Physiological and Anthropometric Determinants of Sport Climbing Performance
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Br J Sports Med 2000;34:359–366 359 Physiological and anthropometric determinants of sport climbing performance Christine M Mermier, JeVrey M Janot, Daryl L Parker, Jacob G Swan Abstract Research interest in rock climbing has Objective—To identify the physiological increased since the late 1970s, in part and anthropometric determinants of because of increased participation in the sport climbing performance. sport. One of the first studies of the physi- Methods—Forty four climbers (24 men, 20 ology of rock climbing performance was by women) of various skill levels (self reported Williams et al.1 Since then, the focus of rating 5.6–5.13c on the Yosemite decimal research has shifted from outdoor rock climb- scale) and years of experience (0.10–44 ing to indoor sport climbing, which has given years) served as subjects. They climbed two researchers better control over extraneous routes on separate days to assess climbing variables. This shift coincides with the emer- performance. The routes (11 and 30 m in gence of sport climbing as a competitive distance) were set on two artificial climbing event.2 walls and were designed to become pro- Despite the increased research in this area, gressively more diYcult from start to there is still some debate, as well as conflicting finish. Performance was scored according to the system used in sport climbing evidence, in the climbing literature about competitions where each successive hand- which physiological and anthropometric factors are important in determining climb- hold increases by one in point value. 3 Results from each route were combined for ing performance. Mermier et al examined a total climbing performance score. the physiological responses during rock Measured variables for each subject in- climbing and found a non-linear relation cluded anthropometric (height, weight, leg between heart rate and oxygen consumption length, arm span, % body fat), demo- (VO2), which suggests that VO2 mayhavea graphic (self reported climbing rating, small role in determining climbing perform- years of climbing experience, weekly hours ance. Billat et al4 concluded that the overall of training), and physiological (knee and percentage of maximum VO2 required is shoulder extension, knee flexion, grip, and relatively small during climbing. However, in a finger pincer strength, bent arm hang, grip recent study by Booth et al,5 moderately diY- endurance, hip and shoulder flexibility, and cult climbing was shown to elicit a significant upper and lower body anaerobic power). portion of climbing specific peak VO2 in elite These variables were combined into com- climbers. Other studies have attempted to ponents using a principal components identify specific physical characteristics analysis procedure. These components present in elite climbers.26 Watts et al2 were then used in a simultaneous multiple concluded that climbing performance is best regression procedure to determine which predicted by percentage body fat (%BF) and components best explain the variance in strength to body mass ratio in elite sport sport rock climbing performance. 6 climbers. Grant et al found that elite climbers Results—The principal components analy- diVer from recreational climbers and active sis procedure extracted three components. non-climbers on measures of leg span, %BF, These were labelled training, anthropomet- ric, and flexibility on the basis of the flexibility, and muscular strength and endur- measured variables that were the most ance. influential in forming each component. The It is evident that the determination of com- Center for Exercise results of the multiple regression procedure ponents related to climbing performance and Applied Human needs further investigation. The goal of this Physiology, University indicated that the training component of New Mexico, uniquely explained 58.9% of the total vari- study is to improve our understanding of Albuquerque, New ance in climbing performance. The anthro- which components determine climbing per- Mexico, USA pometric and flexibility components ex- formance by using a larger and more diverse C M Mermier plained 0.3% and 1.8% of the total variance sample within the climbing population, as well J M Janot D L Parker in climbing performance respectively. as more advanced multivariate statistical JGSwan Conclusions—The variance in climbing procedures than those used in previous performance can be explained by a compo- studies. These procedures should allow us to Correspondence to: nent consisting of trainable variables. More achieve a greater understanding of the rela- C M Mermier, University of importantly, the findings do not support New Mexico, Center for tions among components of climbing perform- Exercise and Applied Human the belief that a climber must necessarily ance, which can be used by those who wish to Physiology, Johnson Center, possess specific anthropometric character- improve their climbing ability. Therefore the B143, Albuquerque, NM istics to excel in sport rock climbing. 87131-1251, USA purpose of this research was to determine ( 2000;34:359–366) email: [email protected] Br J Sports Med which anthropometric and physiological com- Accepted for publication Keywords: rock climbing; strength; muscular endur- ponents best explain the variability in climbing 10 March 2000 ance; training; anthropometric determinants performance. www.bjsportmed.com 360 Mermier, Janot, Parker, et al Methods subject was standing. Total distance in cm was SUBJECTS measured from the top of the level to the Twenty four male and 20 female volunteers, ground. aged 18–49, were recruited from the universi- Skinfold thickness was measured to the ty’s student body population, the local climb- nearest 0.5 mm using a Lange caliper ing gym, and the surrounding community. (Cambridge Scientific Industries, Columbia, Before participating in the study, the subjects Maryland USA). All measurements were completed a health history questionnaire, a taken on the right side using anatomical sites climbing history questionnaire, and a consent according to the Jackson and Pollock910 three form approved by the university’s human sub- site equations for both men and women. These jects review board. The climbing history ques- measurements were performed until two were tionnaire was used to obtain information within 10% of each other. The equations about the length, frequency, and type of developed by Siri11 and Heyward and climbing experience (sport, traditional, ice, Stolarczyk12 were used to convert body density aid, etc), self reported ratings (defined as to %BF for men and women respectively. highest level consistently climbed), and the specific training programmes for climbing for each subject. These variables were used to PHYSIOLOGICAL VARIABLES OF THE SUBJECTS quantify the training and experience of the Flexibility Range of motion (ROM) was measured at the subjects. hip and shoulder and reported in degrees.13 Subjects were excluded on the basis of previ- Subjects were allowed to warm up/stretch for ous climbing experience (fewer than five five minutes before measurements were taken. climbs) or unsuccessful completion of a All measurements were taken on the right side screening climb rated ∼5.5 on the Yosemite at maximum active ROM. The larger of two decimal scale (YDS).7 Subjects were also measurements at each site was recorded. Hip excluded on the basis of self reported pre- abduction with external rotation was existing medical conditions contraindicative to measured using a goniometer while the subject the study’s testing regimen and/or climbing was seated. The goniometer was centred at the trials. Because of the maximal exertion re- inguinal fold at the axis of rotation with the quired for the upper and lower body Wingate knee bent. A bubble inclinometer (Baseline, tests, an age limit was imposed (men > 45 Irvington, New York, USA) was used to assess years, women > 55 years, all subjects < 18 shoulder abduction, shoulder flexion, and years) according to the American College of hip flexion. Subjects were instructed to lie Sports Medicine’s Guidelines of exercise testing supine on a mat for hip flexion measurement. 8. and prescription The inclinometer was placed on the upper border of the patella and zeroed with the leg VISITS flat on the ground. Shoulder flexion and Subject testing was completed over a span abduction measurements were taken while of three visits, two at the university and one at subjects were standing with palms facing a local climbing gym. The variables measured inward and kept in the same plane throughout at visit 1 were the performance climb 1, bent the motion. The device was placed at the arm hang, height, weight, arm span, leg length, mid point of the biceps brachii for flexion and isokinetic leg flexion and extension strength, on the medial deltoid for abduction. The isokinetic shoulder extension strength, and device was zeroed with the arm relaxed at the lower body anaerobic power. Grip strength, side. pincer strength, grip endurance, skinfolds for body fat, hip and shoulder range of motion, and upper body anaerobic power were Muscular strength measured during visit 2. Performance climb 2 Each muscular strength measurement was was performed during visit 3. All visits were expressed relative to body mass to control for completed within a 14 day period. The the eVect of body size. Isokinetic strength was subjects were also asked to maintain their measured during shoulder extension and leg current training regimen throughout the flexion and extension using the Cybex II isoki- study. netic system (Lumex, Ronkonkoma, New York, USA) in conjunction with the Humac ANTHROPOMETRIC VARIABLES OF THE SUBJECTS 680 computer testing program (Humac 680 Height was measured without shoes to the System; Computer Sports Medicine, Nor- nearest 0.5 cm at mid inspiration using a wood, Massachusetts, USA). The Cybex stadiometer. Subjects were weighed to the system was calibrated before each trial and set nearest 0.1 kg in athletic apparel without shoes at a speed of 60°/s. After a warm up of three on a Seca digital electronic scale (Seca Corpo- repetitions for each movement, subjects per- ration, Columbia, Maryland, USA).