Hangboard training in advanced climbers: A randomized controlled trial

Mundry, Saskia; Steinmetz, Gino; Atkinson, Elizabeth J.; Schilling, Arndt F.; Schöffl, Volker; Saul, Dominik

doi:10.1038/s41598-021-92898-2

Cited by 9 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present systematic review consists of eleven published studies comprising 225 climbers ( Table 2 ). The overall meta-analysis comprised 110 climbers from 5 studies [ 25 , 27 , 33 – 35 ]. The trials compared the effect of resistance-training with climbing on performance in climbing-specific strength- and endurance-tests.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The trials compared the effect of resistance-training with climbing on performance in climbing-specific strength- and endurance-tests. Stratified analyses were performed on two studies [ 34 , 35 ] investigating the effect of resistance-training on dead hang ability comprising 53 climbers, and four studies [ 25 , 27 , 33 , 34 ] investigating the effect of finger resistance-training on finger strength comprising 80 climbers. The six studies [ 26 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 43 ] not included in the meta-analyses, due to not including a control condition, comprised 115 climbers.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Any previously identified records were removed as duplicates. This search identified three new records published in 2021 [ 25 – 27 ]. All identified records were imported to EndNoteX9 and merged into one valid library to allow for removal of duplicate records [ 28 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…NS and AR conducted data extraction of study results separately and settled discrepancy by mutual agreement. Studies were found appropriate for meta-analysis [ 25 , 27 , 33 – 35 ] if they performed any climbing- or resistance-training method in the intervention group and compared the changes to a passive (i.e., no climbing or climbing-specific training) or active (i.e., climbing- or resistance-training as usual) control group. Changes in finger strength were extracted from Levernier and Laffaye [ 33 ], and Medernach et al, [ 34 ], and Stien et al [ 27 ] while changes in dead hang duration were extracted from Medernach et al [ 34 ] and Hermans et al [ 35 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of climbing- and resistance-training on climbing-specific performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Stien¹,

Riiser²,

Shaw³

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effects of climbing and climbing-and-resistance-training on climbing performance, and strength and endurance tests. We systematically searched three databases (SPORTDiscus, SCOPUS, and PubMed) for records published until January 2021. The search was limited to randomized-controlled trials using active climbers and measuring climbing performance or performance in climbing-specific tests. Data from the meta-analysis are presented as standardized difference in mean (SDM) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Eleven studies are included in the systematic review and five studies compared training to a control group and could be meta-analyzed. The overall meta-analysis displayed an improvement in climbing-related test performance following climbing-specific resistance training compared to only climbing (SDM = 0.57, 95%CI = 0.24–0.91). Further analyses revealed that finger strength (SDM = 0.41, 95%CI 0.03–0.80), rate of force development (SDM = 0.91, 95%CI = 0.21–1.61), and forearm endurance (SDM = 1.23, 95%CI = 0.69–1.77) were improved by resistance-training of the finger flexors compared to climbing training. The systematic review showed that climbing performance may be improved by specific resistance-training or interval-style bouldering. However, resistance-training of the finger flexors showed no improvements in strength or endurance in climbing-specific tests. The available evidence suggests that resistance-training may be more effective than just climbing-training for improving performance outcomes. Importantly, interventional studies including climbers is limited and more research is needed to confirm these findings.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of climbing- and resistance-training on climbing-specific performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Stien¹,

Riiser²,

Shaw³

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hangboards are equipped with holds of various shapes, sizes, widths, and depths. To improve the maximal finger strength, some training techniques propose to work at the maximum intensity by hanging for a short time (e.g., 3 s) with maximal added weight or on the minimum depth edge and repeat it several times (e.g., 3 repetitions with 60 s rest time; López-Rivera and González-Badillo, 2012 ; Levernier and Laffaye, 2019 ; Mundry et al, 2021 ). To enhance stamina , some training sessions propose hanging intermittently (e.g., López-Rivera and González-Badillo, 2019 ; alternating 10 s hanging and 5 s resting), generally with the full body weight, on a hold less than one phalange deep (López-Rivera and González-Badillo, 2019 ), for a required number of repetitions (Medernach et al, 2015 ) usually defined to be close to failure during the last one (López-Rivera and González-Badillo, 2019 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Different Hangboard Training Intensities on Finger Grip Strength, Stamina, and Endurance

Devise

Lechaptois

Berton

et al. 2022

Front. Sports Act. Living

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climbing-specific training programs on hangboards are often based on dead-hang repetitions, but little is known about the real intensity applied during such effort. The aim of this study was to quantify and compare the effects of different training intensities (maximal, high submaximal, and low submaximal intensities) on the fingers' physiological capabilities using a hangboard fitted with force sensors. In total, 54 experienced climbers (13 women and 41 men) were randomly divided into four groups, with each group following different training intensity programs: maximal strength program performed at 100% of the maximal finger strength (MFS; F100), intermittent repetitions at 80% MFS (F80), intermittent repetitions at 60% MFS (F60), and no specific training (control group). Participants trained on a 12 mm-deep hold, twice a week for 4 weeks. The MFS, stamina, and endurance levels were evaluated using force data before and after training. Results showed similar values in the control group between pre- and post-tests. A significantly improved MFS was observed in the F100 and F80 groups but not in the F60 group. Significantly higher stamina and endurance measurements were observed in the F80 and F60 groups but not in the F100 group. These results showed that a 4-week hangboard training enabled increasing MFS, stamina and endurance, and that different improvements occurred according to the level of training intensity. Interestingly, the different intensities allow improvements in the targeted capacity (e.g., stamina for the F80 group) but also in the adjacent physiological capabilities (e.g., MFS for the F80 group).

show abstract

A Finger in the Game: Sport-Specific Finger Strength Training and Onset of Injury

Sjöman,

Grønhaug,

Julin

2023

Wilderness & Environmental Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction-Strength training has proved to be an effective way to prevent injuries, but the evidence of the impact of strength training on finger injuries is lacking. A fingerboard is a sport-specific tool used by climbers for strength training of fingers. In this study, we searched for associations between fingerboard training and finger injuries in climbers with different lengths of climbing experience and levels of performance.Methods-A web-based survey was used to collect information on self-perceived pain or injury in fingers (SPIIF) and regular fingerboard training (RFT). The survey was administered to the Finnish climbing community. Data were analyzed using contingency tables; chi-square was used to evaluate statistical significance.Results-No significant correlations between SPIIF and RFT were found when analyzing all the participants (n=434) together. In climbers with 6 y or more in the sport, SPIIF was not common and RFT was negatively associated with SPIIF (χ 2 [1, n=200]=4.57; P=0.03). In contrast to this, in male climbers who had been climbing for less than 6 y and had advanced to 7a level or higher (French lead/Font bouldering), SPIIF was common and RFT was positively associated with SPIIF (χ 2 [1, n=75]=4.61; P=0.03).Conclusions-We suggest that doing RFT may prevent SPIIF in climbers with a long background in the sport as fingerboard training can help build stronger fingers and thereby stronger tendons and ligaments. Climbers with fewer years in the sport and less adaptation to the fingers should be cautious with their training loads and RFT to avoid finger injuries and pain.

show abstract

Hangboard training in advanced climbers: A randomized controlled trial

Cited by 9 publications

References 15 publications

Effects of climbing- and resistance-training on climbing-specific performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Effects of climbing- and resistance-training on climbing-specific performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Effects of Different Hangboard Training Intensities on Finger Grip Strength, Stamina, and Endurance

A Finger in the Game: Sport-Specific Finger Strength Training and Onset of Injury

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About