Maikey Lopera, John P.

Porcari, Jeff Steffen, Scott Doberstein 1and Carl Foster

Theories & Applications the International Edition
Printed Version: (ISSN 2090-5262)
Online Version: (ISSN 2090-5270)
March 2011, Volume 1, No. 1 Pages (79 - 91)

The Effect of Indoor Rock Climbing On Strength, Endurance, and Flexibility

Characteristics in Novice Climbers
Maikey Lopera, John P. Porcari, Jeff Steffen, Scott Doberstein and Carl Foster

Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate changes in muscular strength, endurance, and flexibility in
novice climbers following 7 weeks of indoor rock climbing and to determine if these responses are related to
improvements in climbing performance. Method: Climbers (CL: n=14) and non-climbers (N-CL: n=10)
were assessed before and after the study period. Tests included right and left handgrip and pinch grip
strength, lat pull-down strength, arm-hang endurance, handgrip endurance, sit-and-reach flexibility, and
total climbing time. The CL group completed a 7-week training protocol involving climbing 5-6 routes on an
indoor climbing wall, 2x weekly. Result: The CL group had significant improvements in handgrip strength
(7%), pinch strength (9%), handgrip endurance (26%), arm hang time (35%), and climbing performance
(50%). There were no significant changes in the N-CL group. There were no significant correlations
between improvement in climbing performance and change in muscle strength and endurance within CL.
Discussion: The climbing performance of novice climbers can be improved in a relatively short period of
time. However, the improvement is most likely due to improved climbing technique, than to improvements in
muscular strength and endurance.

Keywords: rock climbing, physical activity, performance

Introduction

he popularity of rock climbing has

increased considerably in recent years
(Booth, Marino, Hill, & Gwinn, 1999; Watts,
Newbury, & Sulentic, 1996). Reasons for this
increase in popularity include the vast increase
of indoor climbing walls throughout the United
States, the development of sport climbing,
and improved safety equipment (Paige, 1998).
Additionally, climbing offers several fitness
benefits making it a desirable activity (Janot et
al., 2000; Wescott, 1992).
There is not single factor that can ensure
success in the practice of climbing.
Characteristics such as strength, endurance,
flexibility, technique and psychological control
all contribute to rock climbing performance
Maikey Lopera a clinical exercise psychologist in the University
of Wisconsin-La Crosse Carl Foster, John P. Porcari and Jeff
Steffen Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of
Wisconsin-La Crosse, Scott Doberstein is the head athlete
trainer at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.

(Binney, 2001). Most studies have focused on

elite or intermediate climbers (Billat et al. 1995;
Booth et al., 1999; Cutts & Bollen, 1993; Grant,
Hynes, Whittaker, & Aitchison, 1996; Mermier,
Janot, Parker, & Swan, 2000; Mermier,
Robergs, McMinn, & Heyward, 1997; Sheel,
Seddon, Knight, McKenzie, & DE, 2003; Wall,
Starek, Fleck, & Byrnes, 2004; Watts et al.,
1996; Watts, Daggett, Gallagher, & Wilkins,
2000; Watts & Drobish, 1998; Watts, Joubert,
Lish, Mast, & Wilkins, 2003; Watts, Martin, &
Durtschi, 1993), with relative lack of climbing
related research targeting novice climbers. A
small number of studies have reported
significant anthropometric differences between
elite/recreational climbers and non-climbers,
sugesting small stature, low body mass and low
percentage of body fat as traits characterizing
elite climbers (Grant et al., 1996; Mermier et al.,
2000; Watts et al., 1996; Watts et al., 2000;
Watts & Drobish, 1998; Watts et al., 1993).
Watts et al. (2003), working with young elite
sport rock climbers, reported anthropometric
characteristics
similar
to
their
adult
counterparts.

Maikey Lopera, John P. Porcari, Jeff Steffen, Scott Doberstein 1and Carl Foster

Several studies have suggested that muscular

strength and endurance, especially in the
forearms, fingers and shoulders, may be
significant predictors of climbing performance
(Ferguson & Brown, 1997; Grant et al., 1996;
Watts et al., 1996; Watts & Drobish, 1998;
Watts et al., 1993). An earlier work by Cutts
and Bollen (1993) found hand and pinch grip
strength and pinch grip endurance to be
significantly higher in climbers than nonclimbers. Supporting those findings, Grant et al.
(1996) reported that the pull-up and bent arm
hang separated the climbers from non-climbers.
Studies by Mermier et al. (2000) and Wall et al.
(2004) reported high grip strength values in elite
female climbers, while Watts et al. (2003)
reported similar results in young elite sport rock
climbers. Despite these results Giles, Rhodes, &
Taunton (2006) noted little correlation between
absolute hand grip strength and climbing ability.
Climbing related research has generally focused
on elite climbers with very few research studies
of recreational or novice climbers. Additionally,
there is lack of research that measure changes in
strength, endurance and flexibility attributable
to rock climbing training, especially in novice
climbers. A longitudinal study by Wescott
(1992), reported significant improvements in
body composition, joint flexibility, muscular
strength and cardiovascular endurance after
two months of rock climbing, 15-20 minutes
twice a week. A more recent study by Bal
(2005) in the Czech Republic, reported a
significant increase in the time of the bent arm
hang test and in the number of pull-ups in
children after 7 months of climbing activities
twice a week.
Accordingly, there is a need for more research
focusing in novice or beginner climbers,
especially longitudinal studies measuring
changes in characteristics believed to be
important to improve climbing ability.
Therefore, the goal of this study was to measure
changes in strength, endurance and flexibility in
novice climbers after 7 weeks of indoor rock
climbing, and to evaluate how these changes
were correlated with improvements in climbing
performance.
Methods

Subjects
Twenty-eight college students volunteered to
participate in this study and were assigned to
one of two groups. The treatment group, novice
climbers (CL), consisted of 16 subjects (n=6
male, n=10 female) enrolled in a indoor rock
climbing class. The control group, non-climbers
(N-CL), consisted of 10 subjects (n=5 male, n=7
female) enrolled in an active lifestyle course.
All subjects completed a questionnaire about
their previous climbing experience and those
with less than two previous climbing encounters
were considered for participation in the study.
The protocol for this study was approved by the
university human subjects committee and
subjects provided written informed consent
form prior to the study. All subjects healthy
based on the Physical Activity Readiness
Questionnaire (PAR-Q) given prior to the
beginning of the first testing session.
Training Protocol
Subjects in the CL group were enrolled in 2
days per week, 7-week indoor rock climbing
class at the university climbing facility. The
duration of each class period was 2 hours. A
total of six routes, graded 5.4 to 5.6 on the
Yosemite Decimal System (YDS), were used by
the CL group for their training program. Prior to
the start of the training, subjects were provided
an overview of the study, the procedures
involved and proper safety and rope handling
instructions. Additionally, subjects were
provided with instruction on climbing
techniques and with climbing specific technique
feedback using the verbal performance cues of
McNamee and Steffen (McNamee & Steffen,
2007).
The training protocol involved climbing 5-6
routes during each class period. Subjects were
allowed to climb the routes in any order during
the two-hour period. The training protocol was
supervised by a rock climbing instructor and the
principal investigator. In addition, subjects in
the CL group were given a Climbing Record
Sheet with a personal climbing questionnaire, an
explanation of the protocol to follow, and a
climbing record where subjects were required to

Maikey Lopera, John P. Porcari, Jeff Steffen, Scott Doberstein 1and Carl Foster

keep a record of the number of routes climbed

per session.
Subjects in the N-CL group were asked to
maintain their regular daily routine and to avoid
climbing or performing exercise routines
designed to improve the characteristics that
were assessed in the study.
Testing Overview
Two testing sessions were performed on all
subjects.
The pre-treatment (PRE) testing
session following subject recruitment and before
starting the training protocol.
The posttreatment (POST) testing session was repeated
after the 7-week study period. Subjects on both
groups were asked to abstain from any
strenuous activity for 24 hours prior to each
testing session.

Skinfold thicknesses were measured to the

nearest 0.5 mm at seven sites with a Lange
skinfold
caliper
(Cambridge
Scientific
Industries, Inc. Cambridge, MD), following the
procedures described by Maud and Foster
(2006). The sites measured were triceps, front
thigh, sub-scapular, abdomen, chest, supra-iliac
and mid-axilla. Two readings were taking in a
rotating order and if they differed by more than
1.0 mm a third measure was taken and an
average value was calculated using the three
measures. All skinfold thickness measurements
were taken on the right with the subject in the
standing position. Body density was estimated
according to the equations of Jackson and
Pollock (Maud & Foster, 2006). Subsequently,
% body fat was computed from the estimate of
body density with the Siri equation (Wang et al.,
1998).
2. Muscular Strength

To avoid inter-tester variability, all testing

procedures were performed by the same person
in a single session and following the same order
for all subjects. The order of the testing was:
height, body mass, arm span, skin fold
thicknesses, handgrip strength, modified seatand-reach, pinch strength, handgrip endurance,
one-repetition maximal lateral pull-down, bentarm hang, climbing performance, foot rise, and
leg span tests. To avoid familiarization with the
route used for the Climbing Performance Test,
the training protocol and climbing performance
testing were performed at different locations..
Testing Procedures
1. Anthropometrics
Height was measured to the nearest 0.5 cm
using a stadiometer. Body mass was measured
to the nearest 0.5 kg on a beam scale. Arm span
was measured in the standing position against a
wall and with the arms abducted horizontally.
The greatest tip to tip distance between the
extended fingers was measured with a 3.0 m
tape measure and recorded in centimeters to the
nearest 0.5 cm. Ape index, or the ratio of arm
span to height, was calculated as arm span
divided by height (Watts et al., 2003).

Bilateral maximal handgrip strength was

assessed using a Jamar dynamometer (Asimov
Engineering Company, Los Angeles, CA) which
was adjusted according to the manufacturers
instructions for each subject.
During
measurement subjects stood upright with their
arms downward to the side and were instructed
to apply maximal force for ~2 seconds. Subject
were allowed one practice trial on each hand
followed by three tests on each hand, alternating
between the right and left hand. Measurements
were recorded to the nearest pound. Handgrip
strength was determined as the average of the
three trials for each hand.
Pinch strength was measured using the same
Jamar dynamometer placed flat on a table
(Figure 1). The participant was instructed to
hold the crossbars of the dynamometer between
the thumb and middle and index finger; the
other three fingers were not allowed to be used.
Standing upright in front of the table with the
arm to be tested extended, the participant then
gripped the dynamometer with the thumb and
middle and index finger and squeezed with
maximum effort for ~ 2 seconds. The participant
was given one practice trial on each hand
followed by three testing trials, alternating
between hands until three values were recorded
for each hand.

Maikey Lopera, John P. Porcari, Jeff Steffen, Scott Doberstein 1and Carl Foster

Figure 1. Four common hand positions used in rock climbing: A pocket, B open, C pinch, D crimp.
Upper body strength was assessed using onerepetition maximum (1-RM) lateral pull-down
test on a Magnum Fitness Systems (Milwaukee,
WI) lat pull-down machine. Subjects were
allowed to warm-up performing a series of three
warm-up sets, 3 repetitions each, on the lat pulldown machine using 45-65% of body weight
(self-selected). Following the warm up, subjects
performed a single repetition per set against
increasing resistance using a front overhand grip
on the pull-down bar and legs under the
supporting mechanism. There was a one-minute
rest between attempts. Failure to complete a
pull-down below the chin or failure to maintain
proper form was considered an unsuccessful lift.
Maximum strength was determined as the
highest weight lifted successfully.
3. Muscular Endurance
Upper-body isometric muscular endurance was
assessed using the bent-arm hang test on an
overhead bar. With an overhand grip,
participants were instructed to pull-up until a
maximally flexed arm position (at the elbow
joint) was achieved and then instructed to
remain in this position for as long as possible.
The test score time was defined as the point at
which the participants failed to maintain their
chin above the bar. Time was recorded on only
one trial.
Bilateral handgrip endurance was measured by
timing how long the subjects maintained 70% of
their
maximum
voluntary
contraction
(previously measured with the maximal
handgrip strength test) using the same handgrip
dynamometer used to assess handgrip and pinch
strength. Time measurement started when the
subjects reached the target value on the

dynamometer and was stopped when the

subjects dropped to a value 5 kg below their
target value (70% of their computed maximal
handgrip strength).
4. Flexibility
A modified sit-and-reach test according to
Maud & Foster (2006), was used to evaluate
hamstring and low-back flexibility. The subjects
were asked to sit on the floor with their back
and head against a wall, legs fully extended,
with the bottom of the feet against the sit-andreach box. They were then asked, with their
hands on top of each other, to stretch their arms
forward as far as they can while keeping the
head and back against the wall and hold the
position for 3 seconds and the distance from the
fingertips to the box edge was measured with a
ruler. Each subject was allowed three tests and
the average of the three scores was computed
for analysis.
The foot raise test, modified from Grant et al.
(1996), was used to evaluate frontal hip
flexibility. For this test subjects were required to
stand facing a wall with toes touching a line 25
cm from the wall. Both hands were placed on
the wall at shoulder height and width. Standing
on the left foot without shoes, subjects were
asked to bring the right foot directly up. Then,
subjects were instructed to place the toe of the
right foot as high up the wall as possible without
moving it laterally and while keeping the left
foot completely flat on the floor. The distance
the foot was raised was recorded using a tape
measure. The average score of three attempts
was computed for analysis. The foot raise test
was assessed only on the right leg.

Maikey Lopera, John P. Porcari, Jeff Steffen, Scott Doberstein 1and Carl Foster

The leg span measurement was used to assess

lateral hip flexibility. Without shoes, subjects
were laid in a supine position and extend their
feet as wide apart as possible while keeping the
knees straight. Leg span was measured from left
to right medial calcaneus using a tape measure
(Grant et al., 1996). Three consecutive
measurements were recorded and average value
was computed for analysis.

wall (lowering and getting back on the route)

was ~10 seconds. The climbing performance
test score consisted of the total number of points
achieved by climbing the wall continuously
until volitional failure. The last handhold
reached before falling was included to compute
each subject score. Also, time in seconds until
volitional failure was recorded (Accusplit, San
Jose, CA) to assess subjects' climbing time.

5. Climbing Performance Test

Statistical Analysis

The climbing performance test was performed

on a specially set route, graded 5.6 on the YDS,
on the indoor climbing wall. Each handhold in
the climbing performance test route was
assigned a specific score, with scores ranging
from 5 points (starting handhold) to 250 points
(highest handhold). Subjects were not allowed
to practice the climbing performance test route
between
testing
sessions
to
avoid
familiarization. Upon arrival to the climbing
wall, subjects were provided with climbing
shoes and harnesses, and instructed of their
proper use. Subjects were secured with a safety
rope (top-rope) to prevent injury in case of a
fall. Belaying of the subjects during the test
was performed by qualified personnel. Subjects
who made it to the top of the route were
lowered to the beginning and instructed to begin
climbing immediately. The time spent off the

Standard descriptive statistics were used to

evaluate the characteristics of the CL and N-CL
groups. Independent-samples t-test were used
to determine if there was significant differences
between groups for all pre-test variables. A twoway analysis of variance (ANOVA) with
repeated measures was used to compare
differences between groups over the course of
the study. Least significant difference (LSD)
post-hoc tests were used to identify pairwise
differences.
Pearson
product-moment
correlations were used to evaluate the
relationship between changes in climbing
performance (climbing score and climbing time)
and those measures that showed a significant
pre-post improvement in the CL group.
Statistical significance was accepted when
p<0.05.

Results
Subject Characteristics
females and n=5 males). There were no
Twenty-four of the original twenty-eight significant differences in pre-test scores
subjects completed the study protocol. Time between the CL and the N-CL groups at the start
constraints or unrelated injury prevented four the study. Characteristics, subdivided by group,
subjects (2 from CL and 2 from N-CL) from are presented in Table 1. Changes in body
completing the post-testing assessment. Thus, composition over the course of the study for
results are based upon 14 climbers (n=9 females subjects in both groups are presented in Table 2.
and n=5 males) and 10 non-climbers (n=5
Table 1. Subjects characteristics of the beginning of the study.
Variable

Climbers (n=14)

Non-climbers (n=10)

Age (years)

20.1 1.2

18.8 1.3

Height (cm)

171.3 12.1

174.0 10.7

Body mass (kg)

70.2 17.4

74.3 15.3

Arm span (cm)

174.0 14.4

175.8 12.7

Ape index

1.02 0.02

1.01 0.02

Maikey Lopera, John P. Porcari, Jeff Steffen, Scott Doberstein 1and Carl Foster

Table 2. Changes in body composition measures over the course of the study.
Climbers (n=14)

Non-climbers (n=10)

Variable
Pre-test

Post-test

Pre-test

Post-test

Body mass (kg)

70.2 17.4

71.6 18.5

74.3 15.3

74.4 15.2

% Body Fat

19.8 7.4

19.7 6.9

17.3 9.4

16.9 8.4

Body mass index (kg*m2)

23.6 3.0

24.1 3.5

24.4 3.8

24.4 3.7

Sum of Skinfolds (mm)

115.9 41.8

114.4 37.8

107.1 54.8

103.1 44.6

Muscle Strength and Endurance

Muscle strength and endurance characteristics
are presented in Table 3. The CL group
increased significantly in all of the strength and
endurance measures except lateral pull-down

strength. No significant improvements were

found in strength or endurance for the N-CL
group. There was a 1.8 kg significant decrease
in left handgrip strength in the N-CL group.

Table 3. Changes in strength and endurance over the course of the study.
Climbers (n=14)

Non-climbers (n=10)

Variable
Pre-test

Post-test

Pre-test

Post-test

Handgrip strength right (kg)

33.7 8.2

35.9 8.5*

39.7 11.8

38.1 10.5

Handgrip strength left (kg)

29.4 7.7

31.3 8.4*

35.1 11.4

33.3 10.4*

Pinch strength right (kg)

10.3 2.6

11.0 2.6*

11.7 3.2

11.2 2.9

Pinch strength left (kg)

9.5 2.8

10.6 3.0*

10.9 3.1

10.2 2.9

One-rep max LPD (kg)

60.8 21.0

64.7 20.5

70.5 23.4

71.8 23.3

Average handgrip endurance (sec)

19.5 12.2

24.6 10.4*

17.6 6.7

19.4 7.7

Arm hang (sec)

15.3 10.7

20.7 10.5*

16.1 10.0

16.0 10.7

*Significantly different from pre-test (p<0.05).

Modified seat-and reach, leg span, and foot raise

test results are presented in Table 4. There were

Maikey Lopera, John P. Porcari, Jeff Steffen, Scott Doberstein 1and Carl Foster

no significant changes in any of the flexibility

characteristics in either group over the course of
Flexibility

the study.

Table 4. Changes in flexibility over the course of the study.

Climbers (n=14)

Non-climbers (n=10)

Variable
Pre-test

Post-test

Pre-test

Post-test

Seat-and-reach (cm)

34.4 8.1

35.1 6.6

34.1 9.5

34.5 10.8

Leg span (cm)

150.6 11.2

152.0 12.4

150.3 9.4

150.5 7.4

Foot raise (cm)

89.1 9.4

90.1 9.9

88.0 10.3

86.7 13.3

*Significantly different from pre-test (p<0.05).

Climbing Performance
Changes in climbing time and climbing score
are presented in Table 5. In the CL group, there
was a significant increase in climbing time and

climbing score. No significant changes were

observed in the N-CL group for either climbing
performance measure.

Table 5. Changes in climbing performance measures over the course of the study.
Climbers (n=14)

Non-climbers (n=10)

Variable
Pre-test

Post-test

Pre-test

Post-test

Climbing time (sec)

207.9 95.6

311.4 201.1*

218.1 101.7

213.1 98.4

Climbing score (points)

522.9 275.5

910.0 662.7*

747.5 450.2

782.0 529.0

*Significantly different from pre-test (p<0.05).

Correlational Analysis
There were no significant correlations between strength, arm hang, or average handgrip
improvement
in
climbing
performance endurance in the CL group ( Table 6)
(climbing score or climbing time) and changes
in right and left hand handgrip and pinch
Table 6. Correlations (r) between changes in climbing time and climbing score and other indices of
improvement in the CL group.
Climbing Time

Climbing Score

Handgrip strength right (kg)

-.095

.160

Handgrip strength left (kg)

.115

.288

Pinch strength right (kg)

.175

.126

Pinch strength left (kg)

-.056

-.075

Average handgrip endurance (sec)

.213

-.009

Arm hang (sec)

.256

.060

Maikey Lopera, John P. Porcari, Jeff Steffen, Scott Doberstein 1and Carl Foster

Discussion
The main goal of this study was to determine
the effect of 7 weeks of indoor rock climbing
training on the enhancement of strength,
endurance, flexibility and climbing performance
in college age novice climbers. The secondary
goal was to evaluate the relationship between
changes in climbing performance (climbing
score and climbing time) and the changes in the
previous mentioned physiological variables.
According to the American College of Sports
Medicine (ACSM, 2006), subjects in both
groups were classified as average in terms of
mean body mass, height, % body fat, and body
mass index (BMI). Body composition measures
were not expected to change significantly over
the length of the study and this is supported by
our results. In contrast with our results, Wescott
(1992) found a significant decrease in body
mass (2 lb) and % body fat in a group of
beginning climbers (n=20) at the end of a 7week climbing program consisting of 15-20
minutes of climbing twice a week on a
motorized climbing wall.
Muscle strength and endurance
It was expected that 7 weeks of indoor rock
climbing training would result in increased
muscle strength and endurance. The results of
this study indicate a significant increase in all of
the strength measures, with the exception of
lateral pull-down strength, in the CL group. No
significant increases occurred in the N-CL
group. Thus, the results suggest that indoor rock
climbing elicits a significant effect increasing
climbing specific strength in novice climbers. In
the present study, handgrip strength increased
about 6.5 % in both hands, while pinch strength
increased about 7.1 % and 11.7 % for the right
and left hand, respectively.
According to Billat et al. (1995), periods of
isometric muscular contractions can amount to
one-third of the total climbing time if not
controlled by researchers. Thus, these gains in
handgrip and pinch strength can be explained by
neuromuscular adaptations to isometric exercise
in factors related to neuromuscular recruitment,
muscle architecture, or metabolic enzyme

activity (Brooks, Fahey, & Baldwin, 2005). In

addition, Brooks et al. (2005) suggests that most
of the benefits of isometrics occur early in
training, which may explain the achievement of
significant handgrip and pinch strength
improvement over the 7-week study period.
Although not statistically significant, the
slightly greater increase in pinch grip strength in
the left hand may be explained by the greater
symmetry of strength between right and left
arms that occurs in climbers (Watts, 2004).
Since there is a non-discriminatory use of the
left hand during climbing when compared to
other activities, it is expected, especially in
novice climbers, to find a greater strength
increase in the left hand. Additionally, the larger
increase in pinch strength may be due to the
dynamometer being better suited for measuring
pinch strength over handgrip strength.
According to Watts (2004), out of the four basic
grips commonly used during rock climbing (Fig.
1), the pinch grip is the only grip that involves
opposition of the thumb and/or palm against the
fingers in a manner similar to that employed
during handgrip dynamometry.
As an indicator of upper-body strength, the 1RM lat pull-down exercise was expected to
increase as a result of indoor rock climbing.
However, results of the study did not show a
significant increase in lateral pull-down strength
despite an increase of 3.9 kg in post-test values
compared to pre-test values. Although no
electromyographic studies have been done to
elucidate the role of upper-body muscles during
climbing, one viable explanation for these
results is that the1-RM lat pull-down test might
lack specificity in assesing strength in the
upper-body muscles that play an important role
during rock climbing. Considering that the
majority of the routes used for the training
program were less-than-vertical, another valid
reason could be that climbing those routes did
not exert a high enough load to promote muscle
structural changes that would lead to an increase
in upper-body strength.
In contrast with our results, during a 7-week
rock climbing study by Wescott (1992) found a
significant improvement in arm strength in
beginner climbers, as measured by a ten

Maikey Lopera, John P. Porcari, Jeff Steffen, Scott Doberstein 1and Carl Foster

repetition maximum pull-down exercise.

Wescotts training program differed from this
study training program in the use of a motorized
climbing wall. Additionally, another study by
Bal (2005) found an increase in upper body
strength in children. However, Bal assessed
upper body strength by a different methodology
(number of pull-ups pre- and post-treatment)
and used a longer climbing training program (7
months).
Upper body endurance, as measured by the arm
hang and handgrip endurance tests, increased
significantly over the course of the study in the
CL but the N-CL group. Although there are no
previous studies evaluating effects of climbing
in upper body endurance in novice climbers,
Watts et al. (1993) found that, among other
tests, the bent-arm hang test clearly
distinguished elite climbers from recreational or
non-climbers. Thus, it was expected that upper
body endurance would improve significantly in
the CL group as assessed by the bent-arm hang
test. In the present study, there was 36 %
increase in the arm hang test. Similarly, Bal
(2005) found a significant 67 % improvement in
the arm hang test. Despite the significant
increase in the arm hang time after the 7-week
indoor rock climbing program, average post-test
arm hang time values were lower than those
published by Grant et al. (1996) for recreational
climbers (31.4 9.0 s) or non-climbers (32.6
15.0 s). However, the significant increase in
time to exhaustion in the arm hang test suggests
that 7 weeks of indoor rock climbing training is
capable of producing an increase in the arm
hang test time, which according to several
studies is a significant predictor of climbing
ability (Giles et al., 2006; Grant et al., 2001;
Grant et al., 1996; Mermier et al., 2000; Watts
et al., 1993).
In the present study there was a 26 % increase
in average handgrip endurance. No previous
studies have explored the changes in handgrip
endurance after a rock climbing program in
novice climbers. Koukoubis et al. (1995)
reported a high active role of the flexor
digitorum superficialis and brachioradialis
muscles during hanging using four fingers of
each hand and pull ups to maximum elbow
flexion. Although these movements do not

replicate climbing movements (Sheel, 2004),

they are similar to climbing movements used in
the present study. Thus, it is possible that the
significant handgrip endurance gains in the
present study may be due to an increased
recruitment of the flexor digitorum superficialis
and brachioradialis muscles' motor units during
the task of climbing these routes. In all, these
gains in upper body isometric endurance can be
explained by 1) neuromuscular adaptations to
isometric exercise in factors related mainly to
enhanced metabolic enzyme activity and to an
increase in mitochondial size and number
(Brooks et al., 2005); 2) adaptations to isometric
exercise such as decreased blood pressure and
an enhanced forearm vasodilatation capacity of
the upper-body muscles (Ferguson & Brown,
1997) by means of an increased capillary
density, an enhanced capillary cross-sectional
area, or an improved endothelial-dependent
dilator function (Grant et al., 2003).
Flexibility
In the present study, no significant improvement
in the flexibility measures was achieved by
either group, despite the fact that it has
frequently been suggested that flexibility is an
important component of climbing fitness (Giles
et al., 2006; Watts, 2004). However, there was a
tendency for the CL group to perform better in
the post-test flexibility measures. In contrast
with the present results, Wescott (1992) found a
significant increase of 2.5 cm in the sit-andreach test after a 7-week climbing program. In
addition, Bal (2005) found an increase of over
2 cm in the sit-and-reach test performed after a
7-month climbing training program in children.
There are several factors that may help to
explain why there were not significant changes
in flexibility in the present study. First, it
appears that the sit-and-reach test is not
representative of body positions used during
climbing and thus lacks face validity (Giles et
al., 2006). For instance, two studies by Grant et
al. (1996, 2001) used the sit-and-reach test to
determine flexibility among elite and
recreational climbers. No distinction was found
between elite and recreational climbers,
indicating that elite climbers do not need
extraordinary back and hamstring flexibility.

Maikey Lopera, John P. Porcari, Jeff Steffen, Scott Doberstein 1and Carl Foster

The lack of specificity of this measurement to

rock climbing may explain why such flexibility
was not different between the two groups (Giles
et al., 2006) and may explain why the indoor
rock climbing program used in the present study
did little to promote flexibility improvements as
measured by the sit-and-reach test.
Leg span appears to be a more climbing-specific
measure of flexibility and range of motion
(ROM). Grant et al. (1996) used the leg span to
quantify hip adductor flexibility and found
significant differences between elite climbers
and recreational and non-climbers. They
postulated that this type of flexibility may be
important to elite climbers for bridging or
stemming movements with the legs. However,
these movements constitute advanced climbing
techniques (Long, 2002) and are likely to be
used more often by elite climbers on difficult or
very difficult routes, which was not be the case
the present study. This may explain why there
was no significant improvement in hip adductor
flexibility as measured by the leg span test. On
the other hand, Grant et al. (1996) did not find
significant differences in the foot raise test
between elite climbers and recreational and nonclimbers. Although the foot raise test mimics
high step moves used in climbing, results found
by Grant et al. (1996) and in the present study
results suggest that climbing does not improve
frontal plane hip abduction ROM, as measured
by the foot raise test.
Climbing performance
After the 7-week indoor rock climbing training,
climbing performance significantly improved in
the CL group,reflected by a 50 % increase in
climbing time and a 74 % increase in the
climbing score. No significant changes occurred
in the N-CL group.
One
explanation
for
the
significant
improvement in climbing performance in the
CL group is motivation. It is probable that after
several weeks of climbing training, subjects in
the CL group were more motivated to do
better in their post-test climbing performance
testing than they were in their first (pre-test)
testing. Additionally, it is possible that subjects
in the CL group had more intrinsic motivation

towards climbing than subjects in the N-CL

group, considering that subjects in the CL group
were enrolled in a climbing class. Moreover,
another factor accounting for the CL group
better post-test climbing performance could be a
higher pain and general discomfort threshold
associated with finger-grip tasks (Janot et al.,
2000) acquired after the 7-week rock climbing
training program. Another factor accounting for
the significant improvement in climbing
performance in the CL group could be the effect
of the learned verbal cues and climbing
technique instruction. According to McNamee
and Steffen (2007), improvements in
performance is facilitated by providing specific
skill-related feedback in the form of verbal
performance cues.
The significant increases in climbing specific
strength and endurance found in the present
study cannot be suggested as the main reason
for the improved climbing performance
observed in the CL group. Supporting this
statement, a correlation analysis of the data did
not reveal any significant relationship between
improvements in climbing score or climbing
time and changes in right and left hand handgrip
and pinch strength, arm hang, or average
handgrip endurance.
In contrast with the correlational analysis results
in the present study, several studies have found
significant relationship between climbing
performance and specific anthropometric,
strength and endurance characteristics. Most of
these studies focused on elite climbers. For
example, Wall et al. (2004) found a strong
correlation between handgrip strength and 1arm lock-off strength (similar to the bent-arm
hang test) and route performance, results that
were similar to those of Watts et al. (1993).
Similarly, Mermier et al. (2000), found a strong
correlation between muscular strength, power,
percent body fat, and climbing skill.
Therefore, results of the present study
correlational
analysis,
combined
with
correlational studies in elite climbers, suggest
that other factors such as experience and
improved technique may be more important in
explaining the gains in climbing performance in
novice climbers. However, after climbing

Maikey Lopera, John P. Porcari, Jeff Steffen, Scott Doberstein 1and Carl Foster

techniques are mastered and the severity of the

climb increases, gains in climbing specific
strength and endurance become more important
contributing factors explaining climbing
performance.

Bal, J. (2005). Influence of climbing activities

on child physical fitness. Paper presented at the
Proceedings from the International Mountain
and Outdoor sports conference, Hrub Skla,
Czech Republic.

Conclusion

Billat, V., Palleja, P., Charlaix, T., Rizzardo, P.,

& Janel, N. (1995). Energy specificity of rock
climbing and aerobic capacity in competitive
sport rock climbers. The Journal of Sports
Medicine and Physical Fitness, 35(1), 20-24.

The results of this study suggest that 7 weeks of

indoor rock climbing training offers an
appropriate stimulus to elicit improvements in
climbing-specific strength and endurance and
climbing performance in college level novice
climbers. However, the 7-week training
program does not appear to have any effect to
produce significant gains in flexibility
characteristics of college level novice climbers.
Additionally, correlation analysis suggests that
there is not a relationship between
improvements in climbing performance and
gains in climbing-specific strength and
endurance. These results, combined with results
of previous studies in elite climbers, suggest
that other factors such as experience and
learning the techniques necessary in climbing
are more important factor explaining the
improvements in climbing performance shown
by the college level novice climbers in the
present study. Keeping this in mind, these
results lead to the conclusion that training plans
and introductory programs aimed to novice
climbers
should
focus
in
fomenting
familiarization with the types of climbing,
climbing techniques and more time expend on
the wall, than on regimented strength training
programs.
References
Abendroth-Smith, J., R. S., Rodgers, M., &
Grabiner, M. (1997). A kinematic and strength
comparison of sport rock climbers. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the American
Society of Biomechanics 21st annual meeting,
Clemson, SC.
American College of Sports Medicine. (2006).
ACSMs Guidelines for Exercise Testing and
Prescription (7th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins.

Binney, D. M. (2001). Getting a Grip of Rock

Climbing Injuries. Sport & Med. Today, 044046.
Booth, J., Marino, F., Hill, C., & Gwinn, T.
(1999). Energy cost of sport rock climbing in
elite performers. British Journal of Sports
Medicine, 33(1), 14-18.
Brooks, G. A., Fahey, T. D., & Baldwin, K. M.
(2005).
Execise
Physiology:
Human
bioenergetics and its applications (4th ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Cutts, A., & Bollen, S. R. (1993). Grip strength
and endurance in rock climbers. Proceedings of
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H,
Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 207(2), 8792.
Ferguson, R. A., & Brown, M. D. (1997).
Arterial Blood Pressure and Forearm Vascular
Conductance Responses to Sustained and
Rhythmic Isometric Exercise and Arterial
Occlusion in Trained Rock Climbers and
Untrained Sedentary Subjects. European Journal
of Applied Physiology and Occupational
Physiology, 76(2), 174-180.
Giles, L. V., Rhodes, E. C., & Taunton, J. E.
(2006). The physiology of rock climbing. Sports
Medicine (Auckland, N Z ), 36(6), 529-545.
Grant, S., Hasler, T., Davies, C., Aitchison, T.
C., Wilson, J., & Whittaker, A. (2001). A
comparison of the anthropometric, strength,
endurance and flexibility characteristics of
female elite and recreational climbers and nonclimbers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19(7),
499-505.

Maikey Lopera, John P. Porcari, Jeff Steffen, Scott Doberstein 1and Carl Foster

Grant, S., Hynes, V., Whittaker, A., &

Aitchison, T. (1996). Anthropometric, strength,
endurance and flexibility characteristics of elite
and recreational climbers. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 14(4), 301-309.
Grant, S., Shields, C., Fitzpatrick, V., Loh, W.
M., Whitaker, A., Watt, I., et al. (2003).
Climbing-specific
finger
endurance:
a
comparative study of intermediate rock
climbers, rowers and aerobically trained
individuals. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(8),
621-630.
Janot, J. M., Steffen, J. P., Porcari, J. P., &
Maher, M. A. (2000). Heart rate responses and
perceived exertion for beginner and recreational
sport climbers during indoor rock climbing.
Journal of Exercise Physiology, 3(1).
Koukoubis, T. D., Cooper, L. W., Glisson, R.
R., Seaber, A. V., & Feagin, J. A. (1995). An
electromyographic study of arm muscles during
climbing. Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology
Arthroscopy, 3, 121-124.

Paige, T. E., D.C. Fiore, and J.D. Houston.

(1998). Injury in Traditional and Sport Rock
Climbing. Wilderness Environ Med, 9(1), 2-7.
Sheel, A. W. (2004). Physiology of sport rock
climbing. British Journal of Sports Medicine,
38(3), 355-359.
Sheel, A. W., Seddon, N., Knight, A.,
McKenzie, D. C., & DE, R. W. (2003).
Physiological responses to indoor rock-climbing
and their relationship to maximal cycle
ergometry. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 35(7), 1225-1231.
Wall, C. B., Starek, J. E., Fleck, S. J., & Byrnes,
W. C. (2004). Prediction of indoor climbing
performance in women rock climbers. Journal
Of Strength And Conditioning Research /
National Strength & Conditioning Association,
18(1), 77-83.

Long, J. (2002). How to Rock Climb (3rd ed.).

Evergreen, Colorado: Falcon.

Wang, Z. M., Deurenberg, P., Guo, S. S.,

Pietrobelli, A., Wang, J., Jr, R. P., et al. (1998).
Six-Compartment Body Composition Model:
Inter-Method Comparisons of Total Body Fat
Measurement. International Journal of Obesity,
22(4), 329-337.

Maud, P. J., & Foster, C. (2006). Physiological

Assessment of Human Fitness (2nd ed.): Leeds:
Human Kinetics.

Watts, P. B. (2004). Physiology of difficult rock

climbing. European Journal of Applied
Physiology, 91(4), 361-372.

McNamee, J., & Steffen, J. P. (2007). The

Effect of Performance Cues on Beginning
Indoor Climbing Perfomance. The Physical
Educator, 64(1), 2-10.

Watts, P. B., & Drobish, K. M. (1998).

Physiological responses to simulated rock
climbing at different angles. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 30(7), 11181122.

Mermier, C. M., Janot, J. M., Parker, D. L., &

Swan, J. G. (2000). Physiological and
anthropometric determinants of sport climbing
performance. British Journal Of Sports
Medicine, 34(5), 359-365; discussion 366.

Watts, P. B., Martin, D. T., & Durtschi, S.

(1993). Anthropometric profiles of elite male
and female competitive sport rock climbers.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 11(2), 113-117.

Mermier, C. M., Robergs, R. A., McMinn, S.

M., & Heyward, V. H. (1997). Energy
expenditure and physiological responses during
indoor rock climbing. British Journal of Sports
Medicine, 31(3), 224-228.

Watts, P., Newbury, V., & Sulentic, J. (1996).

Acute changes in handgrip strength, endurance,
and blood lactate with sustained sport rock
climbing. The Journal of Sports Medicine and
Physical Fitness, 36(4), 255-260.
Watts, P. B., Daggett, M., Gallagher, P., &
Wilkins, B. (2000). Metabolic response during

Maikey Lopera, John P. Porcari, Jeff Steffen, Scott Doberstein 1and Carl Foster

sport rock climbing and the effects of active

versus passive recovery. International Journal of
Sports Medicine, 21(3), 185-190.
Watts, P. B., Joubert, L. M., Lish, A. K., Mast,
J. D., & Wilkins, B. (2003). Anthropometry of

young competitive sport rock climbers. British

Journal of Sports Medicine, 37(5), 420-424.
Wescott, W. L. (1992). Fitness benefits of rock
climbing. American Fitness Quarterly, 10, 28-3