Search

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

The aim of the study was to aggregate different effects between variable resistance training and traditional resistance training on maximal muscle strength and muscle power and identify potential sex- and training program-related moderator variables. Meta-analysis. A systematic literature search was conducted in SPORTDiscus, PubMed, and Web of Science. Interventions were included if they compared variable resistance training and traditional resistance training in healthy adults and examined the effects on measures of maximal muscle strength and/or muscle power of the lower and/or upper body. A random-effects model was used to calculate weighted and averaged standardized mean differences. Additionally, univariate sub-group analyses were independently computed for sex and training-related moderator variables. Seventeen studies comprising a total of 491 participants (341 men and 150 women, age 18–37 years) were included in the analyses. In terms of maximal muscle strength, there were no statistically significant differences between variable resistance training and traditional resistance training for the lower (p = 0.46, standardized mean difference = −0.10) or the upper body (p = 0.14, standardized mean difference = −0.17). Additionally, there were no significant training-related differences in muscle power for the lower (p = 0.16, standardized mean difference = 0.21) or upper body (p = 0.81, standardized mean difference = 0.05). Sub-group analyses showed a significant moderator effect for training period and repetitions per set for maximal muscle strength in the lower body (p = 0.03–0.04) with larger strength gains following traditional resistance training when performing more repetitions per set (p = 0.02, standardized mean difference = 0.43). No other significant sub-group effects were found (p = 0.18–0.82). Our results suggest that variable resistance training and traditional resistance training are equally effective in improving maximal muscle strength and muscle power in healthy adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]