Upper body rate of force development and maximal strength discriminates performance levels in sport climbing

Abstract

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.

Tests and Procedures for Measuring Endurance, Strength, and Power in Climbing—A Mini-Review

“…The available literature is challenged by the vast variety of applied endurance-, strength-, and power tests (Ozimek et al, 2016;Michailov et al, 2018;Levernier and Laffaye, 2019;Torr et al, 2020;Stien et al, 2021c). For example, this review revealed 13 trials that had implemented the intermittent forearm endurance test, and these provided nine different combinations of work-to-rest ratios and force thresholds (Table 1).…”

“…Recently, researchers have explored tests measuring the force generated by the upper-body pulling apparatus (arms-and backmuscles) (Levernier and Laffaye, 2019;Stien et al, 2021b,c). Such test set-ups might provide a higher climbing-specificity, but at the expense of reliability as the inclusion of more joints could entail a larger variation in results (Stien et al, 2021c). Using an unconstrained, 90 • elbow angle, Levernier and Laffaye (2019) demonstrated that maximal strength (CV = 2.9-10.0%) and RFD (CV = 7.8-28.3%) assessed standing and with an open-hand grip were reliable and able to discriminate between novice, skilled, and international climbers.…”

“…The study concluded that RFD calculated using the first 200 ms (CV = 7.8-16.1%) and 95% of the force curve (CV = 12.6-28.4%) were the most reliable and discriminatory calculations of RFD. In contrast to Levernier and Laffaye (2019) and Stien et al (2021c) included a bilateral hanging test with a half-crimp grip on a 23 mm rung with a 90 • elbow angle. In agreement with Levernier and Laffaye (2019), RFD calculated using longer time scales (≥75% from the onset) were the most reliable and discriminatory measurements and the authors demonstrated CV-values between 10.0 and 31.3% for RFD among advanced-to-elite climbers.…”

“…In agreement with Levernier and Laffaye (2019), RFD calculated using longer time scales (≥75% from the onset) were the most reliable and discriminatory measurements and the authors demonstrated CV-values between 10.0 and 31.3% for RFD among advanced-to-elite climbers. Importantly, due to a lack of differences between intermediate and advanced climbers and the high CV values observed for these groups (CV = 20.0-31.3%), Stien et al (2021c) speculated that the possible difference in RFD was diminished by the very demanding nature of the test. Finally, the findings by Levernier and Laffaye (2019) and Stien et al (2021c) agree, suggesting that maximal strength could be a more reliable measure than RFD.…”

“…Importantly, due to a lack of differences between intermediate and advanced climbers and the high CV values observed for these groups (CV = 20.0-31.3%), Stien et al (2021c) speculated that the possible difference in RFD was diminished by the very demanding nature of the test. Finally, the findings by Levernier and Laffaye (2019) and Stien et al (2021c) agree, suggesting that maximal strength could be a more reliable measure than RFD.…”