Search

Recent research has elucidated the effects of strength training on climbing performance. Although local muscular endurance training of the upper-limbs and finger flexors is frequently suggested, there is currently insufficient evidence to support its impact on climbing performance and climbing-specific strength. Furthermore, there is no evidence on climbers' experiences related to training and the likelihood of consistent engagement. In addition, the effects of more climbing-specific strength training on walls with built in lights and adjustable angles have yet to be examined. The low percentage of studies involving female subjects, additionally, demonstrates a significant gap in understanding the specific effects of strength training on women in the context of climbing. The aim of this study was thus to assess the effects of five-week on-, and off-the-wall climbing training on climbing performance, climbing-specific strength, and training experience. Thirty-one female lower-grade to advanced climbers were randomly assigned to either a control group, an off-the-wall training or an on-the-wall training group. Apart from the training regimen, all groups followed their usual climbing and bouldering routine. Subjects trained at least twice a week. Bouldering performance, and maximum strength and muscular endurance of the finger flexors and upper-limbs were assessed before and after the intervention. Furthermore, rate of perceived exertion and discomfort, exercise enjoyment, and exercise pleasure were assessed during the first and last training session, as well as after two and a half weeks of training. Intrinsic training motivation was assessed after the last training session. The results showed trends towards positive effects of off-the-wall training on climbing-specific strength, and on-the-wall training on climbing technique. Furthermore, our finding revealed high exercise enjoyment and intrinsic training motivation for both on- and off-the-wall training. Hence, lower-grade to advanced female climbers should rely on personal training preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bench press is a popular training-exercise in throw related sports such as javelin, baseball and handball. Athletes in these sports often use bouncing (i.e., letting the barbell collide with the chest) to create an increased momentum to accelerate the barbell upwards before completing the movement by throwing the barbell. Importantly, the effects of the bouncing technique in bench press have not been examined. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effects of bench press throw with (BPTbounce) or without bounce (BPT) on throwing velocity (penalty and 3-step), 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) and average power output (20-60kg) in bench press among handball players. Sixteen male amateur handball players (7.1±1.9 years of handball experience) were randomly allocated to an eight-week supplementary power training program (2 x week-1) with either the BPT or BPTbounce. Except for the bounce technique, the training programs were identical and consisted of 3 sets with 3–5 repetitions at 40–60% of 1-RM with maximal effort in free-weight barbell bench press throw. The results revealed no significant differences between the groups in any of the tests (p = 0.109–0.957). However, both groups improved penalty throw (BPT; 4.6%, p<0.001, ES = 0.57; BPTbounce; 5.1%, p = 0.008, ES = 0.91) and 1-RM (BPT; 9.7%, p<0.001, ES = 0.49; BPTbounce; 8.7%, p = 0.018, ES = 0.60), but only the BPT improved the 3-step throw (BPT; 2.9%, p = 0.060, ES = 0.38; BPTbounce; 2.3%, p = 0.216, ES = 0.40). The BPT improved power output only at 20kg and 30kg loads (9.1% and 12.7%; p = 0.018–0.048, ES = 0.43–0.51) whereas BPTbounce demonstrated no significant differences across the loads (p = 0.252–0.806). In conclusion, the bounce technique demonstrated similar effects on throwing velocity, muscle strength and muscle power output as conventional bench press throw without the bounce technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to assess and compare the maximal force and rate of force development (RFD) between intermediate, advanced and elite climbers using several different methods for calculating RFD. Fifty-seven male climbers (17 intermediate, 25 advanced, and 15 elite) performed isometric pull-ups on a climbing-specific hold while the RFD was calculated using several absolute (50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 ms from onset of force) and relative time periods (25, 50, 75, 95, and 100% of time to peak force). The maximal force was higher among elite climbers compared to advanced (ES = 1.78, p < 0.001) and intermediate climbers (ES = 1.77, p < 0.001), while no difference was observed between intermediate and advanced climbers (P = 0.898). The elite group also showed higher RFD than the other two groups at all relative time periods (ES = 1.02–1.58, p < 0.001–0.002), whereas the absolute time periods only revealed differences between the elite vs. the other groups at 50, 100 and 150 ms from the onset of force (ES = 0.72–0.84, p = 0.032–0.040). No differences in RFD were observed between the intermediate and advanced groups at any time period (p = 0.942–1.000). Maximal force and RFD, especially calculated using the longer periods of the force curve, may be used to distinguish elite climbers from advanced and intermediate climbers. The authors suggest using relative rather than absolute time periods when analyzing the RFD of climbers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the study was to compare the EMG amplitude in bench press (stable loads) to bench press using loads moving in anteroposterior and mediolateral directions. Seventeen resistance-trained men, with 9.4±4.7 years of resistance training experience were recruited. After a familiarization session assessing 1 repetition maximum (RM) in the bench press, participants performed: 1) bench press with traditional stable loading 2) bench press with loads (2x5kg) attached as pendulums swinging forward/backwards and 3) left/right in randomized order. The total load was 70% of the 1RM load. Electromyography was measured in the pectoralis major, anterior- and posterior deltoid, biceps brachii, triceps brachii and external obliques. Using stable loads, the pectoralis major demonstrated lower EMG amplitude compared to the two unstable conditions. In the external obliques, the stable conditions demonstrated lower EMG amplitude than the swing in the mediolateral direction, but not the anteroposterior direction. There were no differences between two swinging loads or the three conditions for the triceps brachii, biceps brachii, anterior deltoid or posterior deltoid. In conclusion, swinging in bench press resulted in similar EMG amplitude in the shoulder- and arm muscles, but greater pectoralis and external oblique (only mediolateral swing) activity compared to bench press. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the study was to compare the effects of a 10-week chest-press resistance training on lifting regions in a trained exercise and a none-trained exercise; the barbell bench press (BBP). Thirty-five resistance trained men with 4.2 (± 2.3) years of resistance training experience were recruited. The participants were randomized to attend a resistance program, performing the chest-press, twice per week using either, Smith machine, dumbbells or laying on Swiss ball using a barbell. A six-repetitions maximum (6RM) test was conducted pre- and post-training in the trained chest-press exercise and non-trained BBP to examine lifting velocity, load displacement and the time of the pre-sticking, sticking and post-sticking regions. Additionally, the muscle activity in pectoralis major, triceps brachii, biceps brachii and deltoid anterior was examined. In the post-test, all three chest-press groups decreased lifting velocity and increased the time to reach the sticking- and post-sticking region. Independent of the type of chest-press exercise trained, no differences were observed in vertical displacement or in the muscle activity for the three lifting regions. In general, similar changes in kinematics in trained exercise and those observed in the BBP were observed for all three groups. This indicates that none of the three chest-press exercises (Swiss ball, Smith machine or dumbbells) were specific regarding the lifting regions but displaced a transferability towards the non-trained BBP. However, improved strength altered the sticking region among resistance trained men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resistance-training of the lower limbs can be performed using exercises moving one (single-joint exercises) or several joints (multi-joint exercises). This study compared the effects of training one multi-joint exercise (leg press) or two single-joint exercises (leg extension and kickback) on dynamic and isometric strength and the transferability of dynamic strength between exercises. Fifty-three physically active women were randomized to a multi-joint (MJ) training group (age = 21.95±0.82 years, mass = 64.85±5.76 kg, height = 167.35±2.47 cm; n = 20), single-joint (SJ) training group (age = 22.56±1.66 years, mass = 64.85±5.76 kg, height = 165.94±2.84 cm; n = 18), or a control (CON) group (age = 21.27±0.68 years, mass = 68.43±4.86 kg, height = 168.63±2.84 cm; n = 15). The training groups participated in an 8-week supervised single- or multi-joint lower limb training consisting of 18 sessions. Pre- and post-training, six repetitions maximum (RM) and maximal voluntary isometric contraction in the three exercises were assessed, along with electromyography of the superficial quadriceps muscles. Improvements in all dynamic exercises were greatest after training the specific exercises (ES = 1.26–2.14, P<0.001–0.025) and all were greater in the training groups than in the CON group (ES = 1.43–3.31, P<0.001–0.021). The SJ group improved 6RM in leg extension and kickback more than leg press (ES = 1.51 and 2.04, respectively, P<0.001), whereas the MJ group improved leg press 6RM more than kickback (ES = 1.10, P = 0.002). However, leg press and leg extension strength improved similarly in the MJ group (ES = 0.54, P = 0.072). All strength and electromyographic measures remained unchanged in the CON group (ES = 0.00–0.44, P = 0.412–0.966). Improved dynamic strength in leg press, kickback and leg extension is best attained by training the specific exercises, but both training modalities can improve strength across all exercises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Albeit differences in climbing-specific strength of the forearms have been demonstrated between lead and boulder climbers, little is known about the potential differences in force and power output of the upper body pulling-apparatus between disciplines. The aim of this study was to compare the climbing-specific upper-body strength and finger flexor endurance between lead and boulder climbers, as well as to examine the relative utilization of force when testing on a ledge hold compared to a jug hold. Sixteen boulder climbers (red-point climbing grade 17.9 ± 3.3) and fifteen lead climbers (red-point climbing grade 20.5 ± 3.5) performing on an advanced level volunteered for the study. Peak force, average force and rate of force development (RFD) were measured during an isometric pull-up, average velocity in dynamic pull-up, and finger flexor endurance in an intermittent test to fatigue. The isometric pull-up was performed on a ledge hold (high finger strength requirements) and on a jug hold (very low finger strength requirements). Boulder climbers demonstrated a higher maximal and explosive strength in all strength and power measurements (26.2–52.9%, ES = 0.90–1.12, p = 0.006–0.023), whereas the finger flexor endurance test showed no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.088). Both groups were able to utilize 57–69% of peak force, average force and RFD in the ledge condition compared to the jug condition, but the relative utilization was not different between the groups (p = 0.290–0.996). In conclusion, boulder climbers were stronger and more explosive compared to lead climbers, whereas no differences in finger flexor endurance were observed. Performing climbing-specific tests on a smaller hold appears to limit the force and power output equally between the two groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although several studies have examined the effects of performing resistance training with different percentages of one-repetition maximum (1-RM), little is known of the neuromuscular effects and kinematics of lifting low to heavy loads with maximal movement velocity. The aim of this study is to compare muscle activation and kinematics in free-weight back squats with different loads. Thirteen resistance-training males (aged 24.2 ± 2.0 years, body mass 81.5 ± 9.1 kg, height 1.78 ± 0.06 m) with 6 ± 3 years of resistance-training experience conducted squats with 30%–100% of 1-RM. Barbell kinematics and electromyographic (EMG) activity of the vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, rectus femoris, semitendinosus, biceps femoris, and gluteus maximus were measured in the upward phase of each load. With increasing loads, the barbell velocity decreased, the upward phase duration increased, and the peak velocity occurred later. The muscle activation in all muscles increased with increasing loads but was not linear. In general, similar muscle activation in the prime movers was observed for loads between 40% and 60% of 1-RM and between 70% and 90% of 1-RM, with 100% of 1-RM being superior to the other loads when the loads were lifted at maximal intended velocity. However, the timing of maximal muscle activations was not affected by the different loadings for the quadriceps, but the timing was sequential and independent of loading (rectus femoris before vastus medial before vastus lateral). Maximal activation in the gluteus and semitendinosus increased with increasing loads. This means that for muscle activation, maximal lifting velocity may compensate for increased loads, which may allow resistance-trained athletes and individuals in rehabilitation to avoid heavy loads but still get the same muscle activation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to assess the short- and long-term effects of resistance training (RT) with different stability requirements. Fifty-nine men underwent a 3-week familiarization period followed by a 7-week training period. During familiarization, all participants trained four sessions of squats with a Smith machine, free weights and free weights standing on a wobble board. After week-3, participants were randomized into a low (Smith machine), medium (Free-weight) or high (Wobble board) stability RT program, and Control group. All participants were tested pre-, after week-3 and post-intervention. Ten repetition maximum (10RM), rate of force development (RFD), electromyography (EMG) and maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) were tested in all three squat conditions in addition to countermovement jump (CMJ) on stable and unstable surfaces, and muscle thickness. After familiarization, greater 10RM loads (21.8–27.3%), MVIC (7.4–13.5%), RFD (29.7–43.8%) and CMJ (4.9–8.5%) were observed in all conditions. Between week 3 and 10, the Free-weight and Wobble board groups similarly improved 10RM in all conditions. Smith machine group demonstrated greater improvement in the trained exercise than the medium and high stability exercises. All training groups showed similar improvement in muscle thickness, RFD and MVIC. There was no CMJ improvement on the stable surface, but the Wobble board group demonstrated significantly greater improvement on the unstable surface. In conclusion, low, medium or high stability RT resulted in similar improvements in trained and non-trained testing conditions except for greater CMJ on the unstable surface in the Wobble group. Greater 10RM strength in trained than non-trained exercise was only observed in low stability group. Familiarization was associated with substantial improvements in 10RM and CMJ, with greater improvement associated with higher stability requirements. These findings suggest that high stability can increase strength, muscle thickness and explosive measurements similar to training with lower stability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Integrated exercises that mimic daily tasks are generally preferred for improving performance and the later stages of rehabilitation, but it is unknown whether integrated core exercises are better than isolated core exercises at improving muscle activation for hypertrophy. The aim of the study was to compare the electromyographic (EMG) activity in rectus abdominis, oblique externus, and erector spinae while performing three conditions of integrated core exercises (lunges) with three isolated core exercises (prone bridge, side bridge and back extension). The three conditions of lunges were: on a stable surface, unstable surface and with external resistance to the trunk using an elastic band. The external resistance was measured with a force cell and peaked at 75N. After one familiarization session, all exercises were performed in one experimental session in randomized order. The isolated core exercises were performed in 20 seconds and the time performing the five repetitions with lunges was matched (20 seconds). Significantly greater peak normalized EMG activity were observed in the isolated core exercises compared to the three integrated core exercises (P<0.001) with two exceptions. For the oblique externus, the isolated core exercise was only greater than the stable lunge. Lunges with elastic bands only demonstrated greater peak erector spinae activation compared the other lunge conditions. Comparing the mean EMG activity between the isolated and three integrated exercises, greater muscle activations were observed performing the isolated exercises (P<0.001). Unstable lunges did not increase the peak or mean core muscle activations. In conclusion, mean and peak EMG activity performing the isolated exercises were in general greater than the three condition of lunges. Based on these results, we recommend using isolated core exercises when the primary goal is to improve muscle activation and elicit hypertrophy, but integrated exercises once adequate initial hypertrophy is achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Variable, external resistance is proposed to increasingly augment the muscular stress throughout a dynamic movement. However, it is uncertain how different levels of variable resistance affect the activation in the deadlift. The aim of the study was to compare the electromyographic activity of the gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, semitendinosus, vastus lateralis and erector spinae muscles during the barbell deadlift with free weights (FW) alone, with two (FW-2EB), and four elastic bands (FW-4EB) to deload some of the constant external resistance. Fifteen resistance-trained men participated in a cross-over design where resistance loadings were matched using two-repetition maximum loadings in the three different conditions. For the whole movement, both repetitions were analyzed. For the phase-specific analysis, the last repetition was divided into six parts, i.e. the lower, middle and upper phase in both the ascending and descending phase of the movement. The mean deloading contributions from FW-2EB and FW-4EB were 21% and 41%, respectively. In FW-4EB, the erector spinae was activated more in the whole movement (8%, ES = 0.31, p = 0.002) compared to FW-2EB. There was also a tendency towards higher activation in FW-4EB versus FW for the whole movement (5%, ES = 0.18, p = 0.072). There were no significant differences between the conditions in any of the other phases or muscles (p = 0.106–0.926). In summary, a high contribution from variable, external resistance seems to activate the back extensors more than a low contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the first study to compare the effects of isometric vs. dynamic core training and characterize core-training adaptations using climbing-specific performance and core strength tests in elite climbers. The aim of the study was to compare the effects of attending a progressive core-training program on climbing performance. 19 advanced and elite climbers (7.3±5.6 years climbing experience, red point skill grade 19 IRCRA) were randomized into a dynamic (DCT) or isometric (ICT) core training group and trained twice weekly for ten weeks. The climbers were tested using two climbing-specific core tests (body lock-off and body-lift) and four non-specific core strength tests—one dynamic (superman) and three isometric (trunk flexion and trunk rotation left and right). Between group comparisons showed no differences between the groups at post-test (p = 0.328–0.824) and neither group demonstrated greater improvement compared with the other (p = 0.300–0.926). The ICT group demonstrated 10.8% and 29.6% improvement in trunk flexion and body-lift (p = 0.029–0.037 with no improvement in body lock-off and rotation (p = 0.101–0.343). The DCT group demonstrated 5.0–14.9% improvement in the core strength tests (p = 0.012–0.043), a non-significant 33.8% improvement in body-lift (p = 0.100) and no improvement in body lock-off (p = 0.943). In conclusion, none of the training groups demonstrated greater improvement than the other and both dynamic and isometric core training improved climbing-specific test performance. Dynamic training was slightly more favorable although not significantly superior to isometric core training in improving core strength. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]