Optimizing Muscular Strength-to-Weight Ratios in Rock Climbing

B E A S T F I N G E R S C LI M BI NG R E S E A RC H MARCH 2018 Optimizing Muscular Strength-to-Weight Ratios in Rock Climbing BY AMAN ANDERSON ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We want to thank Steven Low for his contributions to this paper. Thank you to Earth Treks Climbing and Fitness in Golden, Colorado, and Mountain Strong Training in Denver, Colorado for allowing us to conduct our research at their facility. The athletes of the Beast Fingers Climbing Team, and Denver University Climbing team. Optimizing Muscular Strength-to-Weight Ratios in Rock Climbing BY AMAN ANDERSON ABSTRACT BACKGROUND There have not been many studies on the role of muscular strength and finger strength and their relationship to climbing ability. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the role major muscle groups and finger strength strength-to-weight ratios in sport climbers and boulderers to climbing ability in a gym setting. METHODS Strength measurements were taken using a force measuring device. Climbers were then given standardized exercises for different muscle groups and then later weighed to calculate their strength-to-weight ratio. Climbers were then questioned on their highest redpoint in bouldering, and sport climbing using a standardized questionnaire. R E S U LT S The majority of high level climbing athletes showed a significant difference in overall muscular strength, and hand strength. High-level climbers reflected high ratios for each hand excelling above 100% of their body weight on a 19mm wooden crimp, with the highest being 120%. Women and men were both tested. CONCLUSION Though other factors play a role in successful climbing ascents, not limited to height, experience, flexibility, or endurance of a climber, a climbers ability to recruit and sustain higher muscular forces in relative to their body weight, sustained higher climbing grades. INTRODUCTION he competitive climbing sport has grown significantly over the past 20 years. Previously, most of the focus of various studies have been dedicated toward injuries. Fortunately, more attention is starting to be dedicated to advance the science of the sport to produce strong top-level climbers. In the last 20 years, there have been international studies that have had a significant impact on the sport, dedicated to a climbers athletic performance, hand/forearm strength, VO2 max, and lactic acid threshold (Sheel, 2004). There are multiple factors associated with climbing that make it difficult for climbers and coaches to progress effectively. The adaptation of the body’s muscles and bones to external resistance is more rapid than the adaptation of the tendons (Burmitt & Cuddeford, 2015). In the case of climbing, it seems muscular strength can only translate into positive motion if the tendons can transfer and support the force. Another factor is that climbing is both dynamic and isometric in nature. In addition, there are many different types of training methods that may utilized by climbers and coaches such as traditional resistance training, 1 BE A S T F I N G E R S C L I M B I N G R E S E A R C H hangboard, campus board, and system participants were informed that they would board. Many factors need to be taken into be apart of the study, that would be later account in order to keep a climber injury used to help correlate strength to the free while increasing performance. The climbing grading system. If they were still gaps of science within the sport have led to interested in participating, the test a lot of disparate methods being claimed as continued. The climbers were informed effective. Thus, it is imperative to continue that they would be performing a set of to publish more research verifying the standardized workouts that would be logged applicability of different training methods and calculated to their weight. Climbers to increase climbing performance. The who were injured or unable to perform the present study is designed to examine the required test were excluded from the study impact of the strength-to-weight ratio of for safety. Climbers who only completed particular upper body muscle groups that half of the test were also excluded from the could account for the differences in final charts below, but some results may be successful ascents of a range of climbers included within the written form of this from the easiest 10a to the hardest 5.14c. study to provide contextual application. The present study has three goals. (i) to further examine the role climbing has on the body, whether strength training is necessary. (ii) To standardize strength-to-weight (STW) ratios for the ranges of climbing lead and bouldering grades. (iii) To further prevent risk injury by quantifying a required minimum in strength-to-weight ratios to ascend a route. Materials and Apparatus During the test, climbers filled out a chart that had a diagram of the human body, and on each muscle group had a box to record the force applied in lbs, and their strength to weight. On this form were fields to record, gender, highest sport climb grade, highest bouldering grade, and body weight. METHODS Participants 15 male and 9 female athletes, ages 16 to 30, were drawn from a community sample and recruited via online advertisements for climbers interested in participating in the study from 2016 till late 2017. Some of the participants were local to Colorado, from the Beast Fingers Climbing Team, Denver University Climbing team. All participants had been climbing for at least a year. The Grades provided were for outside and inside. If a climber ascended the same grade outside and inside, the result was merged into one field. The force scale used measured in lbs/kilos up to 600lbs. Accuracy class:OIML III. Tare range:100%F.S. Zero range:4%F.S. The Min.cap.2kg; Resolution:0.1kg and Division: 3000. The device was anchored to accommodate the standardized workout procedure. Measurements were taken as a 5 rep max. Climbers were asked to warm-up with at least 20 minutes of climbing before testing. 2 The force meter had multiple hand coaching staff and board of athletics. The attachments to measure accurately. For muscle groups tested were: Latissimus most exercises a rounded handle was dorsi (one arm) on a pulldown machine (one attached. For the testing of finger strength, arm lat pulldown), Subscapularis muscle the Grippul apparatus was used, with a (L,R), Deltoid muscle (L,R), Triceps muscle 19mm climbing hold that was in-cut 15 (L,R), Biceps muscle (L,R), Hand (L,R), degrees. Climbers were allowed to use chalk Forearm (L, R), Extensor (L,R). before testing. R E S U LT S Procedure Prior to testing, participants were briefed on what they would need, and participated in a screening for injuries. Local testing was performed at a local climbing gym, and one test was remote. Participants in this study were asked to climb for at least 20 minutes to warm-up before testing. Testing approximately lasted between 30-40 minutes. All procedures with the Denver University Climbing team were approved by The bouldering measurements revealed top-level climbers had significant margins in the one arm lat pulldown, hand half crimp, and subscapularis (Fig 1). There was less of a margin in forearm, bicep, tricep, and deltoid. For sport climbing, the one arm lat pulldown did not provide a clear difference in strength, with one outlier (Fig 2). Hand strength had a similar curve as bouldering showing significant differences between the 10a climber and a 14c climber, FIGURE 1 V13 Overall Bouldering Strength-to-weight Ratios By Grade V10 V9 V8 120% V7 V6 100% V5 V4 80% V3 60% 40% 20% 0% LATISSIMUS DORSI {ONE ARM) HAND HALF-CRIMP (ONE HAND) SUBSCAP (RIGHT) FOREARM (RIGHT) BICEP (RIGHT) TRICEP (RIGHT) D E LTO I D (RIGHT) Chart showing bouldering strength to bodyweight correlations for climbing grades ranging v3 to v13. 3 B E A S T F I N G E R S C L I M B I N G R E SE A R CH FIGURE 2 5.14c Overall Lead Strength-to-weight Ratios By Grade 5.14a 5.13b 5.13a 120% 5.12d 5.12b 100% 5.12a 5.11d 80% 5.11c 5.11b 60% 5.11a 5.10d 40% 5.10b 5.10a 20% 0% LATISSIMUS DORSI (ONE ARM) HAND HALF-CRIMP (ONE HAND) SUBSCAP (RIGHT) FOREARM (RIGHT) BICEP (RIGHT) TRICEP (RIGHT) D E LTO I D (RIGHT) Chart showing bouldering strength to bodyweight correlations for climbing grades ranging v3 to v13. subscap strength showed significant Progressing from less difficult climb to margins, forearm strength martinis were higher difficulty, was where you began to relatively the same, with the 14c climber see strength numbers line up with or showing significant gains. Tricep strength surpass body weight. The key strength was strength did not have significant separator was finger strength. With hard differences, nor did the deltoid. climbing requiring a climber to sustain 90%-100% or more of body weight on each The level of difficulty between climbs shows hand as shown in figure 3 and 4. Collecting a progression of strength throughout the strength data on other muscle groups made body. Table 1 shows two climbers with it very clear that, although important, a weight differences. Climber 12 and 13 lower percentage of strength in the hand redpoint 5.14. Climber 12 - 5.14c, and would be a key limiting factor for a climber climber 13 - 5.14a. Both climbers half desiring to climb harder grades. Typically, crimped 100% and above on the 19mm on harder grades, with hand edges and foot crimp. Climber 12 weighs 128 lbs, and placements get smaller, a climber is climber 13 weighs 147 lbs. When you required to sustain high force transfers to compare climber 20, who is a female to ascend the route. climber 8, you see very similar strength percentages. In some areas, climber 20 has higher percentages in the biceps, deltoids, and lats. In hands (half-crimp), Climber 8 exceeds climber 20 by 22%. 4 TABLE 1 Strength-to-weight Ratios By Grade Climber 12 Climber 13 Climber 8 Climber 20 Gender M M F F Weight 128 lbs 147 lbs 138 lbs 109 lbs Bouldering V13 V13 V6 V8 Sport 5.14c 5.14a 5.11a 5.13a Lat (One Arm) 118 lbs - 92.1% 100 lbs - 68% 93 lbs - 67% 97 lbs - 88.9% Subscap (L) 72 lbs - 56.2% 46 lbs - 31.2% 21 lbs - 15.2% 34 lbs - 31.1% Subscap (R) 67 lbs - 52.34% 46 lbs - 31.2% 23 lbs - 16.6% 35 lbs - 32% Deltoid (L) 22 lbs - 17% 17 lbs - 11.5% 15 lbs - 10% 16.5 lbs - 15% Deltoid (R) 21 lbs - 16.4% 17 lbs - 11.5% 16 lbs - 11% 18 lbs - 16.5% Tricep (L) 43 lbs - 33.5% 30 lbs - 20.41% 17 lbs - 12.3% 22 lbs - 20.1% Tricep (R) 44 lbs - 34.4% 30 lbs - 20.41% 17 lbs - 12.3% 23 lbs - 21% Bicep (L) 50 lbs - 39% 47 lbs - 31.9% 34 lbs - 24% 36 lbs - 33% Bicep (R) 51 lbs - 39.8% 47 lbs - 31.9% 35 lbs - 25% 37 lbs - 33.9% Hand (L) 128 lbs - 100% 150 lbs - 102% 65 lbs - 47% 88 lbs - 80.7% Hand (R) 128 lbs - 100% 150 lbs - 102% 77 lbs - 55% 88 lbs - 80.7% Forearm (L) 65 lbs - 50.7% 50 lbs - 34% 45 lbs - 32.6% 36 lbs - 33% Forearm (R) 60 lbs - 46.8% 50 lbs - 34% 42 lbs - 30% 34 lbs - 31% Extensor (L) 41 lbs - 32% 31 lbs - 21% 28 lbs - 20% 34 lbs - 31% Extensor (R) 41 lbs - 32% 31 lbs - 21% 30 lbs - 21.7% 31 lbs - 27.5% Full table in Appendix 1. Showing male-female climbers side-by-side. The variance between muscle groups. DISCUSSION The difficulty of a route is usually assessed by the community, starting with a a climber achieving the first ascent, and follow-up repeat ascents by other climbers to either affirm, decrease, or increase the graded difficulty. Climbers expressed their indoor 5 grade climbed closely correlated to their outdoor grade climbed. It is still unclear whether it is tendon mechanical force adaption, or finger tip callus thickness, or both that allows a climber to sustain the demanded finger force on a range of small to large climbing edges. Other muscle groups that seemed to play a key role in B E A S T F I N G E R S C L I M B I N G R E S E A R C H top-level climbers; subscapularis, weight ratio we have seen was from v14-v15 latissimus dorsi, and tricep. What we were climbers, where able to sustained forces surprised by was the small margin of 115-130% of body weight on each hand difference with the forearm, extensors, separately. We can only assume this is the which are key players in grip strength. case for climbs 5.15a and beyond. Having Furthermore, through the lens of this study, data on each climbing grade allows a it may show that a new metric is need to climber or coach to set attainable goals, and bring clarity to a climbers hand strength. walk a climber through performance Through our test, we were able to replicate markers to track success. To expand the the pinch, slopper, jug, and pocket. research, a further look into the differences If the research is expanded, this type of research could assist in injury prevention. Having quantified grade averages lets a climber and coach better prepare their in muscular development of short climbers versus tall climbers would be advantageous. Short climbers are demanded upon to jump and pull, rather then reach and stand. bodies for routes that they wish to ascend. Routes range in difficulty by finger strength, pinch strength, sloper strength, in REFERENCES case of the biomechanics of a climb or Sheel, A.W. (2004). Physiology of sport rock flexibility of a climber to sustain rest, and climbing. British Journal of Sports find ways to be efficient in a climb. Further Medicine. work must be done to collect more strength data from climbers within each sport and bouldering climbing grade to make the data more complete. What this study does is opens the discussion to how we also Brumitt, J., & Cuddeford, T. (2015). Current concepts of muscle and tendon adaptation to strength and conditioning. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. prepare a boulderer and sport climber to excel with optimal strength to reduce injury. We hope our exploration into the performance of an climber on easy to difficult routes changes the way see the sport in performance, injury prevention, and success in the competition space. The fingers ability to sustain force, matching the body weight or passing the body weight is important to hard climbing ascents, with climbs above 5.14a and v12 sustaining forces 100% of body weight and higher on each hand. The higest finger strength to 6 127 120 133 107 146 6 11a 5 10a 7 11d 8 12a 5 10d 6 11a 7 12a 8 12b F F M M M F M Climber 3 Climber 4 Climber 5 Climber 6 Climber 7 Climber 8 Climber 9 Climber 10 F 93.71% 88.7% 156 136 168 109 143 177 140 107 13 14a 5 11a 9 12b 8 12a 9 12d 6 11b 4 11c 8 13a 7 13a 3 11a 10 13a 3 10b Climber 14 F Climber 15 F Climber 16 M Climber 17 M Climber 18 F Climber 19 M Climber 20 F Climber 21 M Climber 22 M Climber 22 M Climber 23 F 131 133 110 147 61.68% 92.86% 88.99% 82.14% 79.39% 89.71% 83.33% 97.74% 17% 68.03% 92.19% 81.51% Climber 13 M 128 5 11a 13 14c Climber 11 M 70.09% 80.31% 67.39% 75% 89.44% 88.72% 66.67% 77.17% 127.66% Climber 12 M 127 138 160 161 141 10 13a M Climber 2 72.22% Weight Lat (one arm) 135 Sport Grade 10 13b M Climber 1 Gender Bouldering TABLE 1 APPENDIX 1 58.88% 91.43% 29.38% 63.64% 31.19% 22.62% 41.22% 56.62% 45.51% 19.55% 28.18% 31.29% 56.25% 19.93% 22.06% 26.77% 15.22% 18.44% 26.71% 24.06% 14.17% 22.83% 21.99% 49.63% Subscap (L) 12.36% 20.56% 58.88% 15.25% 15.24% 15.14% 20.83% 14.5% 12.5% 10.71% 12.56% 10.91% 11.56% 17.19% 14.38% 14.95% 16.54% 10.87% 13.75% 13.66% 12.03% 9.17% 13.78% 10.64% 13.33% Deltoid (L) 92.86% 41.81% 64.34% 32.11% 28.57% 41.98% 56.62% 55.13% 19.55% 28.18% 31.29% 52.34% 19.18% 19.53% 27.56% 16.67% 22.5% 19.88% 26.32% 13.33% 23.94% 24.82% 49.63% Subscap (R) 22.43% 12.36% 17.51% 15.38% 16.51% 20.83% 14.5% 13.24% 10.77% 12.63% 19.09% 11.56% 16.41% 11.16% 15.89% 11.81% 11.59% 14.31% 23.36% 25.71% 42.37% 29.93% 20.18% 30.95% 25.95% 23.53% 22.44% 26.32% 20% 20.41% 33.59% 30.14% 20.65% 29.13% 12.32% 28.75% 27.33% 27.82% 11.28% 14.91% 21.67% 29.13% 17.73% 31.11% Tricep (L) 7.5% 3.94% 10.64% 13.33% Deltoid (R) 23.36% 25.71% 34.46% 29.3% 21.1% 29.76% 25.95% 22.06% 23.72% 27.82% 20% 20.41% 34.38% 29.45% 21.5% 23.62% 12.32% 26.88% 27.14% 15.04% 16.67% 13.39% 21.28% 31.11% Tricep (R) 42.06% 40% 49.15% 42.73% 33.03% 30.95% 45.8% 44.12% 32.69% 38.35% 28.18% 31.97% 39.06% 34.93% 31.78% 31.5% 24.64% 28.75% 33.54% 30.08% 21.17% 25.67% 24.82% 27.78% Bicep (L) B E A S T 42.06% 42.86% 47.46% 41.82% 33.94% 34.52% 45.8% 44.12% 25.64% 30.08% 28.18% 31.97% 39.84% 35.62% 33.64% 32.28% 25.36% 33.75% 40.99% 30.83% 21.67% 51.4% 90.71% 90.71% 46.73% 77.4% 63.85% 61.05% 77.97% 80.73% 57.74% 68.63% 80.88% 80.13% 90.23% 54.55% 102.04% 100% 47.95% 80.37% 74.8% 55.8% 56.88% 71.43% 71.43% 62.5% 62.99% 92.2% 92.59% Hand (R) 44.86% 55% 39.55% 25.87% 33.03% 29.76% 45.8% 33.09% 30.77% 36.09% 27.27% 34.01% 50.78% 34.25% 24.3% 29.92% 32.61% 21.88% 38.51% 36.09% 29.17% 19.69% 21.28% 29.63% Forearm (L) 38.32% 55.71% 36.72% 25.87% 31.19% 33.33% 47.33% 36.03% 28.21% 33.08% 27.27% 34.01% 46.88% 28.22% 22.43% 32.28% 30.43% 23.13% 40.37% 36.09% 28.33% 19.69% 24.82% 29.63% Forearm (R) C L IM B IN G 80.73% 57.14% 68.7% 88.24% 72.44% 82.71% 54.55% 102.04% 100% 46.58% 80.37% 70.87% 47.1% 53.75% 71.43% 71.43% 54.17% 62.99% 92.2% 21.28% 25.67% 81.48% Hand (L) 27.78% Bicep (R) F IN G ERS 24.3% 29.29% 48.59% 19.3% 31.19% 20.24% 38.17% 33.09% 16.67% 19.55% 20.91% 21.09% 32.03% 24.66% 24.3% 31.5% 20.29% 19.38% 19.88% 7 23.36% 30.71% 50.28% 22.38% 27.52% 23.81% 38.17% 24.26% 16.67% 19.55% 20.91% 21.09% 32.03% 23.29% 27.01% 25.2% 21.74% 19.38% 19.88% 21.05% 24.17% 16.54% 16.14% 19.17% 8.51% 25.93% Extensor (R) 16.46% 12.06% 33.33% Extensor (L) RESEA RC H B E A S T F I N G E R S C L I M B I N G R E S E A R C H FIGURE 1B ONE HAND - STRENGTH TO BODYWEIGHT RATIO Bouldering Half Crimp Strength-to-weight Ratios By Grade 140% 130% 120% 110% 101.02% 100% 92.59% 85.55% 90% 80% 71.43% 70% 64.40% 62.99% 57.74% 60% 55.71% 50% v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 v8 v9 v10 v13 BOULDERING GRADE Chart showing bouldering (single) hand to weight correlations for climbing grade ranging v5 to v13. 7 B E A S T F I N G E R S C L I M B I N G R E S E A R C H FIGURE 2B ONE HAND - STRENGTH TO BODYWEIGHT RATIO Sport Climbing Half Crimp Strength-to-weight Ratios By Grade 140% 130% 120% 110% 102.04% 100% 92.59% 90% 86.01% 85.30% 80.88% 80% 74.80% 71.43% 68.63% 70% 62.50% 57.74% 56.88% 60% 55.80% 51.40% 50% 10A 10B 10D 11A 11B 11C 11D 12A 12B 12D 13A 13B 14A SPORT CLIMBING GRADE Chart showing bouldering (single) hand to weight correlations for climbing grade ranging 5.10a to 5.14c. 7