Physiological and psychological responses to lead and top rope climbing for intermediate rock climbers

Abstract

Rock climbing is a popular adventure sport with an increasing research base. Early studies in the field did not make comparisons of ascents using different styles of climbing. More recently, differences in the physiological responses for an onsight lead climb and subsequent lead climb have been reported. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of style of climb (lead climb or top rope climb) on the physiological and psychological responses to rock climbing. Nine intermediate climbers volunteered for, and completed, two randomly assigned climbing trials and a maximum oxygen uptake (VO 2max ) test on a separate occasion. The climbers ascended the same 6a (sport grade) climb for both trials. Before climbing, heart rate, perception of anxiety (Revised Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2), and blood lactate concentration were measured. Climb time, heart rate, VO 2 , lactate concentrations, and task load (National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index) in response to each trial were also recorded. Results indicated significant differences (PB0.05) between the trials for climb time, blood lactate concentration immediately after and 15 min after climbing, and heart rate 1 min after climbing. During lead and top rope climbing, mean VO 2 and represented 44% and 42% of treadmill VO 2max and mean heart rate represented 81% and 77% of maximum heart rate, respectively. There were no significant differences in feelings of anxiety before either climb, although climbers reported the lead climb to be physically and mentally more demanding, requiring more effort and resulting in greater frustration (P B0.05) than the top rope climb. Our results indicate that the physiological and psychological responses of intermediate climbers are different for a lead climb and top rope climb.

Current understanding in climbing psychophysiology research

“…Style of ascent. The style of ascent, with lead and/or top-rope conditions, is widely used as a stimulus and potential stressor in climbing literature Draper et al, 2010Draper et al, , 2012Hardy & Hutchinson, 2007). In further two studies, a more contrived top-rope with a trailing lead rope has been used (Aras & Akalan, 2011;Hodgson et al, 2009).…”

“…Alternatively, Pijpers et al (2003) used a high and low traverse protected by a top-rope. Within these studies climbing experience varied (Table I), with non-climbers (Pijpers et al, 2003), lower-grade climbers (Aras & Akalan, 2011;Draper et al, 2008;Hardy & Hutchinson, 2007), intermediate climbers (Draper et al, 2010 and advanced level climbers . The experience stated above, may differ from the experiences given in the original papers, as the abilities have been standardised, for ease of comparison, using the grading charts set out by Draper, Canalejo, et al (2011).…”

“…Profile of Mood State. The POMS questionnaire (McNair et al, 1981) is reasonably common in climbing psychophysiology literature (Draper et al, 2010;. The POMS measures individuals' perception of fatigue, vigour, anger, depression and tension.…”

“…The CSAI was developed as a valid and reliable selfreport tool for anxiety by Martens et al (1990). The refined CSAI-2R (Cox et al, 2003) has been the instrument of choice for the measurement of anxiety in climbing (Aras & Akalan, 2011;Dickson, Fryer, Blackwell, et al, 2012;Draper et al, 2008Draper et al, , 2012Draper, Dickson, Fryer, & Blackwell, 2011;Draper, Jones, Fryer, Hodgson, & Blackwell, 2010; Hardy and Hutchinson (2007). It measures cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and activation.…”

Design and validation of an observational instrument to assess the technical execution in top-rope climbing

“…Expert judges suggested that this aspect was not relevant in top-rope climbing because this modality limits fall flights. In top-rope climbing, the climber is always belayed by his/her climbing partner (Draper et al, 2010). In case of slip, the climber can only realize a slight displacement with no consequence (Fontaine & Deconinck, 2005;Testevuide, 2003).…”