PurposeThe primary aim of this study is to determine the principal somatic and motor determinants for elite climbers.MethodsTwenty climbers were examined [age: 28.5±6.1 years].The runners were divided into two groups based on their climbing level, according to the International Rock Climbing Research Association (IRCRA). Elite climbers represented a 8b-8c Rotpunkt (RP) climbing level (n = 6), and advanced climbers represented an 7c+-8a RP level (n = 14). The following measurements were assessed: height, weight, lean body mass, upper limb length, arm span, and forearm, arm, thigh and calf circumference. The BMI, Rohrer ratio, and Ape Index were also measured. The following motor tests were assessed: a specific test for finger strength, an arm strength test, and a test of muscle endurance (hanging from 2.5 and 4 cm ledges). In addition, pull ups were used to measure muscle resistance to fatigue.ResultsElite climbers recorded significantly higher values for finger strength than advanced climbers (129.08 vs. 111.54 kg; t(18) = 2.35, p = 0.03) and arm endurance (33.17 vs. 25.75 pull ups; t(18) = 2.54, p = 0.02). In addition, the calf circumference was significantly lower in elite climbers than that in advanced climbers (34.75 vs. 36.93 cm; t(18) = 3.50, p = 0.003).ConclusionThe results suggest that elite climbers have greater finger strength and arm endurance than advanced climbers.

The purpose of this study was to investigate physiological responses to climbing with different hold types. Eight elite climbers (red-point achievements 8a-9a, French grades) performed two climbing tests to failure which were steady in pace and uniform in wall inclination, distances between holds and hold deepness. Only the hold contact surface inclination was different. Duration of test 1 (111 AE 54 s) was significantly (P ¼ 0.005) less than test 2 (255 AE 127 s), but peak and average oxygen uptake (_ VO 2), heart rate (HR) and post-climbing lactate concentrations were not different (P > 0.05). Nevertheless, hold type had a greater impact on peak compared to average _ VO 2 and HR. Peak _ VO 2 and HR in test 1 and 2 were 34.1 AE 4.8 versus 37 AE 2.1 ml/min/kg and 166 AE 16 versus 171 AE 13 bpm, respectively. Average _ VO 2 and HR were 28.2 AE 2.7 versus 29.2 AE 2.1 ml/min/kg and 154 AE 15 versus 156 AE 14 bpm. Duration of test 1 and percent lactate clearance were significantly correlated with red-point achievement (r ¼ 0.94, P ¼ 0.001 and r ¼ 0.75, P ¼ 0.033, respectively). Peak _ VO 2 was significantly correlated with duration of test 1 (r ¼ 0.80, P ¼ 0.017) and average _ VO 2 was significantly correlated with duration of test 2 (r ¼ 0.85, P ¼ 0.008). Different climbing hold types had no influence on either average or maximal _ VO 2 and HR or on post-climbing lactate. Therefore, these variables could be used for performance evaluation but not as intensity indicators during training for sport climbing.

Introduction. Studies have demonstrated an important role of muscle strength and endurance in climbing. However, little research has explored the speed parameters of the muscles of climbers. This study aimed to evaluate biomechanical indices of the functional status of the upper limbs in climbers. Material and methods. Group G1 (n = 3) were athletes who were able to climb 8c+/9a climbing routes using the red-point style and 7c+/8b routes with the on-sight style. Group G2 (n = 5) comprised climbers who were able to climb 8a/8b+ and 7b+/8a routes, respectively. Maximum muscle torques were measured in the elbow and arm flexors and extensors. Hand grip tests, dynamometric arm strength tests, and laboratory endurance tests were conducted. Results. Strength parameters in both joints were similar in the two groups of climbers. Maximum absolute values of hand grip, crimp grip, and global arm force in hanging did not differ between the groups. Furthermore, significant differences were found for relative indices (from circa 3% to circa 12%). No significant differences were recorded for the parameters of muscle speed. Furthermore, no significant effect of the subjects’ skill level on the results of endurance tests was found. The results obtained in the groups of athletes (G1, G2, and G1+2) were compared with the values recorded in a control group of students (GC, n = 48). Conclusions. Elite climbers were found to have an advantage over the controls only in strength and muscular endurance. No significant differences were observed in the results of speed tests in the muscles of the athletes and students examined in the study. The climbers (G1 and G2) differed in the strength potential of their muscles, but only when relative force indices were analysed. No differences were found in the biomechanical variables of speed and muscular endurance. Conventional tests are typically not a valuable diagnostic tool for the evaluation of climbers.

No abstract