7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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).

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

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

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Energy system contributions in indoor rock climbing.

            The present study cross-sectionally investigated the influence of training status, route difficulty and upper body aerobic and anaerobic performance of climbers on the energetics of indoor rock climbing. Six elite climbers (EC) and seven recreational climbers (RC) were submitted to the following laboratory tests: (a) anthropometry, (b) upper body aerobic power, and (c) upper body Wingate test. On another occasion, EC subjects climbed an easy, a moderate, and a difficult route, whereas RC subjects climbed only the easy route. The fractions of the aerobic (W(AER)), anaerobic alactic (W(PCR)) and anaerobic lactic (W[La(-)]) systems were calculated based on oxygen uptake, the fast component of excess post-exercise oxygen uptake, and changes in net blood lactate, respectively. On the easy route, the metabolic cost was significantly lower in EC [40.3 (6.5) kJ] than in RC [60.1 (8.8) kJ] (P < 0.05). The respective contributions of the W (AER), W (PCR), and W[La(-)] systems in EC were: easy route = 41.5 (8.1), 41.1 (11.4) and 17.4% (5.4), moderate route = 45.8 (8.4), 34.6 (7.1) and 21.9% (6.3), and difficult route = 41.9 (7.4), 35.8 (6.7) and 22.3% (7.2). The contributions of the W (AER), W (PCR), and W[La(-)] systems in RC subjects climbing an easy route were 39.7 (5.0), 34.0 (5.8), and 26.3% (3.8), respectively. These results indicate that the main energy systems required during indoor rock climbing are the aerobic and anaerobic alactic systems. In addition, climbing economy seems to be more important for the performance of these athletes than improved energy metabolism.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Anthropometric, strength, endurance and flexibility characteristics of elite and recreational climbers.

              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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Sports Act Living
                Front Sports Act Living
                Front. Sports Act. Living
                Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2624-9367
                12 April 2022
                2022
                : 4
                : 862782
                Affiliations
                ISM, CNRS, Aix-Marseille University , Marseille, France
                Author notes

                Edited by: Vidar Andersen, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway

                Reviewed by: Nicolay Stien, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway; Dominik Saul, Mayo Clinic, United States

                *Correspondence: Laurent Vigouroux laurent.vigouroux@ 123456univ-amu.fr

                This article was submitted to Exercise Physiology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Sports and Active Living

                Article
                10.3389/fspor.2022.862782
                9039162
                35498522
                51f9da87-2673-4b40-b5c0-fc4ff7ac1364
                Copyright © 2022 Devise, Lechaptois, Berton and Vigouroux.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 26 January 2022
                : 11 March 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 41, Pages: 9, Words: 6887
                Categories
                Sports and Active Living
                Original Research

                climbing,training,force intensity,finger strength,fatigue,stamina,endurance

                Comments

                Comment on this article