There has been remarkable development in the scope and quality of rock climbing in recent years. However, there are scant data on the anthropometry, strength, endurance and flexibility of rock climbers. The aim of this study was to compare these characteristics in three groups of subjects-elite rock climbers, recreational climbers and non-climbers. The 30 male subjects were aged 28.8 +/- 8.1 (mean +/- S.D.) years. Group 1 (n = 10) comprised elite rock climbers who had led a climb of a minimum standard of 'E1' (E1-E9 are the highest climbing grades) within the previous 12 months; Group 2 (n = 10) comprised rock climbers who had achieved a standard no better than leading a climb considered 'severe' (a low climbing grade category); and Group 3 (n = 10) comprised physically active individuals who had not previously done any rock climbing. The test battery included tests of finger strength [grip strength, pincer (i.e. thumb and forefinger) strength, finger strength measured on climbing-specific apparatus], body dimensions, body composition, flexibility, arm strength and endurance, and abdominal endurance. The tests which resulted in significant differences (P < 0.05) between the three groups included the bent arm hang (elite 53.1 +/- 1.32 s; recreational 31.4 +/- 9.0 s; non-climbers 32.6 +/- 15.0 s) and pull-ups (elite 16.2 +/- 7.2 repetitions; recreational 3.0 +/- 4.0 reps; non-climbers 3.0 +/- 3.9 reps); for both tests, the elite climbers performed significantly better than the recreational climbers and non-climbers. Regression procedures (i.e. analysis of covariance) were used to examine the influence of body mass and length. Using adjusted means (i.e. for body mass and leg length), significant differences were obtained for the following: (1) finger strength, grip 1, four fingers (right hand) (elite 447 +/- 30 N; recreational 359 +/- 29 N; non-climbers 309 +/- 30 N), (2) grip strength (left hand) (elite 526 +/- 21 N; recreational 445 +/- 21 N; non-climbers 440 +/- 21 N), (3) pincer strength (right hand) (elite 95 +/- 5 N; recreational 69 +/- 5 N; non-climbers 70 +/- 5 N) and (4) leg span (elite 139 +/- 4 cm; recreational 122 +/- 4 cm; non-climbers 124 +/- 4 cm). For tests 3 and 4, the elite climbers performed significantly better than the recreational climbers and non-climbers for any variable. These results demonstrate that elite climbers have greater shoulder girdle endurance, finger strength and hip flexibility than recreational climbers and non-climbers. Those who aspire to lead 'E1' standard climbs or above should consider training programmes to enhance their finger strength, shoulder girdle strength and endurance, and hip flexibility.

There is limited information on the anthropometry, strength, endurance and flexibility of female rock climbers. The aim of this study was to compare these characteristics in three groups of females: Group 1 comprised 10 elite climbers aged 31.3 +/- 5.0 years (mean +/- s) who had led to a standard of 'hard very severe'; Group 2 consisted of 10 recreational climbers aged 24.1 +/- 4.0 years who had led to a standard of 'severe'; and Group 3 comprised 10 physically active individuals aged 28.5 +/- 5.0 years who had not previously rock-climbed. The tests included finger strength (grip strength, finger strength measured on climbing-specific apparatus), flexibility, bent arm hang and pull-ups. Regression procedures (analysis of covariance) were used to examine the influence of body mass, leg length, height and age. For finger strength, the elite climbers recorded significantly higher values (P < 0.05) than the recreational climbers and non-climbers (four fingers, right hand: elite 321 +/- 18 N, recreational 251 +/- 14 N, non-climbers 256 +/- 15 N; four fingers, left hand: elite 307 +/- 14 N, recreational 248 +/- 12 N, non-climbers 243 +/- 11 N). For grip strength of the right hand, the elite climbers recorded significantly higher values than the recreational climbers only (elite 338 +/- 12 N, recreational 289 +/- 10 N, non-climbers 307 +/- 11 N). The results suggest that elite climbers have greater finger strength than recreational climbers and non-climbers.

The primary aim of this study was to assess the ability of the CSA accelerometer to measure physical activity in preschool children. A secondary aim was to examine inter-instrument differences and the effect of accelerometer placement on output. Eleven subjects (mean age = 4.0 years, SD = 0.4) wore the CSA-7164 for a 45-min preschool exercise class. They were observed throughout the class, and their engagement in activity was quantified using the Children’s Physical Activity Form (CPAF). The effect of accelerometer positioning (left vs. right hip) was assessed in 10 subjects over 2 days. CSA output during the class was highly correlated with the CPAF score (r = 0.87, p < .001), and rank order correlations between the 2 methods were also highly significant (r = 0.79, p < .01). Differences in CSA output between left and right hip reached statistical significance (paired t, p < .05), but these differences were small and probably of limited biological significance. The CSA appears to be an appropriate tool for assessment of physical activity in preschool children, but further studies on stability of activity as measured by CSA, as well as its validity, are urged.

No abstract

No abstract