Upper-limb Power Test in Rock-climbing

Abstract

The goal of the present study was to validate a new ecological power-test on athletes of different levels and to assess rock climbers' profiles (boulderers vs. route climbers). 34 athletes divided into novice, skilled and elite groups performed the arm-jump board test (AJ). Power, time, velocity, and efficiency index were recorded. Validity was assessed by comparing the distance with the value extracted from the accelerometer (500 Hz) and the reliability of intra- and inter-session scores. Moreover, a principal component analysis (PCA) was used to assess the climbers' profiles. The AJ test was quite valid, showing a low systematic bias of -0.88 cm (-1.25%) and low limits of agreement (< 6%), and reliable ( Intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.98 and CV < 5%), and was able to distinguish between the 3 samples (p < 0.0001). There was a good correlation between relative upper-limb power (r = 0.70; p < 0.01) and the AJ score. Moreover, the PCA revealed an explosive profile for boulderers and either a weak and quick or slow profile for route climbers, revealing a biomechanical signature of the sub-discipline. The AJ test provides excellent absolute and relative reliabilities for climbing, and can effectively distinguish between climbing athletes of different competitive levels. Thus, the AJ may be suitable for field assessment of upper limb strength in climbing practitioners.

Comparative grading scales, statistical analyses, climber descriptors and ability grouping: International Rock Climbing Research Association position statement

“…Despite the publication of the paper by Draper et al (2011b) studies continue to be published with inconsistencies in the language used to describe the groups in their studies. By way of recent examples, Laffaye et al (2014) categorised their climbers as novice (<6a), skilled (6c-7b) or elite (≥8a) while Lechner et al (2013) classified climbers as experienced or less experienced without stating the grounds upon which the categorisation was made. In 2014 Young et al again used the experienced or inexperienced categorisation, however, in this study they classified each as having ascended more than 50 vertical climbs or fewer than 5 vertical ascents respectively.…”

“…In 2011, Draper et al (2011b) published a paper highlighting such discrepancies and the resultant problems consequently arising for researchers attempting to make comparisons between studies. However, since that paper was published, the non-consistency in reporting has continued (Amca et al, 2012;Morenas Martín et al, 2013;Laffaye et al, 2014;Woollings et al, 2014;Young et al, 2014). The climbers, coaches and researchers present at the 2014 International Rock Climbing Research Congress developed this position statement as a call to all involved in climbing research to follow a consistent method for reporting climber characteristics, nomenclature for ability grouping and to propose the use of one IRCRA scale in all statistical analyses.…”

La resistencia de los músculos flexores de los dedos de la mano en escaladores / Evaluation Of Hand’s Fingers Flexor Muscles Endurance In Climbers

“…Otros estudios han evaluado la fiabilidad para pruebas de potencia (Laffaye, Collin, Levernier, Padulo, 2014;Draper, Dickson et al 2011), pero, hasta donde sabemos, este estudio es pionero en la evaluación de la resistencia.…”

Reliability, Sensitivity, and Minimal Detectable Change of a New Specific Climbing Test for Assessing Asymmetry in Reach Technique

“…Climbing also requires the skill to be efficient when grabbing a handhold or standing on a foothold at different angles, positions, and postures. By observing the technique performed by a climber athlete (22), the variability of the technique is a discriminative criterion for differentiating the climbers' different level of expertise. In fact, the variability of the climbing technique is detected within and between subjects (10).…”