Optimizing Muscular Strength-To-Weight Ratios in Rock Climbing

Home , Grade (bouldering), Grade (climbing), Redpoint (climbing)

BEAST FINGERS CL IMBIN G RESEARCH

MARCH 2018 Optimizing Muscular Strength-to-Weight Ratios in Rock Climbing

BY AMAN A N DERSO N

A C K N O W L EDG E MENT S

We want to thank Dr. Christoph Lutter, and Steven Low for their 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. hangboard, campus board, and system participants were informed that they would Optimizing Muscular 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 Strength-to-Weight Ratios in 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 Rock Climbing 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 BY AMAN ANDERSON to publish more research verifying the standardized workouts that would be logged applicability of different training methods and calculated to their weight. Climbers ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION 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 BACKGROUND impact of the strength-to-weight ratio of for safety. Climbers who only completed There have not been many studies on the role of muscular strength and finger strength and their he competitive climbing sport has particular upper body muscle groups that half of the test were also excluded from the relationship to climbing ability. grown significantly over the past 20 could account for the differences in final charts below, but some results may be years. Previously, most of the focus successful ascents of a range of climbers included within the written form of this OBJECTIVE To evaluate the role major muscle groups and finger of various studies have been from the easiest 10a to the hardest 5.14c. study to provide contextual application. strength strength-to-weight ratios in sport climbers dedicated toward injuries. Fortunately, more and boulderers to climbing ability in a gym setting. attention is starting to be dedicated to The present study has three goals. (i) to advance the science of the sport to produce further examine the role climbing has on METHODS Materials and Apparatus Strength measurements were taken using a force strong top-level climbers. In the last 20 the body, whether strength training is measuring device. Climbers were then given years, there have been international studies necessary. (ii) To standardize standardized exercises for different muscle groups During the test, climbers filled out a chart that have had a significant impact on the strength-to-weight (STW) ratios for the and then later weighed to calculate their that had a diagram of the human body, and strength-to-weight ratio. Climbers were then sport, dedicated to a climbers athletic ranges of climbing lead and bouldering on each muscle group had a box to record questioned on their highest redpoint in bouldering, performance, hand/forearm strength, VO2 grades. (iii) To further prevent risk injury and sport climbing using a standardized the force applied in lbs, and their strength max, and lactic acid threshold (Sheel, 2004). by quantifying a required minimum in questionnaire. to weight. On this form were fields to strength-to-weight ratios to ascend a route. record, gender, highest sport climb grade, RESULTS There are multiple factors associated with The majority of high level climbing athletes showed a climbing that make it difficult for climbers highest bouldering grade, and body weight. significant difference in overall muscular strength, Grades provided were for outside and and hand strength. High-level climbers reflected high and coaches to progress effectively. The METHODS inside. If a climber ascended the same ratios for each hand excelling above 100% of their adaptation of the body’s muscles and bones body weight on a 19mm wooden crimp, with the to external resistance is more rapid than the grade outside and inside, the result was highest being 120%. Women and men were both Participants merged into one field. tested. adaptation of the tendons (Burmitt & Cuddeford, 2015). In the case of climbing, it 15 male and 9 female athletes, ages 16 to The force scale used measured in lbs/kilos CONCLUSION seems muscular strength can only translate Though other factors play a role in successful 30, were drawn from a community sample up to 600lbs. Accuracy class:OIML III. Tare into positive motion if the tendons can climbing ascents, not limited to height, experience, and recruited via online advertisements for range:100%F.S. Zero range:4%F.S. The flexibility, or endurance of a climber, a climbers ability transfer and support the force. Another climbers interested in participating in the Min.cap.2kg; Resolution:0.1kg and Division: to recruit and sustain higher muscular forces in factor is that climbing is both dynamic and relative to their body weight, sustained higher study from 2016 till late 2017. Some of the 3000. The device was anchored to isometric in nature. In addition, there are climbing grades. participants were local to Colorado, from accommodate the standardized workout many different types of training methods the Beast Fingers Climbing Team, Denver procedure. Measurements were taken as a 5 that may utilized by climbers and coaches University Climbing team. All participants rep max. Climbers were asked to warm-up such as traditional resistance training, had been climbing for at least a year. The with at least 20 minutes of climbing before testing. 1

The force meter had multiple hand coaching staff and board of athletics. The attachments to measure accurately. For muscle groups tested were: Latissimus top-level climbers; subscapularis, weight ratio we have seen was from v14-v15 most exercises a rounded handle was dorsi (one arm) on a pulldown machine (one latissimus dorsi, and tricep. What we were climbers, where able to sustained forces attached. For the testing of finger strength, arm lat pulldown), Subscapularis muscle surprised by was the small margin of 115-130% of body weight on each hand the Grippul apparatus was used, with a (L,R), Deltoid muscle (L,R), Triceps muscle difference with the forearm, extensors, separately. We can only assume this is the 19mm climbing hold that was in-cut 15 (L,R), Biceps muscle (L,R), Hand (L,R), which are key players in grip strength. case for climbs 5.15a and beyond. Having degrees. Climbers were allowed to use chalk Forearm (L, R), Extensor (L,R). Furthermore, through the lens of this study, data on each climbing grade allows a before testing. 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 RESULTS the pinch, slopper, jug, and pocket. Procedure research, a further look into the differences in muscular development of short climbers The bouldering measurements revealed If the research is expanded, this type of Prior to testing, participants were briefed versus tall climbers would be advantageous. top-level climbers had significant margins research could assist in injury prevention. on what they would need, and participated Short climbers are demanded upon to jump in the one arm lat pulldown, hand half Having quantified grade averages lets a in a screening for injuries. Local testing and pull, rather then reach and stand. crimp, and subscapularis (Fig 1). There was climber and coach better prepare their was performed at a local climbing gym, and less of a margin in forearm, bicep, tricep, bodies for routes that they wish to ascend. one test was remote. Participants in this and deltoid. For sport climbing, the one Routes range in difficulty by finger study were asked to climb for at least 20 arm lat pulldown did not provide a clear strength, pinch strength, sloper strength, in REFERENCES minutes to warm-up before testing. Testing difference in strength, with one outlier (Fig case of the biomechanics of a climb or Sheel, A.W. (2004). Physiology of sport rock approximately lasted between 30-40 2). Hand strength had a similar curve as subscap strength showed significant Progressing from less difficult climb to flexibility of a climber to sustain rest, and climbing. British Journal of Sports minutes. All procedures with the Denver bouldering showing significant differences margins, forearm strength martinis were higher difficulty, was where you began to find ways to be efficient in a climb. Further Medicine. University Climbing team were approved by between the 10a climber and a 14c climber, relatively the same, with the 14c climber see strength numbers line up with or work must be done to collect more strength Brumitt, J., & Cuddeford, T. (2015). Current showing significant gains. Tricep strength surpass body weight. The key strength data from climbers within each sport and concepts of muscle and tendon adaptation was strength did not have significant separator was finger strength. With hard bouldering climbing grade to make the data to strength and conditioning. International differences, nor did the deltoid. climbing requiring a climber to sustain more complete. What this study does is Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 90%-100% or more of body weight on each opens the discussion to how we also The level of difficulty between climbs shows hand as shown in figure 3 and 4. Collecting prepare a boulderer and sport climber to a progression of strength throughout the strength data on other muscle groups made excel with optimal strength to reduce body. Table 1 shows two climbers with it very clear that, although important, a injury. weight differences. Climber 12 and 13 lower percentage of strength in the hand We hope our exploration into the redpoint 5.14. Climber 12 - 5.14c, and would be a key limiting factor for a climber performance of an climber on easy to climber 13 - 5.14a. Both climbers half desiring to climb harder grades. Typically, difficult routes changes the way see the crimped 100% and above on the 19mm on harder grades, with hand edges and foot DISCUSSION grade climbed closely correlated to their sport in performance, injury prevention, crimp. Climber 12 weighs 128 lbs, and placements get smaller, a climber is outdoor grade climbed. It is still unclear and success in the competition space. The climber 13 weighs 147 lbs. When you required to sustain high force transfers to whether it is tendon mechanical force The difficulty of a route is usually assessed fingers ability to sustain force, matching the compare climber 20, who is a female to ascend the route. adaption, or finger tip callus thickness, or by the community, starting with a a climber climber 8, you see very similar strength both that allows a climber to sustain the body weight or passing the body weight is achieving the first ascent, and follow-up percentages. In some areas, climber 20 has demanded finger force on a range of small important to hard climbing ascents, with repeat ascents by other climbers to either higher percentages in the biceps, deltoids, to large climbing edges. Other muscle climbs above 5.14a and v12 sustaining affirm, decrease, or increase the graded and lats. In hands (half-crimp), Climber 8 groups that seemed to play a key role in forces 100% of body weight and higher on difficulty. Climbers expressed their indoor exceeds climber 20 by 22%. each hand. The higest finger strength to

APPENDIX 1 BEAST FINGERS CLIMBING RESEARCH

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 he competitive climbing sport has particular upper body muscle groups that half of the test were also excluded from the grown significantly over the past 20 could account for the differences in final charts below, but some results may be years. Previously, most of the focus successful ascents of a range of climbers included within the written form of this of various studies have been from the easiest 10a to the hardest 5.14c. study to provide contextual application. dedicated toward injuries. Fortunately, more attention is starting to be dedicated to The present study has three goals. (i) to advance the science of the sport to produce further examine the role climbing has on Materials and Apparatus strong top-level climbers. In the last 20 the body, whether strength training is years, there have been international studies necessary. (ii) To standardize During the test, climbers filled out a chart that have had a significant impact on the strength-to-weight (STW) ratios for the that had a diagram of the human body, and sport, dedicated to a climbers athletic ranges of climbing lead and bouldering on each muscle group had a box to record performance, hand/forearm strength, VO2 grades. (iii) To further prevent risk injury the force applied in lbs, and their strength max, and lactic acid threshold (Sheel, 2004). by quantifying a required minimum in to weight. On this form were fields to strength-to-weight ratios to ascend a route. There are multiple factors associated with record, gender, highest sport climb grade, climbing that make it difficult for climbers highest bouldering grade, and body weight. Grades provided were for outside and and coaches to progress effectively. The METHODS adaptation of the body’s muscles and bones inside. If a climber ascended the same grade outside and inside, the result was to external resistance is more rapid than the Participants adaptation of the tendons (Burmitt & merged into one field. Cuddeford, 2015). In the case of climbing, it 15 male and 9 female athletes, ages 16 to The force scale used measured in lbs/kilos seems muscular strength can only translate 30, were drawn from a community sample up to 600lbs. Accuracy class:OIML III. Tare into positive motion if the tendons can and recruited via online advertisements for range:100%F.S. Zero range:4%F.S. The transfer and support the force. Another climbers interested in participating in the Min.cap.2kg; Resolution:0.1kg and Division: factor is that climbing is both dynamic and study from 2016 till late 2017. Some of the 3000. The device was anchored to isometric in nature. In addition, there are participants were local to Colorado, from accommodate the standardized workout many different types of training methods the Beast Fingers Climbing Team, Denver procedure. Measurements were taken as a 5 that may utilized by climbers and coaches University Climbing team. All participants rep max. Climbers were asked to warm-up such as traditional resistance training, had been climbing for at least a year. The with at least 20 minutes of climbing before testing. 2

APPENDIX 1 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 he competitive climbing sport has particular upper body muscle groups that half of the test were also excluded from the grown significantly over the past 20 could account for the differences in final charts below, but some results may be years. Previously, most of the focus successful ascents of a range of climbers included within the written form of this of various studies have been from the easiest 10a to the hardest 5.14c. study to provide contextual application. dedicated toward injuries. Fortunately, more attention is starting to be dedicated to The present study has three goals. (i) to advance the science of the sport to produce further examine the role climbing has on Materials and Apparatus strong top-level climbers. In the last 20 the body, whether strength training is years, there have been international studies necessary. (ii) To standardize During the test, climbers filled out a chart that have had a significant impact on the strength-to-weight (STW) ratios for the that had a diagram of the human body, and sport, dedicated to a climbers athletic ranges of climbing lead and bouldering on each muscle group had a box to record performance, hand/forearm strength, VO2 grades. (iii) To further prevent risk injury the force applied in lbs, and their strength max, and lactic acid threshold (Sheel, 2004). by quantifying a required minimum in to weight. On this form were fields to strength-to-weight ratios to ascend a route. There are multiple factors associated with record, gender, highest sport climb grade, climbing that make it difficult for climbers highest bouldering grade, and body weight. Grades provided were for outside and and coaches to progress effectively. The METHODS adaptation of the body’s muscles and bones inside. If a climber ascended the same grade outside and inside, the result was to external resistance is more rapid than the Participants adaptation of the tendons (Burmitt & merged into one field. Cuddeford, 2015). In the case of climbing, it 15 male and 9 female athletes, ages 16 to The force scale used measured in lbs/kilos seems muscular strength can only translate 30, were drawn from a community sample up to 600lbs. Accuracy class:OIML III. Tare into positive motion if the tendons can and recruited via online advertisements for range:100%F.S. Zero range:4%F.S. The transfer and support the force. Another climbers interested in participating in the Min.cap.2kg; Resolution:0.1kg and Division: factor is that climbing is both dynamic and study from 2016 till late 2017. Some of the 3000. The device was anchored to isometric in nature. In addition, there are participants were local to Colorado, from accommodate the standardized workout many different types of training methods the Beast Fingers Climbing Team, Denver procedure. Measurements were taken as a 5 that may utilized by climbers and coaches University Climbing team. All participants rep max. Climbers were asked to warm-up such as traditional resistance training, had been climbing for at least a year. The with at least 20 minutes of climbing before testing.

The force meter had multiple hand coaching staff and board of athletics. The attachments to measure accurately. For muscle groups tested were: Latissimus top-level climbers; subscapularis, weight ratio we have seen was from v14-v15 most exercises a rounded handle was dorsi (one arm) on a pulldown machine (one latissimus dorsi, and tricep. What we were climbers, where able to sustained forces attached. For the testing of finger strength, arm lat pulldown), Subscapularis muscle surprised by was the small margin of 115-130% of body weight on each hand the Grippul apparatus was used, with a (L,R), Deltoid muscle (L,R), Triceps muscle difference with the forearm, extensors, separately. We can only assume this is the 19mm climbing hold that was in-cut 15 (L,R), Biceps muscle (L,R), Hand (L,R), which are key players in grip strength. case for climbs 5.15a and beyond. Having degrees. Climbers were allowed to use chalk Forearm (L, R), Extensor (L,R). Furthermore, through the lens of this study, data on each climbing grade allows a before testing. 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 RESULTS the pinch, slopper, jug, and pocket. Procedure research, a further look into the differences in muscular development of short climbers The bouldering measurements revealed If the research is expanded, this type of Prior to testing, participants were briefed versus tall climbers would be advantageous. top-level climbers had significant margins research could assist in injury prevention. on what they would need, and participated Short climbers are demanded upon to jump in the one arm lat pulldown, hand half Having quantified grade averages lets a in a screening for injuries. Local testing and pull, rather then reach and stand. crimp, and subscapularis (Fig 1). There was climber and coach better prepare their was performed at a local climbing gym, and less of a margin in forearm, bicep, tricep, bodies for routes that they wish to ascend. one test was remote. Participants in this and deltoid. For sport climbing, the one Routes range in difficulty by finger study were asked to climb for at least 20 arm lat pulldown did not provide a clear strength, pinch strength, sloper strength, in REFERENCES minutes to warm-up before testing. Testing difference in strength, with one outlier (Fig case of the biomechanics of a climb or Sheel, A.W. (2004). Physiology of sport rock approximately lasted between 30-40 2). Hand strength had a similar curve as subscap strength showed significant Progressing from less difficult climb to flexibility of a climber to sustain rest, and climbing. British Journal of Sports minutes. All procedures with the Denver bouldering showing significant differences margins, forearm strength martinis were higher difficulty, was where you began to find ways to be efficient in a climb. Further Medicine. University Climbing team were approved by between the 10a climber and a 14c climber, relatively the same, with the 14c climber see strength numbers line up with or work must be done to collect more strength Brumitt, J., & Cuddeford, T. (2015). Current showing significant gains. Tricep strength surpass body weight. The key strength data from climbers within each sport and concepts of muscle and tendon adaptation was strength did not have significant separator was finger strength. With hard bouldering climbing grade to make the data V13 to strength and conditioning. International FIGURE 1 differences, nor did the deltoid. climbing requiring a climber to sustain more complete. What this study does is Overall Bouldering Strength-to-weight Ratios By Grade V10 Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. V9 90%-100% or more of body weight on each opens the discussion to how we also The level of difficulty between climbs shows 120% V8 hand as shown in figure 3 and 4. Collecting prepare a boulderer and sport climber to V7 a progression of strength throughout the strength data on other muscle groups made excel with optimal strength to reduce V6 100% body. Table 1 shows two climbers with it very clear that, although important, a injury. V5 weight differences. Climber 12 and 13 V4 lower percentage of strength in the hand 80% redpoint 5.14. Climber 12 - 5.14c, and We hope our exploration into the V3 would be a key limiting factor for a climber climber 13 - 5.14a. Both climbers half performance of an climber on easy to 60% desiring to climb harder grades. Typically, difficult routes changes the way see the crimped 100% and above on the 19mm on harder grades, with hand edges and foot DISCUSSION grade climbed closely correlated to their sport in performance, injury prevention, 40% crimp. Climber 12 weighs 128 lbs, and placements get smaller, a climber is outdoor grade climbed. It is still unclear and success in the competition space. The climber 13 weighs 147 lbs. When you required to sustain high force transfers to whether it is tendon mechanical force The difficulty of a route is usually assessed 20% fingers ability to sustain force, matching the compare climber 20, who is a female to ascend the route. adaption, or finger tip callus thickness, or by the community, starting with a a climber climber 8, you see very similar strength both that allows a climber to sustain the body weight or passing the body weight is 0% achieving the first ascent, and follow-up LATISSIMUS HAND SUBSCAP FOREARM BICEP TRICEP DELTOID percentages. In some areas, climber 20 has important to hard climbing ascents, with DORSI HALF-CRIMP (RIGHT) (RIGHT) (RIGHT) (RIGHT) (RIGHT) demanded finger force on a range of small {ONE ARM) (ONE HAND) repeat ascents by other climbers to either higher percentages in the biceps, deltoids, to large climbing edges. Other muscle climbs above 5.14a and v12 sustaining affirm, decrease, or increase the graded Chart showing bouldering strength to bodyweight correlations for climbing grades ranging v3 to v13. and lats. In hands (half-crimp), Climber 8 groups that seemed to play a key role in forces 100% of body weight and higher on difficulty. Climbers expressed their indoor exceeds climber 20 by 22%. each hand. The higest finger strength to

3 APPENDIX 1 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 he competitive climbing sport has particular upper body muscle groups that half of the test were also excluded from the grown significantly over the past 20 could account for the differences in final charts below, but some results may be years. Previously, most of the focus successful ascents of a range of climbers included within the written form of this of various studies have been from the easiest 10a to the hardest 5.14c. study to provide contextual application. dedicated toward injuries. Fortunately, more attention is starting to be dedicated to The present study has three goals. (i) to advance the science of the sport to produce further examine the role climbing has on Materials and Apparatus strong top-level climbers. In the last 20 the body, whether strength training is years, there have been international studies necessary. (ii) To standardize During the test, climbers filled out a chart that have had a significant impact on the strength-to-weight (STW) ratios for the that had a diagram of the human body, and sport, dedicated to a climbers athletic ranges of climbing lead and bouldering on each muscle group had a box to record performance, hand/forearm strength, VO2 grades. (iii) To further prevent risk injury the force applied in lbs, and their strength max, and lactic acid threshold (Sheel, 2004). by quantifying a required minimum in to weight. On this form were fields to strength-to-weight ratios to ascend a route. There are multiple factors associated with record, gender, highest sport climb grade, climbing that make it difficult for climbers highest bouldering grade, and body weight. Grades provided were for outside and and coaches to progress effectively. The METHODS adaptation of the body’s muscles and bones inside. If a climber ascended the same grade outside and inside, the result was to external resistance is more rapid than the Participants adaptation of the tendons (Burmitt & merged into one field. Cuddeford, 2015). In the case of climbing, it 15 male and 9 female athletes, ages 16 to The force scale used measured in lbs/kilos seems muscular strength can only translate 30, were drawn from a community sample up to 600lbs. Accuracy class:OIML III. Tare into positive motion if the tendons can and recruited via online advertisements for range:100%F.S. Zero range:4%F.S. The transfer and support the force. Another climbers interested in participating in the Min.cap.2kg; Resolution:0.1kg and Division: factor is that climbing is both dynamic and study from 2016 till late 2017. Some of the 3000. The device was anchored to isometric in nature. In addition, there are participants were local to Colorado, from accommodate the standardized workout many different types of training methods the Beast Fingers Climbing Team, Denver procedure. Measurements were taken as a 5 that may utilized by climbers and coaches University Climbing team. All participants rep max. Climbers were asked to warm-up such as traditional resistance training, had been climbing for at least a year. The with at least 20 minutes of climbing before testing.

BEAST FINGERS CLIMBING RESEARCH

The force meter had multiple hand coaching staff and board of athletics. The attachments to measure accurately. For muscle groups tested were: Latissimus FIGURE 2 5.14c top-level climbers; subscapularis, weight ratio we have seen was from v14-v15 4.14a most exercises a rounded handle was dorsi (one arm) on a pulldown machine (one Overall Lead Strength-to-weight Ratios By Grade latissimus dorsi, and tricep. What we were climbers, where able to sustained forces 5.13b attached. For the testing of ﬁnger strength, arm lat pulldown), Subscapularis muscle surprised by was the small margin of 115-130% of body weight on each hand 120% 5.13a the Grippul apparatus was used, with a (L,R), Deltoid muscle (L,R), Triceps muscle 5.12d difference with the forearm, extensors, separately. We can only assume this is the

5.12b 19mm climbing hold that was in-cut 15 (L,R), Biceps muscle (L,R), Hand (L,R), 100% which are key players in grip strength. case for climbs 5.15a and beyond. Having degrees. Climbers were allowed to use chalk Forearm (L, R), Extensor (L,R). 5.12a Furthermore, through the lens of this study, data on each climbing grade allows a 5.11d before testing. 80% it may show that a new metric is need to climber or coach to set attainable goals, and 5.11c

5.11b bring clarity to a climbers hand strength. walk a climber through performance 60% 5.11a Through our test, we were able to replicate markers to track success. To expand the RESULTS 5.10d the pinch, slopper, jug, and pocket. research, a further look into the differences Procedure 40% 5.10b in muscular development of short climbers 5.10a The bouldering measurements revealed 20% If the research is expanded, this type of Prior to testing, participants were briefed versus tall climbers would be advantageous. top-level climbers had significant margins research could assist in injury prevention. on what they would need, and participated Short climbers are demanded upon to jump 0% Having quantified grade averages lets a in the one arm lat pulldown, hand half LATISSIMUS HAND SUBSCAP FOREARM BICEP TRICEP DELTOID and pull, rather then reach and stand. in a screening for injuries. Local testing DORSI HALF-CRIMP (RIGHT) (RIGHT) (RIGHT) (RIGHT) (RIGHT) crimp, and subscapularis (Fig 1). There was {ONE ARM) (ONE HAND) climber and coach better prepare their was performed at a local climbing gym, and less of a margin in forearm, bicep, tricep, bodies for routes that they wish to ascend. one test was remote. Participants in this Chart showing bouldering strength to bodyweight correlations for climbing grades ranging v3 to v13. and deltoid. For sport climbing, the one Routes range in difficulty by finger study were asked to climb for at least 20 arm lat pulldown did not provide a clear strength, pinch strength, sloper strength, in REFERENCES minutes to warm-up before testing. Testing difference in strength, with one outlier (Fig case of the biomechanics of a climb or Sheel, A.W. (2004). Physiology of sport rock approximately lasted between 30-40 2). Hand strength had a similar curve as subscap strength showed significant Progressing from less difficult climb to flexibility of a climber to sustain rest, and climbing. British Journal of Sports minutes. All procedures with the Denver bouldering showing significant differences margins, forearm strength martinis were higher difficulty, was where you began to find ways to be efficient in a climb. Further Medicine. University Climbing team were approved by between the 10a climber and a 14c climber, relatively the same, with the 14c climber see strength numbers line up with or work must be done to collect more strength Brumitt, J., & Cuddeford, T. (2015). Current showing significant gains. Tricep strength surpass body weight. The key strength data from climbers within each sport and concepts of muscle and tendon adaptation was strength did not have significant separator was finger strength. With hard bouldering climbing grade to make the data to strength and conditioning. International differences, nor did the deltoid. climbing requiring a climber to sustain more complete. What this study does is Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 90%-100% or more of body weight on each opens the discussion to how we also The level of difficulty between climbs shows hand as shown in figure 3 and 4. Collecting prepare a boulderer and sport climber to a progression of strength throughout the strength data on other muscle groups made excel with optimal strength to reduce body. Table 1 shows two climbers with it very clear that, although important, a injury. weight differences. Climber 12 and 13 lower percentage of strength in the hand We hope our exploration into the redpoint 5.14. Climber 12 - 5.14c, and would be a key limiting factor for a climber performance of an climber on easy to climber 13 - 5.14a. Both climbers half desiring to climb harder grades. Typically, difficult routes changes the way see the crimped 100% and above on the 19mm on harder grades, with hand edges and foot DISCUSSION grade climbed closely correlated to their sport in performance, injury prevention, crimp. Climber 12 weighs 128 lbs, and placements get smaller, a climber is outdoor grade climbed. It is still unclear and success in the competition space. The climber 13 weighs 147 lbs. When you required to sustain high force transfers to whether it is tendon mechanical force The difficulty of a route is usually assessed fingers ability to sustain force, matching the compare climber 20, who is a female to ascend the route. adaption, or finger tip callus thickness, or by the community, starting with a a climber climber 8, you see very similar strength both that allows a climber to sustain the body weight or passing the body weight is achieving the first ascent, and follow-up percentages. In some areas, climber 20 has demanded finger force on a range of small important to hard climbing ascents, with repeat ascents by other climbers to either higher percentages in the biceps, deltoids, to large climbing edges. Other muscle climbs above 5.14a and v12 sustaining affirm, decrease, or increase the graded and lats. In hands (half-crimp), Climber 8 groups that seemed to play a key role in forces 100% of body weight and higher on difficulty. Climbers expressed their indoor exceeds climber 20 by 22%. each hand. The higest finger strength to

4 APPENDIX 1 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 he competitive climbing sport has particular upper body muscle groups that half of the test were also excluded from the grown significantly over the past 20 could account for the differences in final charts below, but some results may be years. Previously, most of the focus successful ascents of a range of climbers included within the written form of this of various studies have been from the easiest 10a to the hardest 5.14c. study to provide contextual application. dedicated toward injuries. Fortunately, more attention is starting to be dedicated to The present study has three goals. (i) to advance the science of the sport to produce further examine the role climbing has on Materials and Apparatus strong top-level climbers. In the last 20 the body, whether strength training is years, there have been international studies necessary. (ii) To standardize During the test, climbers filled out a chart that have had a significant impact on the strength-to-weight (STW) ratios for the that had a diagram of the human body, and sport, dedicated to a climbers athletic ranges of climbing lead and bouldering on each muscle group had a box to record performance, hand/forearm strength, VO2 grades. (iii) To further prevent risk injury the force applied in lbs, and their strength max, and lactic acid threshold (Sheel, 2004). by quantifying a required minimum in to weight. On this form were fields to strength-to-weight ratios to ascend a route. There are multiple factors associated with record, gender, highest sport climb grade, climbing that make it difficult for climbers highest bouldering grade, and body weight. Grades provided were for outside and and coaches to progress effectively. The METHODS adaptation of the body’s muscles and bones inside. If a climber ascended the same grade outside and inside, the result was to external resistance is more rapid than the Participants adaptation of the tendons (Burmitt & merged into one field. Cuddeford, 2015). In the case of climbing, it 15 male and 9 female athletes, ages 16 to The force scale used measured in lbs/kilos seems muscular strength can only translate 30, were drawn from a community sample up to 600lbs. Accuracy class:OIML III. Tare into positive motion if the tendons can and recruited via online advertisements for range:100%F.S. Zero range:4%F.S. The transfer and support the force. Another climbers interested in participating in the Min.cap.2kg; Resolution:0.1kg and Division: factor is that climbing is both dynamic and study from 2016 till late 2017. Some of the 3000. The device was anchored to isometric in nature. In addition, there are participants were local to Colorado, from accommodate the standardized workout many different types of training methods the Beast Fingers Climbing Team, Denver procedure. Measurements were taken as a 5 that may utilized by climbers and coaches University Climbing team. All participants rep max. Climbers were asked to warm-up such as traditional resistance training, had been climbing for at least a year. The with at least 20 minutes of climbing before testing.

The force meter had multiple hand coaching staff and board of athletics. The attachments to measure accurately. For muscle groups tested were: Latissimus TABLE 1 top-level climbers; subscapularis, weight ratio we have seen was from v14-v15 most exercises a rounded handle was dorsi (one arm) on a pulldown machine (one Strength-to-weight Ratios By Grade latissimus dorsi, and tricep. What we were climbers, where able to sustained forces attached. For the testing of ﬁnger strength, arm lat pulldown), Subscapularis muscle surprised by was the small margin of 115-130% of body weight on each hand the Grippul apparatus was used, with a (L,R), Deltoid muscle (L,R), Triceps muscle Climber 12 Climber 13 Climber 8 Climber 20 difference with the forearm, extensors, separately. We can only assume this is the

19mm climbing hold that was in-cut 15 (L,R), Biceps muscle (L,R), Hand (L,R), Gender M M F F which are key players in grip strength. case for climbs 5.15a and beyond. Having degrees. Climbers were allowed to use chalk Forearm (L, R), Extensor (L,R). Furthermore, through the lens of this study, data on each climbing grade allows a Weight 128 lbs 147 lbs 138 lbs 109 lbs before testing. it may show that a new metric is need to climber or coach to set attainable goals, and Bouldering V13 V13 V6 V8 bring clarity to a climbers hand strength. walk a climber through performance Sport 5.14c 5.14a 5.11a 5.13a Through our test, we were able to replicate markers to track success. To expand the RESULTS the pinch, slopper, jug, and pocket. research, a further look into the differences Procedure Lat (One Arm) 118 lbs - 92.1% 100 lbs - 68% 93 lbs - 67% 97 lbs - 88.9% in muscular development of short climbers The bouldering measurements revealed Subscap (L) 72 lbs - 56.2% 46 lbs - 31.2% 21 lbs - 15.2% 34 lbs - 31.1% If the research is expanded, this type of Prior to testing, participants were briefed versus tall climbers would be advantageous. top-level climbers had significant margins research could assist in injury prevention. on what they would need, and participated Subscap (R) 67 lbs - 52.34% 46 lbs - 31.2% 23 lbs - 16.6% 35 lbs - 32% Short climbers are demanded upon to jump in the one arm lat pulldown, hand half Having quantified grade averages lets a and pull, rather then reach and stand. in a screening for injuries. Local testing Deltoid (L) 22 lbs - 17% 17 lbs - 11.5% 15 lbs - 10% 16.5 lbs - 15% crimp, and subscapularis (Fig 1). There was climber and coach better prepare their was performed at a local climbing gym, and less of a margin in forearm, bicep, tricep, Deltoid (R) 21 lbs - 16.4% 17 lbs - 11.5% 16 lbs - 11% 18 lbs - 16.5% bodies for routes that they wish to ascend. one test was remote. Participants in this and deltoid. For sport climbing, the one Tricep (L) 43 lbs - 33.5% 30 lbs - 20.41% 17 lbs - 12.3% 22 lbs - 20.1% Routes range in difficulty by finger study were asked to climb for at least 20 arm lat pulldown did not provide a clear strength, pinch strength, sloper strength, in REFERENCES minutes to warm-up before testing. Testing Tricep (R) 44 lbs - 34.4% 30 lbs - 20.41% 17 lbs - 12.3% 23 lbs - 21% difference in strength, with one outlier (Fig case of the biomechanics of a climb or Sheel, A.W. (2004). Physiology of sport rock approximately lasted between 30-40 Bicep (L) 50 lbs - 39% 47 lbs - 31.9% 34 lbs - 24% 36 lbs - 33% 2). Hand strength had a similar curve as subscap strength showed significant Progressing from less difficult climb to flexibility of a climber to sustain rest, and climbing. British Journal of Sports minutes. All procedures with the Denver bouldering showing significant differences margins, forearm strength martinis were higher difficulty, was where you began to Bicep (R) 51 lbs - 39.8% 47 lbs - 31.9% 35 lbs - 25% 37 lbs - 33.9% find ways to be efficient in a climb. Further Medicine. University Climbing team were approved by between the 10a climber and a 14c climber, relatively the same, with the 14c climber see strength numbers line up with or work must be done to collect more strength Hand (L) 128 lbs - 100% 150 lbs - 102% 65 lbs - 47% 88 lbs - 80.7% Brumitt, J., & Cuddeford, T. (2015). Current showing significant gains. Tricep strength surpass body weight. The key strength data from climbers within each sport and Hand (R) 128 lbs - 100% 150 lbs - 102% 77 lbs - 55% 88 lbs - 80.7% concepts of muscle and tendon adaptation was strength did not have significant separator was finger strength. With hard bouldering climbing grade to make the data to strength and conditioning. International differences, nor did the deltoid. climbing requiring a climber to sustain Forearm (L) 65 lbs - 50.7% 50 lbs - 34% 45 lbs - 32.6% 36 lbs - 33% more complete. What this study does is Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 90%-100% or more of body weight on each Forearm (R) 60 lbs - 46.8% 50 lbs - 34% 42 lbs - 30% 34 lbs - 31% opens the discussion to how we also The level of difficulty between climbs shows hand as shown in figure 3 and 4. Collecting prepare a boulderer and sport climber to Extensor (L) 41 lbs - 32% 31 lbs - 21% 28 lbs - 20% 34 lbs - 31% a progression of strength throughout the strength data on other muscle groups made excel with optimal strength to reduce body. Table 1 shows two climbers with it very clear that, although important, a Extensor (R) 41 lbs - 32% 31 lbs - 21% 30 lbs - 21.7% 31 lbs - 27.5% injury. weight differences. Climber 12 and 13 lower percentage of strength in the hand We hope our exploration into the redpoint 5.14. Climber 12 - 5.14c, and would be a key limiting factor for a climber Full table in Appendix 1. Showing male-female climbers side-by-side. The variance between muscle groups. performance of an climber on easy to climber 13 - 5.14a. Both climbers half desiring to climb harder grades. Typically, difficult routes changes the way see the crimped 100% and above on the 19mm on harder grades, with hand edges and foot DISCUSSION grade climbed closely correlated to their sport in performance, injury prevention, crimp. Climber 12 weighs 128 lbs, and placements get smaller, a climber is outdoor grade climbed. It is still unclear and success in the competition space. The climber 13 weighs 147 lbs. When you required to sustain high force transfers to whether it is tendon mechanical force The difficulty of a route is usually assessed fingers ability to sustain force, matching the compare climber 20, who is a female to ascend the route. adaption, or finger tip callus thickness, or by the community, starting with a a climber climber 8, you see very similar strength both that allows a climber to sustain the body weight or passing the body weight is achieving the first ascent, and follow-up percentages. In some areas, climber 20 has demanded finger force on a range of small important to hard climbing ascents, with repeat ascents by other climbers to either higher percentages in the biceps, deltoids, to large climbing edges. Other muscle climbs above 5.14a and v12 sustaining affirm, decrease, or increase the graded and lats. In hands (half-crimp), Climber 8 groups that seemed to play a key role in forces 100% of body weight and higher on difficulty. Climbers expressed their indoor exceeds climber 20 by 22%. each hand. The higest finger strength to

5 APPENDIX 1 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 he competitive climbing sport has particular upper body muscle groups that half of the test were also excluded from the grown significantly over the past 20 could account for the differences in final charts below, but some results may be years. Previously, most of the focus successful ascents of a range of climbers included within the written form of this of various studies have been from the easiest 10a to the hardest 5.14c. study to provide contextual application. dedicated toward injuries. Fortunately, more attention is starting to be dedicated to The present study has three goals. (i) to advance the science of the sport to produce further examine the role climbing has on Materials and Apparatus strong top-level climbers. In the last 20 the body, whether strength training is years, there have been international studies necessary. (ii) To standardize During the test, climbers filled out a chart that have had a significant impact on the strength-to-weight (STW) ratios for the that had a diagram of the human body, and sport, dedicated to a climbers athletic ranges of climbing lead and bouldering on each muscle group had a box to record performance, hand/forearm strength, VO2 grades. (iii) To further prevent risk injury the force applied in lbs, and their strength max, and lactic acid threshold (Sheel, 2004). by quantifying a required minimum in to weight. On this form were fields to strength-to-weight ratios to ascend a route. There are multiple factors associated with record, gender, highest sport climb grade, climbing that make it difficult for climbers highest bouldering grade, and body weight. Grades provided were for outside and and coaches to progress effectively. The METHODS adaptation of the body’s muscles and bones inside. If a climber ascended the same grade outside and inside, the result was to external resistance is more rapid than the Participants adaptation of the tendons (Burmitt & merged into one field. Cuddeford, 2015). In the case of climbing, it 15 male and 9 female athletes, ages 16 to The force scale used measured in lbs/kilos seems muscular strength can only translate 30, were drawn from a community sample up to 600lbs. Accuracy class:OIML III. Tare into positive motion if the tendons can and recruited via online advertisements for range:100%F.S. Zero range:4%F.S. The transfer and support the force. Another climbers interested in participating in the Min.cap.2kg; Resolution:0.1kg and Division: factor is that climbing is both dynamic and study from 2016 till late 2017. Some of the 3000. The device was anchored to isometric in nature. In addition, there are participants were local to Colorado, from accommodate the standardized workout many different types of training methods the Beast Fingers Climbing Team, Denver procedure. Measurements were taken as a 5 that may utilized by climbers and coaches University Climbing team. All participants rep max. Climbers were asked to warm-up such as traditional resistance training, had been climbing for at least a year. The with at least 20 minutes of climbing before testing.

BEAST FINGERS CLIMBING RESEARCH

19mm climbing hold that was in-cut 15 (L,R), Biceps muscle (L,R), Hand (L,R), F which are key players in grip strength. case for climbs 5.15a and beyond. Having degrees. Climbers were allowed to use chalk Forearm (L, R), Extensor (L,R). Furthermore, through the lens of this study, data on each climbing grade allows a 109 lbs before testing. it may show that a new metric is need to climber or coach to set attainable goals, and V8 bring clarity to a climbers hand strength. walk a climber through performance 5.13a Through our test, we were able to replicate markers to track success. To expand the RESULTS the pinch, slopper, jug, and pocket. research, a further look into the differences Procedure 97 lbs - 88.9% in muscular development of short climbers The bouldering measurements revealed 34 lbs - 31.1% If the research is expanded, this type of Prior to testing, participants were briefed versus tall climbers would be advantageous. top-level climbers had significant margins research could assist in injury prevention. on what they would need, and participated 35 lbs - 32% Short climbers are demanded upon to jump in the one arm lat pulldown, hand half Having quantified grade averages lets a and pull, rather then reach and stand. in a screening for injuries. Local testing 16.5 lbs - 15% crimp, and subscapularis (Fig 1). There was climber and coach better prepare their was performed at a local climbing gym, and less of a margin in forearm, bicep, tricep, 18 lbs - 16.5% bodies for routes that they wish to ascend. one test was remote. Participants in this and deltoid. For sport climbing, the one 22 lbs - 20.1% Routes range in difficulty by finger study were asked to climb for at least 20 arm lat pulldown did not provide a clear strength, pinch strength, sloper strength, in REFERENCES minutes to warm-up before testing. Testing 23 lbs - 21% difference in strength, with one outlier (Fig case of the biomechanics of a climb or Sheel, A.W. (2004). Physiology of sport rock approximately lasted between 30-40 36 lbs - 33% 2). Hand strength had a similar curve as subscap strength showed significant Progressing from less difficult climb to flexibility of a climber to sustain rest, and climbing. British Journal of Sports minutes. All procedures with the Denver bouldering showing significant differences margins, forearm strength martinis were higher difficulty, was where you began to 37 lbs - 33.9% find ways to be efficient in a climb. Further Medicine. University Climbing team were approved by between the 10a climber and a 14c climber, relatively the same, with the 14c climber see strength numbers line up with or work must be done to collect more strength 88 lbs - 80.7% Brumitt, J., & Cuddeford, T. (2015). Current showing significant gains. Tricep strength surpass body weight. The key strength data from climbers within each sport and 88 lbs - 80.7% concepts of muscle and tendon adaptation was strength did not have significant separator was finger strength. With hard bouldering climbing grade to make the data to strength and conditioning. International differences, nor did the deltoid. climbing requiring a climber to sustain 36 lbs - 33% more complete. What this study does is Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 90%-100% or more of body weight on each 34 lbs - 31% opens the discussion to how we also The level of difficulty between climbs shows hand as shown in figure 3 and 4. Collecting prepare a boulderer and sport climber to 34 lbs - 31% a progression of strength throughout the strength data on other muscle groups made excel with optimal strength to reduce body. Table 1 shows two climbers with it very clear that, although important, a 31 lbs - 27.5% injury. weight differences. Climber 12 and 13 lower percentage of strength in the hand We hope our exploration into the redpoint 5.14. Climber 12 - 5.14c, and would be a key limiting factor for a climber performance of an climber on easy to climber 13 - 5.14a. Both climbers half desiring to climb harder grades. Typically, difficult routes changes the way see the crimped 100% and above on the 19mm on harder grades, with hand edges and foot DISCUSSION grade climbed closely correlated to their sport in performance, injury prevention, crimp. Climber 12 weighs 128 lbs, and placements get smaller, a climber is outdoor grade climbed. It is still unclear and success in the competition space. The climber 13 weighs 147 lbs. When you required to sustain high force transfers to whether it is tendon mechanical force The difficulty of a route is usually assessed fingers ability to sustain force, matching the compare climber 20, who is a female to ascend the route. adaption, or finger tip callus thickness, or by the community, starting with a a climber climber 8, you see very similar strength both that allows a climber to sustain the body weight or passing the body weight is achieving the first ascent, and follow-up percentages. In some areas, climber 20 has demanded finger force on a range of small important to hard climbing ascents, with repeat ascents by other climbers to either higher percentages in the biceps, deltoids, to large climbing edges. Other muscle climbs above 5.14a and v12 sustaining affirm, decrease, or increase the graded and lats. In hands (half-crimp), Climber 8 groups that seemed to play a key role in forces 100% of body weight and higher on difficulty. Climbers expressed their indoor exceeds climber 20 by 22%. each hand. The higest finger strength to

6 APPENDIX 1 University were approved Climbingteam by minutes. AllwiththeDenver procedures approximately 30-40 between lasted Testingminutes towarm-up testing. before study were asked toclimbfor at 20 least one test was remote. inthis Participants and at climbinggym, alocal was performed in ascreeningfor injuries. testing Local on what andparticipated they would need, were briefed Prior participants totesting, Procedure testing. before degrees. were allowed Climbers tousechalk 15 19mm climbingholdthat was in-cut witha the Grippulapparatuswas used, attached. For thetesting of finger strength, most exercises handlewas arounded attachments accurately. tomeasure For The force meterhadmultiplehand Forearm (L,R),Extensor(L,R). (L,R), Biceps muscle(L,R),Hand (L,R), DeltoidmuscleTriceps muscle arm lat pulldown), Subscapularis muscle dorsi (onearm)onapulldown machine(one were:muscle groupstested Latissimus of athletics. staffcoaching andboard The between the 10a climber anda14cclimber, the10aclimber between showing significantbouldering differences as 2). Handstrength hadasimilarcurve difference withoneoutlier(Fig instrength, arm lat pulldown didnotprovide aclear For theone and deltoid. climbing, sport bicep,less of amargin inforearm, tricep, crimp, andsubscapularis (Fig 1).Therewas in theonearmlat hand half pulldown, hadsignificant margins climbers top-level revealed measurements The bouldering RESULTS exceeds 20by 22%. climber and lats. 8 Climber Inhands(half-crimp), higher percentages inthebiceps, deltoids, percentages. In someareas,20has climber similarstrength 8,youclimber seevery 20,whoisafemale to compare climber 13weighs 147lbs.climber Whenyou crimp. 12weighs 128lbs, Climber and 100%andabovecrimped onthe19mm half 13-5.14a.Bothclimbers climber 12-5.14c, 5.14.Climber and redpoint weight differences. 12and13 Climber body. Table 1shows with two climbers a progression of strength throughoutthe The level of climbsshows difficultybetween differences, nordidthedeltoid. was strength didnothave significant showing significant gains. Tricep strength relatively thesame, withthe14cclimber margins, were strength forearm martinis subscap strength showed significant ascend theroute. tosustain highforcerequired transfers to placements get smaller, is aclimber on hardergrades, andfoot withhandedges desiring toclimbhardergrades. Typically, akeywould be limitingfactorfor aclimber lower percentage of strength inthehand a that,althoughimportant, clear it very strength data onothermusclegroupsmade hand asshown infigure3and4.Collecting weight oneach 90%-100% ormoreof body tosustain aclimber climbing requiring separator was finger With strength. hard Thekey weight. strength body surpass lineupwithor see strength numbers higher difficulty, was whereyou to began Progressing fromless difficultclimbto such astraditionalresistance training, that may andcoaches utilizedby climbers many of different trainingmethods types isometric innature. there are Inaddition, dynamicand factor isthat climbingisboth theforce.transfer andsupport Another into positivemotionifthetendonscan seems muscularstrength can onlytranslate it 2015).Inthecase ofCuddeford, climbing, adaptation of thetendons(Burmitt & to external resistance ismorerapidthanthe adaptation of thebody’s musclesandbones and coachestoprogress effectively. The climbing that make itdifficultfor climbers with There aremultiplefactorsassociated 2004). andlacticacidthreshold(Sheel, max, performance, hand/forearm VO2 strength, athletic toaclimbers dedicated sport, that have onthe hadasignificant impact years, therehave international studies been climbers.strong top-level Inthelast 20 advance toproduce thescience of thesport to attention dedicated tobe isstarting towarddedicated injuries. Fortunately, more he competitive climbing sport has he competitive climbingsport grown significantly over 20 thepast years. Previously, most of thefocus of various studies have been difficulty. expressed their indoor Climbers thegraded decrease,affirm, orincrease ascents toeither repeat by otherclimbers achieving thefirst ascent,andfollow-up by thecommunity, withaclimber starting The difficultyof arouteisusually assessed DISCUSSION had been climbingfor athad been ayear. least The AllUniversity participants Climbingteam. Fingersthe Beast ClimbingTeam, Denver toColorado, were local participants from study from2016tilllate 2017.Someof the inthe inparticipating interested climbers viaonlineadvertisementsfor and recruited 30, were drawn from acommunity sample 15 maleand9female athletes, ages 16to Participants METHODS strength-to-weight ratiosstrength-to-weight toascend aroute. minimumin arequired by quantifying grades. (iii)To prevent further riskinjury ranges andbouldering of climbinglead ratios for the (STW) strength-to-weight necessary. (ii)To standardize the body, whetherstrength trainingis examinefurther theroleclimbinghason The presentstudy hasthreegoals. (i)to 10atothehardestfrom theeasiest 5.14c. successful ascents of arange of climbers could account for thedifferences in musclegroupsthat body upper particular ratio of thestrength-to-weight impact of toexaminepresent study the isdesigned climbingperformance.to increase The applicability of different trainingmethods verifying the to publishmoreresearch effective. Thus, itisimperative tocontinue as claimed being a lotof disparatemethods havegaps of science to withinthesport led performance.free whileincreasing The account inordertokeep injury aclimber taken Many tobe into factorsneed board. andsystem campus board, hangboard, groups thatto play seemed akey rolein to large climbingedges. Othermuscle finger forcedemanded onarange of small that tosustain allowsboth the aclimber orfinger tipcallus thickness,adaption, or whether itistendonmechanical force Itisstill unclear gradeclimbed. outdoor closely correlated totheir grade climbed testing. testing. with at 20minutesof least climbingbefore were asked Climbers towarm-up rep max. wereprocedure. taken Measurements asa5 accommodate thestandardized workout 3000. Thedevice to was anchored Min.cap.2kg; Resolution:0.1kg and Division: range:100%F.S. Zero range:4%F.S. The up to600lbs. Accuracy class:OIML III.Tare inlbs/kilos The force measured scale used intoonefield. merged grade outsideandinside, theresultwas inside. ascendedthesame Ifaclimber Grades providedwere for outsideand weight. grade,highest bouldering andbody record, gender, climbgrade, highest sport Onthisformto weight. were fieldsto the force inlbs, applied andtheirstrength musclegrouphadabox torecordon each that hadadiagram of thehumanbody, and outachart filled climbers During thetest, Materials andApparatus study toprovide contextual application. withinthewritten formincluded of this below,final charts butsomeresultsmay be half of thetest were alsoexcluded fromthe for safety. whoonlycompleted Climbers test were excludedrequired fromthestudy the orunablewho were toperform injured Climbers and calculated totheirweight. standardized workouts that logged would be asetof that they performing would be were informed Theclimbers continued. thetest inparticipating, interested climbing gradingsystem. Ifthey were still tohelpcorrelateused strength tothe of thestudy, apart be that later would be were that informed they would participants each hand. Thehigest hand. finger strengtheach to forces weight andhigheron 100%of body climbs above 5.14aandv12 sustaining tohard climbingascents,important with weight is weight the body orpassing body fingers ability tosustain force, matching the and success inthecompetitionspace. The prevention, inperformance, injury sport difficult routeschanges theway seethe to oneasy of anclimber performance We ourexploration hope intothe injury. excel withoptimalstrength toreduce to climber andsport aboulderer prepare thediscussion tohowopens we also more complete. What is thisstudy does climbinggradetomakebouldering thedata and sport data withineach fromclimbers work donetocollect must be morestrength find ways efficientinaclimb. tobe Further flexibility tosustain and of rest, aclimber case of thebiomechanicsof aclimbor in strength, sloper pinchstrength, strength, Routes range indifficulty by finger for routesthat theybodies wishtoascend. their prepare better andcoach climber Having gradeaverages quantified letsa prevention. couldresearch assist ininjury of thistype isexpanded, If theresearch slopper,the pinch, andpocket. jug, weThrough ourtest, were able toreplicate handstrength. bring claritytoaclimbers it may show thatto anewmetricisneed Furthermore, throughthelensof thisstudy, which arekey players ingripstrength. difference extensors, withtheforearm, by wassurprised thesmallmarginof latissimus andtricep. dorsi, What we were subscapularis, climbers; top-level Journal Physical of Sports Therapy. to strength International andconditioning. concepts of muscleandtendonadaptation J.,Brumitt, T. &Cuddeford, (2015).Current Medicine. BritishJournal ofclimbing. Sports A.W.Sheel, rock (2004).Physiology of sport REFERENCES and pull, ratherandstand. and pull, thenreach to jump upon aredemanded climbers Short advantageous.versus would be tallclimbers in musculardevelopment climbers of short intothedifferences look afurther research, markers totracksuccess. To expandthe throughperformance walk aclimber orcoachtosetattainableclimber goals, and data climbinggradeallows a oneach case for Having climbs5.15aandbeyond. separately. We can onlyassume thisisthe hand weight oneach 115-130% of body climbers, whereable forces tosustained weight ratio we have seenwas fromv14-v15

BEAST FINGERS CLIMBING RESEARCH APPENDIX 1 TABLE 1

Gender Bouldering Sport Grade Weight Lat (one arm) Subscap (L) Subscap (R) Deltoid (L) Deltoid (R) Tricep (L) Tricep (R) Bicep (L) Bicep (R) Hand (L) Hand (R) Forearm (L) Forearm (R) Extensor (L) Extensor (R)

Climber 1 M 10 13b 135 72.22% 49.63% 49.63% 13.33% 13.33% 31.11% 31.11% 27.78% 27.78% 81.48% 92.59% 29.63% 29.63% 33.33% 25.93% Climber 2 M 10 13a 141 127.66% 21.99% 24.82% 10.64% 10.64% 17.73% 21.28% 24.82% 21.28% 92.2% 92.2% 21.28% 24.82% 12.06% 8.51%

Climber 3 F 6 11a 127 77.17% 22.83% 23.94% 13.78% 3.94% 29.13% 13.39% 25.67% 25.67% 62.99% 62.99% 19.69% 19.69% 16.46% 16.14%

Climber 4 F 5 10a 120 66.67% 14.17% 13.33% 9.17% 7.5% 21.67% 16.67% 21.17% 21.67% 54.17% 62.5% 29.17% 28.33% 19.17% 24.17% Climber 5 M 7 11d 133 88.72% 24.06% 26.32% 12.03% 11.28% 27.82% 15.04% 30.08% 30.83% 71.43% 71.43% 36.09% 36.09% 16.54% 21.05%

Climber 6 M 8 12a 161 89.44% 26.71% 19.88% 13.66% 14.91% 27.33% 27.14% 33.54% 40.99% 71.43% 71.43% 38.51% 40.37% 19.88% 19.88%

Climber 7 M 5 10d 160 75% 18.44% 22.5% 13.75% 14.31% 28.75% 26.88% 28.75% 33.75% 53.75% 56.88% 21.88% 23.13% 19.38% 19.38%

Climber 8 F 6 11a 138 67.39% 15.22% 16.67% 10.87% 11.59% 12.32% 12.32% 24.64% 25.36% 47.1% 55.8% 32.61% 30.43% 20.29% 21.74%

Climber 9 M 7 12a 127 80.31% 26.77% 27.56% 16.54% 11.81% 29.13% 23.62% 31.5% 32.28% 70.87% 74.8% 29.92% 32.28% 31.5% 25.2%

Climber 10 F 8 12b 107 70.09% 22.06% 19.53% 14.95% 15.89% 20.65% 21.5% 31.78% 33.64% 80.37% 80.37% 24.3% 22.43% 24.3% 27.01%

Climber 11 M 5 11a 146 81.51% 19.93% 19.18% 14.38% 11.16% 30.14% 29.45% 34.93% 35.62% 46.58% 47.95% 34.25% 28.22% 24.66% 23.29%

Climber 12 M 13 14c 128 92.19% 56.25% 52.34% 17.19% 16.41% 33.59% 34.38% 39.06% 39.84% 100% 100% 50.78% 46.88% 32.03% 32.03%

Climber 13 M 13 14a 147 68.03% 31.29% 31.29% 11.56% 11.56% 20.41% 20.41% 31.97% 31.97% 102.04% 102.04% 34.01% 34.01% 21.09% 21.09%

Climber 14 F 5 11a 110 17% 28.18% 28.18% 10.91% 19.09% 20% 20% 28.18% 28.18% 54.55% 54.55% 27.27% 27.27% 20.91% 20.91%

Climber 15 F 9 12b 133 97.74% 19.55% 19.55% 12.56% 12.63% 26.32% 27.82% 38.35% 30.08% 82.71% 90.23% 36.09% 33.08% 19.55% 19.55%

Climber 16 M 8 12a 156 83.33% 45.51% 55.13% 10.71% 10.77% 22.44% 23.72% 32.69% 25.64% 72.44% 80.13% 30.77% 28.21% 16.67% 16.67%

Climber 17 M 9 12d 136 89.71% 56.62% 56.62% 12.5% 13.24% 23.53% 22.06% 44.12% 44.12% 88.24% 80.88% 33.09% 36.03% 33.09% 24.26%

Climber 18 F 6 11b 131 79.39% 41.22% 41.98% 14.5% 14.5% 25.95% 25.95% 45.8% 45.8% 68.7% 68.63% 45.8% 47.33% 38.17% 38.17%

Climber 19 M 4 11c 168 82.14% 22.62% 28.57% 20.83% 20.83% 30.95% 29.76% 30.95% 34.52% 57.14% 57.74% 29.76% 33.33% 20.24% 23.81%

Climber 20 F 8 13a 109 88.99% 31.19% 32.11% 15.14% 16.51% 20.18% 21.1% 33.03% 33.94% 80.73% 80.73% 33.03% 31.19% 31.19% 27.52% Climber 21 M 7 13a 143 93.71% 63.64% 64.34% 15.24% 15.38% 29.93% 29.3% 42.73% 41.82% 61.05% 63.85% 25.87% 25.87% 19.3% 22.38%

Climber 22 M 3 11a 177 88.7% 29.38% 41.81% 15.25% 17.51% 42.37% 34.46% 49.15% 47.46% 77.97% 77.4% 39.55% 36.72% 48.59% 50.28%

Climber 22 M 10 13a 140 92.86% 91.43% 92.86% 12.36% 12.36% 25.71% 25.71% 40% 42.86% 90.71% 90.71% 55% 55.71% 29.29% 30.71% Climber 23 F 3 10b 107 61.68% 58.88% 58.88% 20.56% 22.43% 23.36% 23.36% 42.06% 42.06% 46.73% 51.4% 44.86% 38.32% 24.3% 23.36%

7 BEAST FINGERS CLIMBING RESEARCH

FIGURE 1B Bouldering Half Crimp Strength-to-weight Ratios By Grade

140%

130%

120%

110%

101.02%

100%

92.59%

90% 85.55%

80%

71.43%

70% 64.40% 62.99%

57.74% 60% 55.71% ONE HAND - STRENGTH TO BODYWEIGHT RATIO BODYWEIGHT TO ONE HAND - STRENGTH

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 BEAST FINGERS CLIMBING RESEARCH

FIGURE 2B 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% 60% 56.88% 55.80% ONE HAND - STRENGTH TO BODYWEIGHT RATIO BODYWEIGHT TO ONE HAND - STRENGTH 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