MBboard: Validity and Reliability of a New Tool Developed to Evaluate Specific Strength in Rock Climbers

Marino, Thomas Kisil; Coelho, Daniel Boari; Lima‐Silva, Adriano Eduardo; Bertuzzi, Rômulo Cássio de Moraes

doi:10.2478/hukin-2021-0060

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A high correlation with climbing ability was, however, found for maximum oxygen uptake during rowing ergometry by Michailov et al ( 162 ). Marino et al ( 163 ) used rowing ergometry to assess upper limb concentric maximum strength. The measurement through the one repetition maximum indicates a high reliability and a high correlation with climbing ability.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical performance testing in climbing—A systematic review

Langer

Simon

Wiemeyer

2023

Front. Sports Act. Living

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the increasing popularity of climbing, the corresponding diagnostics are gaining in importance for both science and practice. This review aims to give an overview of the quality of different diagnostic testing- and measurement methods for performance, strength, endurance, and flexibility in climbing. A systematic literature search for studies including quantitative methods and tests for measuring different forms of strength, endurance, flexibility, or performance in climbing and bouldering was conducted on PubMed and SPORT Discus. Studies and abstracts were included if they a) worked with a representative sample of human boulderers and/or climbers, b) included detailed information on at least one test, and c) were randomized-controlled-, cohort-, cross-over-, intervention-, or case studies. 156 studies were included into the review. Data regarding subject characteristics, as well as the implementation and quality of all relevant tests were extracted from the studies. Tests with similar exercises were grouped and the information on a) measured value, b) unit, c) subject characteristics (sex and ability level), and d) quality criteria (objectivity, reliability, validity) were bundled and displayed in standardized tables. In total, 63 different tests were identified, of which some comprised different ways of implementation. This clearly shows that there are no uniform or standard procedures in climbing diagnostics, for tests on strength, endurance or flexibility. Furthermore, only few studies report data on test quality and detailed information on sample characteristics. This not only makes it difficult to compare test results, but at the same time makes it impossible to give precise test recommendations. Nevertheless, this overview of the current state of research contributes to the creation of more uniform test batteries in the future.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical performance testing in climbing—A systematic review

Langer

Simon

Wiemeyer

2023

Front. Sports Act. Living

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nowadays, newly developed instrumented hangboards or single holds provide improvement in feasibility and accuracy, and are a valid and reliable measurement of applied loads with an accuracy in the <1 N range (Anderson, 2018 ; Michailov et al, 2018 ; Vigouroux et al, 2018 ; Feldmann et al, 2021 ; Marino et al, 2021 ). These instrumented tools technically allow modulating training exercise intensity thanks to force visual feedback, on the same hold.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Different Hangboard Training Intensities on Finger Grip Strength, Stamina, and Endurance

Devise

Lechaptois

Berton

et al. 2022

Front. Sports Act. Living

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climbing-specific training programs on hangboards are often based on dead-hang repetitions, but little is known about the real intensity applied during such effort. The aim of this study was to quantify and compare the effects of different training intensities (maximal, high submaximal, and low submaximal intensities) on the fingers' physiological capabilities using a hangboard fitted with force sensors. In total, 54 experienced climbers (13 women and 41 men) were randomly divided into four groups, with each group following different training intensity programs: maximal strength program performed at 100% of the maximal finger strength (MFS; F100), intermittent repetitions at 80% MFS (F80), intermittent repetitions at 60% MFS (F60), and no specific training (control group). Participants trained on a 12 mm-deep hold, twice a week for 4 weeks. The MFS, stamina, and endurance levels were evaluated using force data before and after training. Results showed similar values in the control group between pre- and post-tests. A significantly improved MFS was observed in the F100 and F80 groups but not in the F60 group. Significantly higher stamina and endurance measurements were observed in the F80 and F60 groups but not in the F100 group. These results showed that a 4-week hangboard training enabled increasing MFS, stamina and endurance, and that different improvements occurred according to the level of training intensity. Interestingly, the different intensities allow improvements in the targeted capacity (e.g., stamina for the F80 group) but also in the adjacent physiological capabilities (e.g., MFS for the F80 group).

show abstract

MBboard: Validity and Reliability of a New Tool Developed to Evaluate Specific Strength in Rock Climbers

Cited by 2 publications

References 33 publications

Physical performance testing in climbing—A systematic review

Physical performance testing in climbing—A systematic review

Effects of Different Hangboard Training Intensities on Finger Grip Strength, Stamina, and Endurance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About