This study examined the effects of two or four weekly campus board training sessions among highly accomplished lead climbers. Sixteen advanced-to-elite climbers were randomly allocated to two (TG2), or four weekly campus board training sessions (TG4), or a control group (CG). All groups continued their normal climbing routines. Pre- and post-intervention measures included bouldering performance, maximal isometric pull-up strength using a shallow rung and a large hold (jug), and maximal reach and moves to failure. Rate of force development (RFD; absolute and 100ms) was calculated in the rung condition. TG4 improved maximal force in the jug condition (effect size (ES) = 0.40, p = 0.043), and absolute RFD more than CG (ES = 2.92, p = 0.025), whereas TG2 improved bouldering performance (ES = 2.59, p = 0.016) and maximal moves to failure on the campus board more than CG (ES = 1.65, p = 0.008). No differences between the training groups were found (p = 0.107–1.000). When merging the training groups, the training improved strength in the rung condition (ES = 0.87, p = 0.002), bouldering performance (ES = 2.37, p = 0.006), maximal reach (ES = 1.66, p = 0.006) and moves to failure (ES = 1.43, p = 0.040) more than CG. In conclusion, a five-week campus board training-block is sufficient for improving climbing-specific attributes among advanced-to-elite climbers. Sessions should be divided over four days to improve RFD or divided over two days to improve bouldering performance, compared to regular climbing training.

Albeit differences in climbing-specific strength of the forearms have been demonstrated between lead and boulder climbers, little is known about the potential differences in force and power output of the upper body pulling-apparatus between disciplines. The aim of this study was to compare the climbing-specific upper-body strength and finger flexor endurance between lead and boulder climbers, as well as to examine the relative utilization of force when testing on a ledge hold compared to a jug hold. Sixteen boulder climbers (red-point climbing grade 17.9 ± 3.3) and fifteen lead climbers (red-point climbing grade 20.5 ± 3.5) performing on an advanced level volunteered for the study. Peak force, average force and rate of force development (RFD) were measured during an isometric pull-up, average velocity in dynamic pull-up, and finger flexor endurance in an intermittent test to fatigue. The isometric pull-up was performed on a ledge hold (high finger strength requirements) and on a jug hold (very low finger strength requirements). Boulder climbers demonstrated a higher maximal and explosive strength in all strength and power measurements (26.2–52.9%, ES = 0.90–1.12, p = 0.006–0.023), whereas the finger flexor endurance test showed no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.088). Both groups were able to utilize 57–69% of peak force, average force and RFD in the ledge condition compared to the jug condition, but the relative utilization was not different between the groups (p = 0.290–0.996). In conclusion, boulder climbers were stronger and more explosive compared to lead climbers, whereas no differences in finger flexor endurance were observed. Performing climbing-specific tests on a smaller hold appears to limit the force and power output equally between the two groups.

The aim of this study was to assess and compare the maximal force and rate of force development (RFD) between intermediate, advanced and elite climbers using several different methods for calculating RFD. Fifty-seven male climbers (17 intermediate, 25 advanced, and 15 elite) performed isometric pull-ups on a climbing-specific hold while the RFD was calculated using several absolute (50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 ms from onset of force) and relative time periods (25, 50, 75, 95, and 100% of time to peak force). The maximal force was higher among elite climbers compared to advanced (ES = 1.78, p < 0.001) and intermediate climbers (ES = 1.77, p < 0.001), while no difference was observed between intermediate and advanced climbers (P = 0.898). The elite group also showed higher RFD than the other two groups at all relative time periods (ES = 1.02–1.58, p < 0.001–0.002), whereas the absolute time periods only revealed differences between the elite vs. the other groups at 50, 100 and 150 ms from the onset of force (ES = 0.72–0.84, p = 0.032–0.040). No differences in RFD were observed between the intermediate and advanced groups at any time period (p = 0.942–1.000). Maximal force and RFD, especially calculated using the longer periods of the force curve, may be used to distinguish elite climbers from advanced and intermediate climbers. The authors suggest using relative rather than absolute time periods when analyzing the RFD of climbers.

Andersen, V, Paulsen, G, Stien, N, Baarholm, M, Seynnes, O, and Saeterbakken, AH. Resistance training with different velocity loss thresholds induce similar changes in strengh and hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2021—The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 2 velocity-based resistance training programs when performing resistance training with matched training volume. Ten resistance-trained adults volunteered (age, 23 ± 4.3 years; body mass, 68 ± 8.9 kg; and height, 171 ± 8 cm) with a mean resistance training experience of 4.5 years. A within person, between leg design was used. For each subject, the legs were randomly assigned to either low velocity loss (LVL) threshold at 15% or high velocity loss (HVL) threshold at 30% velocity loss. Leg press and leg extension were trained unilaterally twice per week over a period of 9 weeks. Before and after the intervention, both legs were tested in 1 repetition maximum (RM) (kg), maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) (N), rate of force development (N·s−1), average velocity (m·s−1), and power output (W) at 30, 45, 60, and 75% of 1 RM (all in unilateral leg press). Furthermore, muscle thickness (mm) of the vastus lateralis and rectus femoris, pennation angle (°) of the vastus lateralis, and the fascicle length (mm) of the vastus lateralis were measured using ultrasound imaging. The data were analyzed using mixed-design analysis of variance. No differences between the legs in any of the variables were found; however, both low and HVL were effective for increasing 1 RM (ES = 1.25–1.82), MVC (effect size [ES] = 0.42–0.64), power output (ES = 0.31–0.86), and muscle thickness (ES = 0.24–0.51). In conclusion, performing velocity-based resistance training with low and HVL with equal training volume resulted in similar effects in maximal and explosive strength in addition to muscular adaptations.