensional data relayed to his coach. The coach checks the data against a model who uses the same beta to identify areas of improvement.
The preceding three paragraphs followed potential training ideas for the three disciplines of the Olympic combined format: lead climbing, bouldering, and speed climbing. Every single idea within those paragraphs is technically possible at this point, and shouldn’t stress your imagination too much. What they represent are areas coaches, athletes and normal gym members have been challenged by: getting finger diagnoses, more effective hangboard protocols, ways to measure climbing efficiency and technical effectiveness, and improving the accuracy and uptake of information.
Trends in Research
The 2020 Tokyo Olympics
The significance that the international community is placing on the Olympic combined format should have been obvious to anyone in attendance. Marco Scolaris, President of the International Federation of Sport Climbing (IFSC), opened the conference to discuss the history of how climbing was recognized as an Olympic sport, while Pierre-Henry Paillasson (French Federation of Mountaineering and Climbing – FFME) opened the training day to discuss training for the Olympics. There was also a keynote by famed climber Marc Le Menestrel. Yasui Hiroshi, the Japanese national team’s head coach, came out to discuss Japan’s “secret training” for all three disciplines. In addition, there were three presentations on the Olympics, from the medical considerations to the performance structure to an analysis of the controversy in France.[i] There was also at least one panel which touched on the Olympics.
Injury research: still ahead | Canada, Germany, and Switzerland
Pulley injuries make up a majority of finger injuries but they don’t represent all finger injuries. Researchers are both deepening our understanding of how to treat pulleys but also diving into other areas of finger pain. Isabelle Schöffl introduced a new method for reducing potential loss in bone integrity after a pulley surgery.[ii] “So what’s it called?” I asked. “I haven’t named it!” she replied. She laughed appreciatively when I reminded her that everything needs a name.
So what are those other areas of injury that need some thought? They inlude the lumbrical muscles. Conservative therapy (see Figure) was shown to have success on tears to the lumbrical muscles, which occur usually after pocket pulling of the ring or middle fingers in isolation. A Canadian presented a case study on the second surgical stimulation of an epiphyseal (growth plate) fracture after 9 months of pain in a 13 year old elite climber.[iii] A Swiss team identified the cause of these fractures as coming from bone movement on either side of the PIP (second joint back from the tip of the finger) joint during crimping.[iv] Additionally, a survey of 18 adolescents with 22 epiphyseal fractures showed that the adolescents had an average age of 14.1, that the injury was overwhelmingly in the middle finger during use of the crimp grip, and that all received their fractures during the period where they were growing the quickest, with bouldering being the most “remembered circumstance of the injury.”[v] The authors also suggested that smaller numbers of growth plate injuries in females may be due to different levels of a particular hormone (in addition to the fact that more males climb).
Field Medics | Austria, Canada, Germany and the United States
The doctors are concerned about the field! With a medical doctor power team (Germany and Canada) recommending more careful, evidence-based, sports-specific medical supervision of elite sport climbers in their review of the new Olympic discipline, one librarian and two practitioners stepped up to provide some great information for medical practitioners. [vi] The two physios, associated with their respective country’s national teams, provided practical ways of assessing climbing injuries, and the librarian looked at where climbers get their injury information from. The librarian identified where we as climbers are looking for injury care and prevention. Injury-care information came from: “a general health website (47.4%), general doctor (42.1%), a climbing-related website (39.5%), and a friend (39.5%).[vii] Injury prevention on the other hand mostly came from climbing-related magazines and friends (56.7% each). Of particular interest for me: “participants in this questionnaire did not consult a climbing coach.” My key takeaway: coaches, gyms, and physios can do better to integrate their work.
Can you field diagnose the severity of an A2 injury? Carrie Cooper from the USA provided a diagnosis guide for the A2 pulley involving four steps: (1) pain using a 0-10 scale, (2) active range of motion from extension to crimp and back, (3) resistance tests of the flexor muscles and the A2 using specific grip positions, and (4) palpation of the finger at the A2.[viii] Klaus Isele from Austria developed a pilot protocol based on osteopathic (addressing the interrelationship of the body’s nerves, muscles, bones and organs)[ix] therapy when climbers present with finger pain. Klaus requires 48 hours of break from climbing and three optional treatment methods: increasing traction (or pulling) force of the joint, triggering the sensitive points on the finger (e.g. at muscle insertions), and engagement of the finger while under pressure.[x] Klaus has been on the World Cup competition circuit for years but is perhaps best known as the gentleman supporting Adam Ondra during his epic ascent of Silence (5.15d).
More Power, Please | Belgium, France, and Poland
Who hasn’t heard a climber say: “I need more power”? Please contact me and invite me to your island. I was pleased to see Polish researchers validate the use of “post-activation potentiation”, (sometimes known as complex training but not to be confused with coordinated-muscle resistance training) with climbing-related workouts. By beginning a workout with hard resistance training, the climber gets a small window of time in which the muscle can take advantage of explosive training, such as the use of plyometric training. The Polish researchers who did the study used 5 pull ups with weight at about 85% of their one repetition maximum followed by a 4 minute rest, then a campus-like exercise involving three maximal reaches (10 second rest between each) which saw average improvement of 3.11 cm.[xi] We’ve known about these tools within the context of other explosive sports, such as sprinting and jumping, but this is the first time I’ve seen a study with a climbing protocol.
Power has a technical component, however. A collaboration between Belgian and French researchers analyzed coordination between the lower body and the upper body during dynamic movement.[xii] They compared the ankle, knee, and hip between a dynamic movement and a squat jump, and also compared the shoulder, elbow, and wrist between a dynamic movement and an explosive pull up. They found the points at which joint angle changed in relation to the time of the dynamic move. Their work has implications for the ankle and shoulder in generating more effective movement and power generation.
Contact Strength | Norway and France
In my review of 2017 research for Rock & Ice I mentioned a relatively new measure known as the rate of force production (RFD), which is more or less a way of measuring power in the fingers. Think of power as strength combined with speed. The Norwegians came in and demonstrated multiple measurements for RFD, and showed that the best correlation to climbing performance came in the later phases of force development (after 100 milliseconds, with increasing correlation up to and past 300 milliseconds), similar to jumping but distinct from sprinting. In other words, climbers require more time to generate force.[xiii] The French, not to be one-upped, measured a protocol of RFD on the French national bouldering team. Their four week protocol (which I described in my post on Rock & Ice) was sufficient to increase RFD for elite boulderers. One of their more interesting suggestions was that it may not be necessary to train in the full crimp grip to increase RFD in that position.[xiv]
Climbers love their hangboards | The Czech Republic and France
While RFD is showing promise, researchers also looked more in-depth at traditional finger strength measurement. For example, ever wondered about the effect of a hangboard on the fingers and pull-ups? What is the difference between pull-ups on a large climbing hold and a gym bar? The researchers found that combining hangboarding use with pull ups allows you to train finger force capacity even if the force applied through your fingers are inferior to their maximal capacities. Additionally, pulling up on a smaller hold may provide less value for your pulling muscles due to a slow-down in pulling ability, potentially to compensate for body swing and movement.[xv] This finding has implications for finding a balance between maximizing power with the upper arms and gaining finger and/or contact strength. Positive effects include greater forearm fatigue resistance training as the hold size goes down. Finally, pulling up on a large climbing hold may be more specific than a gym bar because it requires compensation of body movement more similar to climbing.
Climbers are apparently good at cheating when it comes to measuring finger force. Many of the climbers across multiple studies confounded researchers by being particularly good at increasing the amount of force they could generate into a force plate by manipulating their shoulder or elbow to increase torque. As a result, there were a few side conversations regarding the relatability of finger strength data when not controlling the position of the arm.
Eva Lopez, arguably the most thoughtful human being on hangboard training, was in attendance. She presented on a finding that showed lower strength climbers take more advantage of fingerboard training (both in endurance and strength) than higher strength climbers, and also that “the smaller strength gains obtained by [Higher Strength Climbers] were paired with a reduction in endurance.”[xvi] The positive effect of cold water immersion on hangboarding may also be impacted by the strength of the climber. Perhaps surprisingly, cold water on your forearms may increase your performance in hangboarding under some circumstances. One study sought to clarify a previous finding on the effect of cold water (59°F) on hangboard training. Hangboard protocols to exhaustion which use a cold water protocol may increase the time to exhaustion on the second, and to a lesser extent, third set.[xvii] The effect did not apply to everyone, however, and the researchers hypothesize that it’s more likely that better climbers can take advantage of this protocol, likely due to adaptive structures in the forearm.
Recovery on the route | The United Kingdom and the USA
Adaptive structures in the climber’s forearm built around oxygenation are integral to climbing performance. This research conference showed just how important oxygenation is to climbing. From Simon Fryer’s work in understanding oxidative capacity and the restoration of haemogloblin within the muscle tissue (for more on this, see my summary of 2017 research on Rock & Ice’s website), to Eric Hörst’s assertion to close out the symposium’s training day that the forearm’s role in our sport is unique in the sporting world given the size of the muscle, the use of isometric forces during sustained and repeating contractions, the closing down of the larger blood pathways (called “occlusion”) and the role of high capillarity and mitochondrial density.[xviii] Eric moved to refer to sport climbing “as an intermittent near-maximal effort activity” which requires short bursts of explosive movement using the anaerobic alactic system punctuated by multiple-but-short and/or fewer-but-long periods of recovery which take advantage of the aerobic energy system.
Collaborative Speed Smarts | France
Speed climbers may benefit from research more than other forms of climbing due to the fact that the route doesn’t change (at least for now). This means researchers are learning a lot about movement and timing. French work has been facilitated by excellent access to one of the top speed climbers; Anouck Jaubert, and her coach Sylvain Chapelle, who gave a presentation about his training methods.[xix] These researchers identified 8 sections of the current speed climb, each with unique dynamics: the start, the turn, the first acceleration, the first dyno, the second acceleration, the second dyno, the last three holds, and the final move.[xx] Then they identified how energy produced from each acceleration phase (start, first, and second acceleration) is removed due to the turn phase, the first dyno, and the second dyno, and believe this knowledge can be used to work on reducing the impact of these phases on acceleration. Relatedly, the Beta Angel Project did an analysis of a coach’s identification of speed “lag points” compared to a computer in order to help coach’s determine the extent to which they can “eyeball” these lag points. Additionally, these speed researchers implied that using a hip marker was a valid approximation of the climber’s center of mass, important because it’s a lot easier to track a hip marker than to estimate the center of mass using 3D mesh modeling. It is also an important aspect of climbing economy in sport routes and may alleviate future concerns about video analysis.[xxi]
Nutrition Up! | United States
The Beta-Angel Research Project’s inventory has only five articles on nutrition. This conference alone had four more, including one survey that looked at the eating habits of female rock climbers and compared them to other sports to get a sense of the relationship of climbers and food. In the survey of 604 climbers (116 of which were female) 17% of females appeared to have “disordered eating,” defined as abnormal eating behavior.[xxii] When the researchers looked at just the most advanced female climbers, the number reporting disordered eating increased to 43% (9 of 21). As a community, we have struggled with understanding how eating affects climbing. While Mary, Cate, and Missy at Crux Crush posted an analysis of a survey on body image several years back, this is the first survey (to my knowledge) to quantify the prevalence of abnormal eating in climbing.
Build the brain, up and out | France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom
Expert coaches can help us understand the key inputs to climbing mental strength. Researchers from Spain and the United Kingdom sought to identify these factors: basic processes to capture and process information, such as creativity and learning ability, motivational aspects such as self-realization and autonomy, and emotional mechanisms, including self-regulation and frustration tolerance.[xxiii] Other measured factors include the idea of “vigilance”, defined as the ability to sustain attention and important in previous research which suggested that the reduction of cognitive resources may impact rock climbing performance. [xxiv] Indeed, the researchers found an association between climbing ability and scoring highly on a test of the ability to “maintain attention over time and the ability to respond appropriately to relevant stimuli” when testing intermediate to elite climbers.
Moving to a level of analysis beyond the individual, a sport psychologist from France approached the athlete’s mental game holistically. He is integrating the work of the athlete with the work of the coaches and the overarching federation by looking at factors which impact across all three levels. These factors include coaching and organizational stressors which affect the athlete, and the interrelationship of goal setting between the three.[xxv] This research has immense practical potential even at the local commercial gym’s team level, where a gym and team member may have very little direct communication but may impact and become impacted upon by one another.
Changing strategy in competition is a fine segue between the mental ability to understand the need to do something different and the physical ability to do it. I am personally a big fan of video analysis and data (so I am very pleasantly including a plug to growing the data collection section on my website). Researchers from Germany analyzed the rate of an athlete’s success on a boulder problem after either changing or not changing their strategy during a World Cup competition. They found that the rate of success in changing strategy was five times higher, depending on the attempt. Their advice? Quit after the third attempt if you can’t figure out a new idea![xxvi] While I may qualify this advice (especially in the case of a coordination move) from a practitioner’s standpoint to say consider spending more time thinking after your third attempt rather than quitting, I appreciated the creative categorization, use of video, and the quantification of attempts.
Measuring and Teaching Grace | Australia, France and the United Kingdom
Efficiency certainly has a mental component, but some researchers from the United Kingdom created a list of items which practitioners can use to help assess and teach the physical side of climbing fluency. The list includes 14 measures divided into 5 categories and based on a 5 point scale.[xxvii] These include “connection points” (2 measures; e.g. precision of feet), “transitioning” (4 measures; e.g. balance control), “coordination” (2 measures; e.g. movement initiation from lower or upper body), “technique” (2 measures; e.g. bent arms at inappropriate times), and “tactics” (4 measures; e.g. tempo or pace). The list appears to be a very practical way of assessing the quality of climbing movement and providing feedback in a structured way.
Slightly less practical but no less interesting, researchers are measuring climbing fluency through the use of accelerometers, inertial measurement units, and code to determine the amount of jerk in the hips, the amount of excess movement as you move up a route, the amount of time spent stationary on a route, the amount of time on a route, the amount of ‘exploratory’ vs. ‘performance-related’ movements used on a route, and others.[xxviii] While most of these measures are not new, researchers are looking at how these different examples of fluency are impacted by certain factors, like how they change across attempts on a route and ability level.[xxix] These conclusions will impact our ability to better maximize a given measure of economy on a route for a given ability level.
Climbing fluency is about more than just one measurement. A critical review of climbing economy measures found that a combination of measures (different combinations being helpful for each discipline) are necessary to measure fluency, and they must be paired with an attempt to understand a climber’s intentions, or in the words of Ludovic Seifert, the results “may be mistakenly concluded as dysfunctional.”[xxx][xxxi] Even just a basic understanding of many of these measures can help coaches and climbers learn how to better their own economy, and this represents an area ripe for translation to teaching.
Technology, growing | France, the Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom
Technology, like the aforementioned accelerometer or inertial measurement unit, is starting to get rather interesting and helping us measure. Companies like Beast Fingers and Lattice Training had members in attendance showing off research, and one enterprising young Canadian had a particularly novel set-up for a hangboard you heard about earlier in the “Foresight into Training” section. A website called “the Crag” is an online database with their own take on what goes into a “climber performance rating” system. An important sponsor for the conference was Luxov® (http://www.luxov-connect.com/en/home/), a leading hold manufacturer in Europe that had a tent set up for Chamonix’s lead and speed climbing World Cup. In the tent, they had a small section of the climbing speed wall set up with holds which took down split times between each hold.
Technology is helping us measure, and also helping us find out what to measure. We have known we can impact route preview and also climbing efficiency by focusing on certain strategies through the use of eye tracking technology, and now researchers from the UK are conducting an exploratory study of eye tracking technology use by coaches that when coupled with coaching interviews should help novice coaches see what expert coaches see.[xxxii] The speed climbing research I mentioned earlier is being facilitated by mesh suits and drones, and according to personal correspondence with Jan Gajdošík from the Czech Republic, a muscle oxygen monitor which uses an method called “infrared spectroscopy” is undergoing a validation study to see how we may better regulate our training through a real-time window of oxygenation in our forearms.
Find your try hard | France and the Netherlands
The value of perception in climbing may be underrated: both in terms of our ability to “perceive” moves and our ability to train in different zones. For example, researchers in the Netherlands found better climbers had more complex visual search strategies, possibly due to finger strength and/or because they are “sensitive” to the potential grabbing options and opportunities across holds and movement.[xxxiii] This shows the interrelationship of strength, technical potential, and the ability to “see a move”. Another area where we can better take advantage of, and influence, our perception is by using a scale called “rate of perceived pump” or RPP (also called rate of perceived exertion or “RPE”) which asks you to rate your pump on a 0 (no pump) to 10 (maximum pump – eminent failure) scale.[xxxiv] A heart rate monitor coupled with RPP may provide us an even better indicator for how hard we’re trying.
Power Centers of Research | France, Germany, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States
Climbing has a small community of researchers. For this reason, and because new researchers seek guidance from a small cadre of well-known figures, certain names are having an outsize effect on the climbing world. This master research group includes those who put the conference on and run the International Rock Climbing Research Association: Nick Draper (New Zealand) and Pierre Legreneur (France). The French are particularly interesting to me because of the work I do with some of our country’s elite youth athletes. Several French researchers were able to get access to the French national bouldering and speed teams to do research (see the speed and contact strength sections). Nick and Pierre also understand the outsized importance of injury research in climbing, which makes up the lion’s share of research at almost a 6th of all articles within the Beta Angel research inventory. The injury world is small but mighty: Volker and Isabelle Schöffl, Christoph Lutter, and Andreas Schweizer all collaborate and guide and are starting to increase the breadth of injury research even as they continue to deepen the work on pulley and growth plate injuries.
Andreas is our lead-in to the Swiss. I had dinner with the Swiss contingent one night, a group of soft-spoken but powerful voices: the aforementioned Andreas, Peter Wolf, and Frieder Wittman. Frieder collaborated with Peter on a study of a cost-effective climbing sensor which can measure forces in three dimensions.[xxxv] Andreas and Peter, along with Ludovic Seifert, edited the 2017 scientific game changer: The Science of Rock Climbing and Mountaineering. They also hosted the second Congress in Pontresina, Switzerland. From a movement perspective, Ludovic (France) collaborated on five of the seven pieces of research categorized under motor control at the conference.
While climbing is often called a movement sport, finger and forearm dynamics represent an extensive piece of the equation. A partnership between the UK’s Gloucestershire and Derby universities and Spain’s Cadiz University under the name of the C-Hipper (Climbing High Performance International Project) Climbing Project has the potential to cross multiple boundaries for our sport, but includes some of the world’s experts on the dynamics of fingers and forearms, and includes studies on everything from forearm oxygenation to nutrition to vigilance (mentioned above). Finally, the team of Phil Watts from Northern Michigan University organized the Congress in Telluride, Colorado in 2016. Northern Michigan University sent a strong contingent, including Scott Drum and Lanae Joubert.
Clusters and pockets of information
The practical implications of these power centers is that I expect more of the “building” on past research to be centered around these clusters, even while excellent isolated pockets of research continue to pop up. The clusters will bounce ideas off of one another, and use one another to further the research. If I ask a question of a researcher in the Czech Republic, and he doesn’t know the answer, he may be working with someone in the UK (note: this happened a few nights before submission) who we can bring into the conversation. This has the potential to get me from what is an “interesting question” that may be just outside of the researcher’s scope to the holy grail of practitioner uptake – direct application to my students.
The next Congress will be in 2020, in either Tokyo, Japan or Cadiz, Spain.
Taylor Reed is a policy analyst who coaches on the weekends. Taylor teaches Arabella “Belle” Jariel, Ashleigh “LEAF” Kazor, and Charlie “Skittles” Osborne, and consults with a small handful of elite kids from half a dozen states. When not coaching he’s preparing to coach, collaborating with other coaches, and working on his website: www.beta-angel.com. Taylor is married to a gorgeous soldier named Jennifer, lives in Maryland South Carolina, and is sponsored by Evolv sports.
[i] “Sport Climbing: Medical considerations for this new Olympic discipline” by Lutter, El-Sheikh, Schöffl and Schöffl; “Analysis of the performance structure of the Olympic combined climbing format” by Augste; “The Introduction of Sport Climbing at Tokyo 2020’s Olympic Games: analysis of the controversy in France” by Rogeaux and Rech
[ii] “Feasibility of a new pulley repair: a cadaver study” by Schöffl, Lutter, and Schöffl
[iii] “Surgical Management of pip joint repetitive stress epiphyseal fracture nonunion in elite sport climbers” by El-Sheikh, Lutter, Schöffl, Schöffl, and Flohe
[iv] “PIP joint contact incongruity in different grip positions as a trigger for epiphyseal fatigue fracture in adolescent climbers” by Schweizer and Bärtschi.
[v] “Epiphyseal stress fractures in the fingers of adolescents: biomechanics, pathomechanism, risk factors, and ultrasound” by Schöffl, Simon, Lutter, and Schöffl
[vi] “Sport Climbing: Medical Considerations for this New Olympic Discipline” by Lutter, El-Sheikh, Schöffl, and Schöffl
[vii] “An examination of climbers’ information-seeking behaviors for injury care and prevention” by Casucci
[viii] “A potential classification schema and management approach for individuals with A2 flexor pulley strain” by Cooper and LaStayo
[x] “Treatment of finger problems in climbers with the local-osteopathic Isele-method: a pilot study” by Isele, Hay, Schrank, and Schweikart
[xi] “The acute effects of weighted pull-ups on campus board power and power endurance exercises” by Sas-Nowosielski, Kandzia, and Magiera
[xii] “Role of lower and upper limbs in dyno maneuver” by Legreneur, Thevenet, and Bels
[xiii] “The association between different rate of force development-measurements and climbing performance” by Vereide, Saeterbakken, Kalland, Hermans, and Andersen.
[xiv] “The rate of force development: a new biomechanical key factor in climbing” by Levernier and Laffaye
[xv] “Effect of climbing hold depth on biomechanical arm action during pull-ups” by Vigouroux, Devise, Cartier, Aubert, and Berton
[xvi] “The effects of a weighted dead-hang training program on grip strength and endurance in expert climbers with different levels of strength” by Lopez-Rivera and González-Badillo
[xvii] “Individual responses to cold water immersion on handgrip performance” by Baláš, Kodejška, Gajdošík, Giles
[xviii] “Hemodynamic responses to rock climbing” by Fryer, and; “Qualitative analysis of two of 2017’s greatest ascents and a proposed conceptual model for maximum-difficulty sport climbing and energy system requirements” by Hörst