Effect of Height on Perceived Exertion and Physiological Responses for Climbers of Differing Ability Levels

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine differences in perceived exertion (RPE) and physiological responses for climbers of different abilities completing an identical route low and high above the ground. Materials and Methods: Forty-two male (N = 18) and female (N = 24) sport climbers divided into three groups, lower-grade (N = 14), intermediate (N = 14), and advanced climbers (N = 14), completed two visits to a climbing gym, separated by 7 days. In a random order, the climbers completed a close-to-the-ground ascent (treadwall) and climb to height (climbing gym). Immediately after the test, climbers provided their RPE (6-20). Indirect calorimetry was used to assess physiological response during the ascent and recovery. Results: The mean (±standard deviation) RPE was higher for lower-grade climbers when ascending the route on the wall (RPE = 12 ± 1) when compared to the treadwall route (RPE = 11 ± 1, P = 0.040; d = 0.41). For all ability groups, the physiological response was higher on the climbing gym wall as opposed to the treadwall: ventilation (P = 0.003, η p 2 = 0.199), heart rate (HR) (P = 0.005, η p 2 = 0.189), energy cost (EC) (P = 0.000, η p 2 = 0.501). The RPE demonstrated a moderate relationship with physiological variables (R 2 = 0.14 to R 2 = 0.45). Conclusion: Climbing to height induced a greater metabolic stress than climbing at a low height (treadwall) and led to higher RPE for lower-grade climbers. In this study, RPE appeared to be a good proxy measure of the physiological demands for advanced climbers but not for intermediate and lower-grade climbers. Therefore, using RPE in climbing with less experienced athletes may perhaps overestimate actual exercise intensity and should be interpreted carefully.

The Effects of Prioritizing Lead or Boulder Climbing Among Intermediate Climbers

“…Following the low-intensity (i.e., easy lead climbing) training in this study, it is likely that the climbers did not achieve improvements specific to difficult leadclimbing. To more directly examine physiological adaptations such as endurance, it may be preferable to perform lead climbing testing using an auto-belay or tread-wall to exclude psychological factors (Gajdošík et al, 2020). However, climbing past the last clipped quickdraw in difficult terrain is an important ability in lead-climbing, suggesting that future research should include high-intensity climbing training to improve performance in demanding climbing-situations.…”

Assessing the Impact of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation-Based Fingerboard Training versus Conventional Fingerboard Training on Finger Flexor Endurance in Intermediate to Advanced Sports Climbers: A Randomized Controlled Study

“…Directly after each training intervention, participants rated their subjective perceived total training exertion on the Borg 6-20 RPE scale [51] to enable a comparison between the perceived exertion of the training sessions for the NMES and control groups. The scale is commonly used in climbing studies [52][53][54] and has proven to be a good indicator of the physiological demands of advanced climbers [55]. The use of the two different Borg scales is due to the participants' familiarity with indicating intensities using the CR-10 Borg scale and assessing total effort after a workout with the Borg 6-20 scale during regular training.…”

Metabolic demands of slacklining in less and more advanced slackliners

“…Anecdotally, these stabilization demands appear more pronounced during basic slackline tasks such as walking and one‐leg standing. Moreover, balancing tasks over the ground with a potential risk of fall result in greater effort for postural control, perceived exertion and metabolic cost (Baláš et al, 2021; Gajdošík et al, 2020; Pijpers et al, 2006).…”