The effects of high resistance–few repetitions and low resistance–high repetitions resistance training on climbing performance

Hermans, Espen; Andersen, Vidar; Sæterbakken, Atle Hole

doi:10.1080/17461391.2016.1248499

Cited by 16 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This test measures isometric finger strength and/or endurance and has been applied as a climbing-specific test in several studies which offer more detailed description [1, 4, 6]. Briefly, a participant uses four fingers (the thumb is excluded from the grip) to hang on a 2.5cm Campus rung (medium Campus beam, Metolius Climbing, Oregon, US).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent decades, climbing performance measured by the difficulty rating of routes, has greatly improved in Sport Climbing World Cup series. However, the training used to improve and develop climbing performance mostly draws on experience-based knowledge, cross-sectional studies [4, 5] and a few intervention studies conducted in climbing [6, 7]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of ten weeks dynamic or isometric core training on climbing performance among highly trained climbers

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the first study to compare the effects of isometric vs. dynamic core training and characterize core-training adaptations using climbing-specific performance and core strength tests in elite climbers. The aim of the study was to compare the effects of attending a progressive core-training program on climbing performance. 19 advanced and elite climbers (7.3±5.6 years climbing experience, red point skill grade 19 IRCRA) were randomized into a dynamic (DCT) or isometric (ICT) core training group and trained twice weekly for ten weeks. The climbers were tested using two climbing-specific core tests (body lock-off and body-lift) and four non-specific core strength tests—one dynamic (superman) and three isometric (trunk flexion and trunk rotation left and right). Between group comparisons showed no differences between the groups at post-test (p = 0.328–0.824) and neither group demonstrated greater improvement compared with the other (p = 0.300–0.926). The ICT group demonstrated 10.8% and 29.6% improvement in trunk flexion and body-lift (p = 0.029–0.037 with no improvement in body lock-off and rotation (p = 0.101–0.343). The DCT group demonstrated 5.0–14.9% improvement in the core strength tests (p = 0.012–0.043), a non-significant 33.8% improvement in body-lift (p = 0.100) and no improvement in body lock-off (p = 0.943). In conclusion, none of the training groups demonstrated greater improvement than the other and both dynamic and isometric core training improved climbing-specific test performance. Dynamic training was slightly more favorable although not significantly superior to isometric core training in improving core strength.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of ten weeks dynamic or isometric core training on climbing performance among highly trained climbers

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After eight weeks, more moves and harder climbing due to muscular hypertrophy and muscular endurance were assessed 120 . Specially designed “high resistance-few repetitions training” or “low resistance-high repetitions training” did not result in a beneficial effect compared to regular training sessions 121 . A favourable impact of four weeks of fingerboard training (3 times per week for 150 min) compared to boulder sessions could be demonstrated regarding grip strength and dead hang time 14 .…”

Section: Training Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants for success in climbing: A systematic review

Saul

Steinmetz

Lehmann

et al. 2019

Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The number of athletes engaged in climbing sports has risen. Specific physical and psychological skills are required. The objective of this review was to determine factors for high climbing performance. We evaluated physiological, biomechanical and psychological characteristics that simplify the ascent. We also assessed training and recovery strategies. Methods Medline (Pubmed), Cochrane Library and Google scholar up to September 2018. Results A low skinfold thickness, body fat and large forearm volume were anthropometric traits in successful climbers. Well-trained forearm flexors with high aerobic capacities lead to an efficient style. Hand grip strength and endurance, postural stability and optimized kinematic motions were favourable. Elite climbers had long finger and bent-arm hang times. Psychologically, an “iceberg profile” was typical. Constant training with fingerboard and dynamic eccentric-concentric training helped to push the “red-point grade”. Conclusion Hand, forearm strength and endurance are highly important elements in elite climbers. An efficient climbing style with perpetual focus and accuracy, high speed and low exhaustion due to adaption to repeated isometric exercise is helpful in the ascent, while low body fat and a large bone-to-tip pulp make it easier. Constant training is essential, e.g. eccentric-concentric training of finger flexors, which should be followed by active recovery.

show abstract

“…Due to the intermediate-toadvanced performance level, one could have expected more rapid and distinct changes. Unfortunately, the current results add to the body of literature not being able to demonstrate differences between training modalities in improving climbing performance (Hermans et al, 2017;Philippe et al, 2019) or performance in climbing-specific tests González-Badillo, 2012, 2019). Taken together, these findings highlight the need for interventions with higher intensities and longer durations in prospective climbing research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…The present is one of very few studies (Hermans et al, 2017;Philippe et al, 2019) examining actual climbing performance following climbing-specific training, whereas most of the literature have only assessed strength in climbing-related exercises González-Badillo, 2012, 2019;Medernach et al, 2015;Saeterbakken et al, 2018;Levernier and Laffaye, 2019a). Both groups maintained climbing ability in both disciplines and improved most of the tested variables despite having the same weekly climbing training frequency as before the intervention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

The Effects of Prioritizing Lead or Boulder Climbing Among Intermediate Climbers

Stien

Frøysaker

Hermans

et al. 2021

Front. Sports Act. Living

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the effects of prioritizing lead climbing or boulder climbing on climbing-specific strength and endurance, as well as climbing performance. Fourteen active climbers were randomized to a boulder climbing training group (BCT: age = 27.2 ± 4.4 years, body mass = 65.8 ± 5.5 kg, height = 173.3 ± 3.8 cm) or a lead-climbing training group (LCT: age = 27.7 ± 6.1 years, body mass = 70.2 ± 4.4 kg, height = 177.7 ± 4.4 cm). The groups participated in a 5-week training period consisting of 15 sessions, performing either two weekly bouldering sessions and one maintenance-session of lead-climbing (BCT) or two weekly lead-climbing sessions and one maintenance-session of bouldering (LCT). Pre- and post-training, maximal force and rate of force development (RFD) were measured during isometric pull-ups performed on a jug hold and a shallow rung, and during an isolated finger-strength test. Lead-climbing and bouldering performance were also measured, along with an intermittent forearm endurance test. The pre-to-post changes were not significantly different between the groups for any of the parameters (P = 0.062–0.710). However, both the BCT (ES = 0.30, P = 0.049) and LCT (ES = 0.41, P = 0.046) groups improved strength in the isometric pull-up performed using the jug, whereas neither group improved force in the rung condition (P = 0.054 and P = 0.084) or RFD (P = 0.060 and P = 0.070). Furthermore, climbing and bouldering performance remained unchanged in both groups (P = 0.210–0.895). The LCT group improved forearm endurance (ES = 0.55, P = 0.007), while the BCT group improved isolated finger strength (ES = 0.35, P = 0.015). In addition to isometric pull-up strength, bouldering can increase isolated finger strength while lead-climbing may improve forearm endurance. A 5-week period prioritizing one discipline can be safely implemented for advanced to intermediate climbers without risking declined performance in the non-prioritized discipline.

show abstract

The effects of high resistance–few repetitions and low resistance–high repetitions resistance training on climbing performance

Cited by 16 publications

References 38 publications

Effects of ten weeks dynamic or isometric core training on climbing performance among highly trained climbers

Effects of ten weeks dynamic or isometric core training on climbing performance among highly trained climbers

Determinants for success in climbing: A systematic review

The Effects of Prioritizing Lead or Boulder Climbing Among Intermediate Climbers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About