Abstracting and Indexing

  • Google Scholar
  • CrossRef
  • WorldCat
  • ResearchGate
  • Academic Keys
  • DRJI
  • Microsoft Academic
  • Academia.edu
  • OpenAIRE

Testing IRCRA Battery and Its Predictive Value on Red-Point Performance in Youth Advanced Climbers

Article Information

Antonia Ioana Vasile*, Monica Stanescu

National University of Physical Education and Sport, Bucharest, Romania

*Corresponding Author: Antonia Ioana Vasile, National University of Physical Education and Sport, Bucharest, Romania.

Received: 09 May 2023; Accepted: 19 May 2023; Published: 22 May 2023

Citation:

Antonia Ioana Vasile, Monica Stănescu. Testing IRCRA Battery and Its Predictive Value on Red-Point Performance in Youth Advanced Climbers. Journal of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine. 5 (2023): 249-259.

View / Download Pdf Share at Facebook

Abstract

Introduction: Various studies examined the factors that influence climbing performance measuring the contribution of anthropometric factors, physiological factors, physical factors, technical factors, psychological factors and mental factors. IRCRA developed a battery with 10 tests that evaluate key physiological parameters in climbing.

Hypothesis: We can predict climbing red-point performance based on the 5 factors: antropometric factor, upper body factor, flexibility factor, core factor and training factor. Methods: The study was performed on 17 youth advanced climbers both male and female. The evaluating instrument was IRCRA performancerelated test baterry for climbers with 3 more added tests: pull-ups, pushups, hanging, dips and plank.

Results: We composed five factors that influence red-point performance, which are, in order of their importance: training factors, upper body strength factors, anthropometric factors, core strength factor and flexibility factors. The model predicted 81.7% of the climbing performance variance. Power slap at Gullich rungs was the most predicting of the upper body strength.

Conclusions: The most important factor for performance in climbing is a trainable skill: strength of the upper body. Specific training on specific holds is more important than general physical preparation. Anthropometric characteristics influence performance more than core strength or flexibility in climbing.

Keywords

Sport climbing; Physical factors; Advanced climbers; Power; Strength

Physical education articles Physical education Research articles Physical education review articles Physical education PubMed articles Physical education PubMed Central articles Physical education 2023 articles Physical education 2024 articles Physical education Scopus articles Physical education impact factor journals Physical education Scopus journals Physical education PubMed journals Physical education medical journals Physical education free journals Physical education best journals Physical education top journals Physical education free medical journals Physical education famous journals Physical education Google Scholar indexed journals Sport articles Sport Research articles Sport review articles Sport PubMed articles Sport PubMed Central articles Sport 2023 articles Sport 2024 articles Sport Scopus articles Sport impact factor journals Sport Scopus journals Sport PubMed journals Sport medical journals Sport free journals Sport best journals Sport top journals Sport free medical journals Sport famous journals Sport Google Scholar indexed journals Climbing articles Climbing Research articles Climbing review articles Climbing PubMed articles Climbing PubMed Central articles Climbing 2023 articles Climbing 2024 articles Climbing Scopus articles Climbing impact factor journals Climbing Scopus journals Climbing PubMed journals Climbing medical journals Climbing free journals Climbing best journals Climbing top journals Climbing free medical journals Climbing famous journals Climbing Google Scholar indexed journals Recreational activity articles Recreational activity Research articles Recreational activity review articles Recreational activity PubMed articles Recreational activity PubMed Central articles Recreational activity 2023 articles Recreational activity 2024 articles Recreational activity Scopus articles Recreational activity impact factor journals Recreational activity Scopus journals Recreational activity PubMed journals Recreational activity medical journals Recreational activity free journals Recreational activity best journals Recreational activity top journals Recreational activity free medical journals Recreational activity famous journals Recreational activity Google Scholar indexed journals Competitive sport articles Competitive sport Research articles Competitive sport review articles Competitive sport PubMed articles Competitive sport PubMed Central articles Competitive sport 2023 articles Competitive sport 2024 articles Competitive sport Scopus articles Competitive sport impact factor journals Competitive sport Scopus journals Competitive sport PubMed journals Competitive sport medical journals Competitive sport free journals Competitive sport best journals Competitive sport top journals Competitive sport free medical journals Competitive sport famous journals Competitive sport Google Scholar indexed journals Sport climbing articles Sport climbing Research articles Sport climbing review articles Sport climbing PubMed articles Sport climbing PubMed Central articles Sport climbing 2023 articles Sport climbing 2024 articles Sport climbing Scopus articles Sport climbing impact factor journals Sport climbing Scopus journals Sport climbing PubMed journals Sport climbing medical journals Sport climbing free journals Sport climbing best journals Sport climbing top journals Sport climbing free medical journals Sport climbing famous journals Sport climbing Google Scholar indexed journals Bouldering articles Bouldering Research articles Bouldering review articles Bouldering PubMed articles Bouldering PubMed Central articles Bouldering 2023 articles Bouldering 2024 articles Bouldering Scopus articles Bouldering impact factor journals Bouldering Scopus journals Bouldering PubMed journals Bouldering medical journals Bouldering free journals Bouldering best journals Bouldering top journals Bouldering free medical journals Bouldering famous journals Bouldering Google Scholar indexed journals Anthropometric articles Anthropometric Research articles Anthropometric review articles Anthropometric PubMed articles Anthropometric PubMed Central articles Anthropometric 2023 articles Anthropometric 2024 articles Anthropometric Scopus articles Anthropometric impact factor journals Anthropometric Scopus journals Anthropometric PubMed journals Anthropometric medical journals Anthropometric free journals Anthropometric best journals Anthropometric top journals Anthropometric free medical journals Anthropometric famous journals Anthropometric Google Scholar indexed journals Elite athlete articles Elite athlete Research articles Elite athlete review articles Elite athlete PubMed articles Elite athlete PubMed Central articles Elite athlete 2023 articles Elite athlete 2024 articles Elite athlete Scopus articles Elite athlete impact factor journals Elite athlete Scopus journals Elite athlete PubMed journals Elite athlete medical journals Elite athlete free journals Elite athlete best journals Elite athlete top journals Elite athlete free medical journals Elite athlete famous journals Elite athlete Google Scholar indexed journals Body weight articles Body weight Research articles Body weight review articles Body weight PubMed articles Body weight PubMed Central articles Body weight 2023 articles Body weight 2024 articles Body weight Scopus articles Body weight impact factor journals Body weight Scopus journals Body weight PubMed journals Body weight medical journals Body weight free journals Body weight best journals Body weight top journals Body weight free medical journals Body weight famous journals Body weight Google Scholar indexed journals Muscle articles Muscle Research articles Muscle review articles Muscle PubMed articles Muscle PubMed Central articles Muscle 2023 articles Muscle 2024 articles Muscle Scopus articles Muscle impact factor journals Muscle Scopus journals Muscle PubMed journals Muscle medical journals Muscle free journals Muscle best journals Muscle top journals Muscle free medical journals Muscle famous journals Muscle Google Scholar indexed journals Elbow flexors articles Elbow flexors Research articles Elbow flexors review articles Elbow flexors PubMed articles Elbow flexors PubMed Central articles Elbow flexors 2023 articles Elbow flexors 2024 articles Elbow flexors Scopus articles Elbow flexors impact factor journals Elbow flexors Scopus journals Elbow flexors PubMed journals Elbow flexors medical journals Elbow flexors free journals Elbow flexors best journals Elbow flexors top journals Elbow flexors free medical journals Elbow flexors famous journals Elbow flexors Google Scholar indexed journals Elite climbers articles Elite climbers Research articles Elite climbers review articles Elite climbers PubMed articles Elite climbers PubMed Central articles Elite climbers 2023 articles Elite climbers 2024 articles Elite climbers Scopus articles Elite climbers impact factor journals Elite climbers Scopus journals Elite climbers PubMed journals Elite climbers medical journals Elite climbers free journals Elite climbers best journals Elite climbers top journals Elite climbers free medical journals Elite climbers famous journals Elite climbers Google Scholar indexed journals Shoulder muscles articles Shoulder muscles Research articles Shoulder muscles review articles Shoulder muscles PubMed articles Shoulder muscles PubMed Central articles Shoulder muscles 2023 articles Shoulder muscles 2024 articles Shoulder muscles Scopus articles Shoulder muscles impact factor journals Shoulder muscles Scopus journals Shoulder muscles PubMed journals Shoulder muscles medical journals Shoulder muscles free journals Shoulder muscles best journals Shoulder muscles top journals Shoulder muscles free medical journals Shoulder muscles famous journals Shoulder muscles Google Scholar indexed journals Body mass index articles Body mass index Research articles Body mass index review articles Body mass index PubMed articles Body mass index PubMed Central articles Body mass index 2023 articles Body mass index 2024 articles Body mass index Scopus articles Body mass index impact factor journals Body mass index Scopus journals Body mass index PubMed journals Body mass index medical journals Body mass index free journals Body mass index best journals Body mass index top journals Body mass index free medical journals Body mass index famous journals Body mass index Google Scholar indexed journals

Article Details

1. Introduction

Climbing has increased popularity worldwide both as a recreational activity as well as a competitive sport, with multiple studies that examined performance-related factors of the sport [1,2]. It has become increasingly popular since it was included in the 2020 Olympic Games [3,4]. It has three disciplines: traditional climbing, sport climbing and bouldering [5]. Traditional climbing can be performed only in outdoor areas [6]. Sport climbing has gained more popularity lately due to the emergence of indoor climbing gyms, making the sport more accessible to people [7]. Competitive sport climbing has three disciplines: lead, bouldering and speed.

Performance in rock climbing is measured by the perception of the route climbed and the route is given a specific grade expressed on a specific scale (such as UIAA (International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation), Yosemite decimal scale, French scale, Vermin, Font, IRCRA (International Rock Climbing Research Association), British, Watts) [8]. The grade should objectify the difficulty of the route which can depend on several factors such as: the technical difficulty, the power for every single move, the stamina needed for long passages, number of rest points [9]. All in all, grades are subjective [10] and are based on the comparison of the route with other routes previously climbed by that athlete. Depending on the number of attempts for succeeding the top, the route can be considered on-sight (from the first try, without any additional information about the climbing plan of ascending or about the holds), flash (from the first try, but with prior information about the route) or red-point (after multiple tries) [11]. The most valued and difficult style is considered on-sight climbing [9].

Various studies have examined the factors that influence climbing performance, measuring the contribution of physiological factors [12], psychological factors [13,14], mental factors [15] and the contribution of anthropometric factors [12,16]. Previous studies explained that climbing performance in correlated with endurance performance, flexibility and grip strength relative to body mass [17]. It is important to note that these physical and morphological characteristics of climbers are affected by environmental and genetic factors [3,4]. Watts [18] theorized the elite athlete profile for rock climbing: small stature and low body mass, with low percent of body fat, with high upper-body strength to body weight ratio, high dynamic and isometric muscular endurance, high upper body power and moderate to high aerobic power.

When analyzing anthropometric factors, the typical climber is short in height, low weight and has increased muscle mass in the upper body [19]. Espana-Romero et al. [20] reported that a low percentage of body fat is preferable, as excess body fat increases the muscular effort needed to maintain balance and climb to the top [18]. Billat et al. [21] demonstrated that a climber has an average height of 1.8m. An ape index of +2.5 cm has also been shown to be specific to performance climbers, but not different from the general population [12].

As for strength factors, when eliminating the influence that coordination, technical skills, tactical skills, anthropometric factors and mental factors have on performance, it appears that the intermittent endurance of the flexors of fingers is a key element that increases performance in climbing [22,23]. The flexors muscular fatigability is in association with success or failure in competitive climbing [24]. Grant et al. [25] explained that elite climbers, compared to recreational climbers and non-climbers, have a better upper body strength examined by number of pull-ups and maximum hanging. Birkett explained the important influence that upper limbs have on performance in climbing and Noe et al. [26] observed an increase in the upper limbs effort from 43% to 62% when the inclination angle of the wall increases by 10 degrees. High levels of maximal and explosive strength of the upper limbs (fingers, forearms, elbow flexors, shoulder muscles) and back muscles have been suggested to be significant attributes of the elite climbers [27-29].

It was postulated that flexibility is an important component of climbing fitness, being used in bridging or high stepping moves. Mermier et al. [12] confirmed that flexibility is an important factor that influenced climbing performance among elite climbers, but it does not directly influence the success. Another study explained that elite climbers compared to non-elite climbers and controls have a higher flexibility [30]. Saito et al. [3,4] reported that the frequency of a high flexibility gene (ACTN3 R577X polymorphism) [31] was higher in climbers compared to controls. Flexibility is an important skill for climbing performance [3,4]. Sit-and-reach tests were positively correlated with climbing performance and the results in this test are higher for elite climbers compared to recreational climbers [32]. Moreover, climbing-specific flexibility examined with foot raises in front of the wall is higher in elite climbers compared to recreational climbers and non-climbers [30].

Draper et al. [33] demonstrated that general climbing experience and number of years lead climbing significantly affected success on the route and appeared to provide successful climbers with a greater feeling of self-confidence before climbing. They explained that climbers with higher levels of self-confidence stayed fewer time in cruxes on the route and had a lower heart rate throughout the climb. Their findings explained that prior experience played a significant role in successful climbing performance in lead climbing or top roping.

IRCRA provided a battery of 10 climbing-specific tests for fitness for climbers that assess key physiological parameters[1]. Draper et al. [34] examined the validity and reliability of IRCRA battery on 132 rock climbers and demonstrated that flexibility and strength tests were partially successful in differentiating between climbers in accordance to their performance. In addition they demonstrated that the finger hang test and powerslap test are the most strongly correlated with performance ability.

The aim of the sudy was to examine the validity of IRCRA battery (2015). The first objective of the study was to examine the efficiency of the IRCRA battery on evaluating red-point performance on youth advanced climbers. The second objective of the study was to evaluate the predictive value of the motor tests on red-point performance.

2. Methodology

2.1 Participants

The study was performed on 17 youth advanced climbers with ages between 13 and 20 years old (M=16.59; SD=2.00), including 10 male and 7 female with a climbing experience between 1 and 12 years (M=6.74, SD=2.00). All the climbers had at least 3 training sessions per week. The inclusion criteria was that the athlete had climbed at least one route measuring 7a grade in the last year before enrolling into the study, according to the French scale (lead red-point climbing). This meant that we analysed only advanced climbers, according to Draper et al. [8] classification. We included climbers who participated in at least one National competition in the last year before entering the study. Within the research group, 4 climbers participated at youth B competitions, 4 climbers participated in youth A competitions and 9 climbers participated in juniors competitions. The entire research group was part of the National youth climbing team.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethical Committee of National Univerisity of Physical Education and Sort, Bucharest, Romania (no. 120/25.01.2021). Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

2.2 Instrument

The evaluating instrument was adapted from the IRCRA performance-related test battery for climbers (2015) according to the existing equipment from the climbing gym. The adaptation was the following: the climbing specific foot-raise tests were measured at the espalier; the finger hang test was measured in three different grips (full crimp on small edge hold, half crimp on medium edge hold and open hand on the slopers) at the Metolius board; the pull-up shoulder endurance test was measured in three different grips (full crimp on small edge hold, half crimp on medium edge hold and open hand on the slopers) with a full pull-up at the Metolius board.

In addition, we evaluated the climbers with 3 more tests. The first one was for measuring the power of rectus abdominis with crunches from the starting position of hanging at the fixed bar, measuring the maximum number of reps. The second test was the power of triceps and pectoral muscles measuring the maximum number of push-ups. The third additional test measured the upper-body muscle power evaluating the maximum reps of dips. In total, the climber was evaluated with 16 tests.

2.3 Variables

The measured variables were classified in 5 categories. The first category included anthropometric data: weight, height, BMI, ape index, forearms circumference (right and left). The second category included upper body strenght data: maximum number of seconds hanging on three different holds (small edge, medium edge and slopers); power slap at Gullich (with left hand and right hand), maximum number of seconds hanging in pull-up position at the fixed bar in pronated position with both hands; with left hand only and with right hand only; maximum number of pull-ups on three different holds (small edge, medium edge and slopers); maximum dips; maximum push-ups. The third category included core strength data: alternative crunches from hanging position; 90 degree bent leg raise; plank position test. The fourth category included flexibility data: climbing specific foot-raise with rotation; climbing specific foot-raise without rotation. The fifth category included training components such as: number of trainings per week and climbing experience. All these variables were considered independent variables. The last category included factual data such as: age, maximum red point performance in lead routes (which was measured in French scale and then converted according to Watts et al. scale [16]. The red-point performance was considered dependent variable.

Because of the large amount of variables, we decreased the number by doing the average for variables that were measured on the right and on the left hand/foot: for flexibility with rotation; flexibility without rotation and for power slap at Gullich. Similar, we did the same for variables that were measured on the three types of holds (small edge, medium edge and slopers): for hanging and pull-ups.

All the variables included in the statistical analysis can be seen in Table 1.

Variables

Items

Description significance

Antropometric factor (Antrop)

Age

The respondent age

BMI

Body mass index

Arm span

Arm spam

Ape

Ape index (= difference between arm spam and height)

Circumference

Forearm circumference (as a mean between left and right forearms)

Red-point performance (Performance)

workWatts

Climber’s red-point performance in the last year before enrolling into the study

Upper body strength factor (Upper body)

Hanging

Maximum number of seconds hanging on three different holds (small edge, medium edge and slopers) as a mean

Gullich

 Power slap at Gullich

hanging90dg

Maximum number of seconds hanging in pull-up position at the fixed bar in pronated position

Tractions

Maximum number of pull-ups on three different holds (small edge, medium edge and slopers) as a mean

Triceps

Maximum number of dips

Push-ups

Maximum number of push-ups

Core strength factor (Core)

core_bicycle

Maximum number of alternative crunches (left foot and then right foot) starting from hanging position at the fixed bar

90_bent_leg_raise

Maximum number of seconds standing in the position: 90-degree flexed elbows with the knees and hips both flexed at 90 degrees

Plank

Maximum number of seconds standing in plank position

Flexibility factor (Flexibility)

Rotation

Maximum external rotation and abduction of the hip with internal rotation of the supporting leg

Norotation

Maximum external rotation and abduction of the hip with external rotation of the supporting leg

Training factor (Training)

sports_exp

 Sport experience

Workouts

 Number of workouts per week

Table 1: Name, code, and significance of variables analyzed.

2.4 Research hypothesis

We can predict climbing red-point performance based on the 5 factors: anthropometric factor, upper body factor, flexibility factor, core factor and training factor.

2.5 Statistical analysis

For statistical analysis we used the structural equation modeling approach of partial least squares (PLS-SEM) that evaluates dependent variables (formative or reflective), including smaller data sets. PLS-SEM or path analysis should be used when the model is exceedingly complicated, the population size is relatively small and the model contains simultaneously formative and reflective variables [35]. Prediction of relationships is its principal application [36]. Smart PLS is a reliable regression methodology because:

  1. it diminishes the variance of the endogenous variables residuals;
  2. it generates effective data despite small data sets;
  3. it uses formative and reflective variables [36].

Forecasting and the explanation of complicated relationships are its principal applications [36].

Our model was formed by 6 factors: 4 reflective factors (Antrop, UpperBody, Core and Performance) and 2 formative factors (Flexibility and Training). The anthropometric characteristics of athletes formed the Antrop factor: age, BMI, arm span, ape index and circumference. The variables that measured strength of upper limbs were: hanging, gullich, hanging90dg, tractions, triceps, push-ups. The core strength of the body was measured by tests such as: core_bicycle, 90_bent_leg_raise and plank.

3. Results

The descriptive statistics for the factual data is presented in Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics

 

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Skewness

Kurtosis

Age (years)

13

20

16.65

2.09

-0.02

-1.06

Weight (cm)

41

72

58.02

8.29

-0.25

-0.06

Height (cm)

150

184

170.53

8.28

-0.47

1.14

BMI

17.5

23.24

19.75

1.58

0.6

0.15

Arm span (cm)

160

191

173.84

9.74

0.44

-1.04

Ape index

-7

12

2.92

5.29

-0.03

0

Right arm circumference (cm)

22

29.5

26

2.18

-0.02

-0.96

Left arm circumference (cm)

22

30

25.85

2.31

0.23

-0.93

Climbing experience (years)

1

12

6.94

3.01

-0.32

-0.21

On-sight performance

2.25

4.75

3.25

0.8

0.41

-0.93

Red-point performance

2.75

5.75

4.02

0.9

0.13

-0.92

Number of trainings per week

2

7

4.24

1.39

0.31

-0.79

Number of hours per training

2

4

2.85

0.52

0.22

0.19

Tabel 2: Descriptive statistics for the factual data.

The descriptive statistics for the motor variables is presented in Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics

 

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Skewness

Kurtosis

Flexibility with rotation on the right leg (cm)

134

191

168.88

17.58

-0.81

-0.41

Flexibility with rotation on the left leg (cm)

138

193

171.53

16.32

-0.83

-0.48

Flexibility without rotation on the right leg (cm)

113

208

148.76

26.32

0.73

0.01

Flexibility without rotation on the left leg (cm)

117

210

153.47

26.17

0.55

-0.19

Finger hang on open hand hold (sec)

51

133

84.71

25.52

0.81

-0.38

Finger hang on half crimp hold (sec)

35

77

54.41

15.42

0.12

-1.61

Finger hang on full crimp hold (sec)

18

67

41.71

16.57

0.19

-1.47

Power slap on the right arm (cm)

61

115

93.12

18.71

-0.28

-1.08

Power slap on the left arm (cm)

61

118

93.12

18.86

-0.24

-1.14

Bent arm hang (sec)

24

70

45.59

13.45

-0.21

-0.59

Bent arm hang on the left hand (sec)

0

21

5.56

7.39

1.22

0.06

Bent arm hang on the right hand (sec)

0

20

4.44

6.36

1.72

2.27

Pull-ups on open hand hold (number)

7

26

16

6.62

0.11

-1.29

Pull-ups on half crimp hold (number)

4

21

11.59

5.32

0.28

-1.08

Pull-ups on full crimp hold (number)

3

15

7.82

3.81

0.23

-1.3

Plank (sec)

76

601

178.82

125.03

2.68

840

90_bent_leg_raise (sec)

19

75

48.18

18.23

-0.17

-1.2

Push-ups (number)

10

50

31.29

11.05

0.05

-0.12

Dips (number)

0

23

7.88

6.57

0.75

-0.1

Core_bycicle (number)

52

140

89.29

23.77

0.3

-0.36

Tabel 3: Descriptive statistics for the motor variables.

Construct reliability and validity: In order to evaluate consistency using Construct Reliability, we used SmartPLS [37] as indicated in Table 4. The variance of Performance variable is explained by the other factors Core, Training, Antrop, Flexibility and Upper Body variance in 73,4% (R2 adjusted= 0.734). We can see the analysis in Table 4 and Figure 1.

Formative/ Reflective constructs

Composite Reliability

Cronbach’s Alpha

AVE

rho_A

R2

R2 Adjusted

Normal value

(>0.7)

(>0.7)

(>0.5)

(>0.5)

(>0.5)

(>0.5)

Core

1.209

0.637

0.331

0.35

-

-

Training

-

-

-

1

-

-

Antrop

0.685

0.752

0.366

0.831

-

-

Flexibility

-

-

-

1

-

-

Upper body

0.883

0.896

0.593

0.969

-

-

Performance

1

1

1

1

0.817

0.734

Table 4: Validation Steps.

fortune-biomass-feedstock

Figure 1: Cronbach’s Alpha Analysis and Path Coefficients.

Correlation between variables: The correlation analysis revealed a very strong positive correlation between Performance and Training (0.792). We also demonstrated a very strong positive correlation between Performance and Upper Body (0.703). The Path coefficient for the relationship between Training and Performance is 0.513 and for the relationship between UpperBody and Performance is 0.302 (Figure 1). The Performance is also influenced by the anthropometric factor with a correlation coefficient of 0.658 and a Path Coefficient is 0.246. The flexibility and core strength have a very small influence on Performance. A very small correlation was found between Flexibility and Performance (0.305) and between Core and Performance (0.265). The path coefficient is very low (less than 0.1). A small positive correlation was found between Antrop and Training (0.461) and between Upper Body and Training (0.475). The table explaining the correlation analysis is Table 5.

Latent constructs

Antrop

Core

Flexibility

Performance

Training

Upper body

Antrop

1

         

Core

0.067

1

       

Flexibility

0.268

0.249

1

     

Performance

0.658

0.265

0.305

1

   

Training

0.461

0.125

0.228

0.792

1

 

Upper body

0.512

0.343

0.15

0.703

0.475

1

Table 5: Correlation Coefficients.

Discriminant validity: The model is statistically robust because it fulfills the Fornell–Larcker criterion requirements. Most of the values obtained for Fornell-Larcker were less than 0.70, implying that all constructs were statistically different one from another when taken two by two (Table 6). 

 

Fornell-Larcker

Latent constructs

Antrop

Core

Flexibility

Performance

Training

Upper body

Antrop

0.605

         

Core

0.067

1

       

Flexibility

0.268

0.249

       

Performance

0.658

0.265

0.05

1

   

Training

0.461

0.125

0.228

0.792

   

Upper body

0.512

0.343

0.15

0.703

0.475

0.77

Table 6: Discriminant Validity.

Multicollinearity analysis: SmartPLS's software generated the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) per each component to measure the relevance of variables (Table 7).

Variable

VIF

Variable

VIF

Variable

VIF

Age

2.172

Hanging

3.83

Plank

1.17

BMI

2.699

Gullich

4.71

sports_exp

1.23

wingspan

5.14

hanging90dg

2.48

workouts

1.23

Ape

2.418

Tractions

9.31

   

circumference

6.554

Triceps

2.74

   

workWatts

1

Pushups

2.48

   

Rotation

1.268

core_bicycle

2.08

   

norotation

1.268

90_bent_leg_raise

1.86

   

Table 7: Collinearity Analysis.

4. Discussion

The main conclusion of our study was that the most important factor for performance was about the training, with emphasis on the trainable skills needed in climbing: stregth of the upper body, with emphasis on the shoulder muscles. Secondly, the arm muscles are important, with accent on specific training, rather than general physical preparation: pull-ups on specific and different holds, hanging on specific holds. Our study highlighted again the widely accepted idea that strength and endurance of the upper-body is the primary predictor for climbing performance [38-40]. Other studies have explained that elite climbers compared to non-elite climbers and controls have higher grip strength relative to their body mass [25] Rate of force development of the finger flexors is believed to be a key factor in determining climbing performance and can discriminate between skilled and international performance climbers [41]. Although it is considered that the fingers are responsible only for maintaining the contact with the holds, while the propulsive force for advancing is produced by the upper body muscles (elbow flexors and shoulder extensors) [41].

When evaluating anthropometric variables, our results are in line with previous research which explain the importance of arm span in climbing [17]. During a climbing route, the load on the fingers, elbow and shoulders is shown to be substantial [42]. A lower BMI will lead to lower load for the climber and will reduce the odds for an injury [43]. Although, the studies are inconsistent about the influence that BMI has on performance. When climbing, the load is on upper body muscles and a climber relies on relative strength (power-to-ratio) to progress up a wall. But Grønhaug [43] demonstrated that a light climber and a heavy climber are both training with their own body weight. Their tendons and muscles are adapted according to the stress they get: so, no matter what weight does the climber have, it results to the same adaptation in the strength-to-weight ratio.

Our result that power slap measured on Gullich board is the most predicting for climbing performance is another evidence that demonstrates the importance of campus board training. Campus board training is a method frequently used by highly accomplished climbers and involves multiple upper-body moves on shallow rungs, without assistance from the feet [1,2]. This training method challenges finger flexors and involves highly-specific movements of the upper body that increase explosive strength.

 

Our study is in line with other studies that tried to analyze the determining factors of performance in climbing. Laffaye et al. [44] conducted a study that analyzed the determinant factors for performance in climbing. They combined their variables into three components labeled as training, muscle and anthropometry components, which together explained 64.22% of the performance variance. Their finding was that trainable variables explained 46% of the total variance of climbing skill, whereas anthropometry and muscle factors explained fewer than 4%. Mermier et al. [12] conducted a similar study with a multiple regression analysis that demonstrated a 58.9% variance of climbing performance, where anthropometric characteristic explained 0.3% of the variance and flexibility explained 1.8% of the variance. Their study explained that the trainable skills influence better climbing performance compared to native anthropometric factors. The trainable skills that predicted climbing performance were: upper body strength, lower body strength, shoulder strength, grip strength and hanging time.

Nichols et al. [45] tested the IRCRA battery on youth climbers and demonstrated that fitness scores were generally higher for boys compared to girls and older climbers compared to younger. They explained that fitness variables explained 49% of the variance in climbing performance.

Most of the studies validate the idea that climbing involves a combination of mental factors, upper limb strength and power, technical skills and anthropometric characteristics [46]. The identified determinants which correlated with climbing performance are trainable skills and should receive attention in training sessions, like previous studies explained [17]. Our study demonstrated the small importance that the non-trainable factors (like anthropometric factors) have on climbing performance, as previously noted [12,16,32,44]. This concludes that climbing is a sport that is not restricted by specific body types or somatotypes, so that body weight or body dimensions do not stop progress in climbing.

The study had limitations. The cross-sectional design of the study did not help in drawing conclusions about the causal relationships between variables. Firstly, from a physiological point of view, the two genders may not share the same characteristics and this may have influenced the results [32]. Future studies should analyze physical determinants for climbing performance gender specialized. Another limitation of the study came from the typical evaluation of physical strength of a climber with static, both-handed or single-handed exercises. Because of the increase of media attention and human progress in competitive climbing, the competition routes shifted from focusing on physical strength and stamina to coordination and technique. So studies have explained the need for new methods of evaluation with force senzors for example [47]. Secondly, another limitation comes from the homogeneity of the group in terms of sub-discipline practiced: we included only sport climbers, excluding traditional climbers. On the other hand, we did not analyze differences between lead climbers and bouldering climbers, where the determinant factors may differ. A lot of climbers have on their training program bouldering and lead sessions and have as goals both bouldering and lead competitions and routes to conquer. Moreover, Stien et al. [1,2] did a study that analyzed the influence of a bouldering specific training versus a lead specific training on performance and concluded that a longer bouldering training period can improve performance in both disciplines. Thirdly, another limitation comes from the red-point performance definition based on their personal best in the last year before enrolling into the study, but it was recorded as a self-reported performance and on different routed that they conquered. Future studies should analyze the physical factors that influence performance on the same route, at the same moment of evaluation. According to the majority of previous studies, we did not examine the influence of lower body strength. Lastly, the study analyzed the physical preparation of an advanced youth climber, so we did not evaluate the influence of factors about mental preparation [48], technical factors [49], tactical skills [50], recovery [15] or resistance to fatigue [22,23], all of these may be contributing to climbing performance.

Perspectives and practical application

This is one of the first studies that tested the efficiency of IRCRA battery in evaluating climbing performance among young advanced climbers. We concluded that this battery can be used as a selection testing for competitions according to climbers’ level of preparation [51-54]. We explained how selected physiological variables can influence red-point performance. Our study emphasized the importance of upper body factors for climbing performance: the most predicting factor being powerslap at the Gullich rung which demonstrates the importance of campus board training. In addition, the emphasis for hanging time, number of push-ups and pull-ups on Metolius board demonstrated the importance of specific training rather than general physical preparation for climbing performance. Between anthropometric factors, we highlighed the important influence of arm span in predicting performance, validating previous hypotheses of previous studies. Anthropometric characteristics influence performance more than core strength or flexibility in climbing. Future research should search also for the influence of lower body factors and should specialiaze between genders, sub-disciplines and competitive performance in a specific competitive setting.

5. Conclusions

The present study assessed the efficiency of the tests from the IRCRA battery in evaluating climbing performance in advanced climbers. We composed five main factors and analyzed their influence on climbing performance. Our study demonstrated that the most important factors for climbing performance were, in order of their importance: the training factors (0.5213), the upper body strength factors (0.302) and the anthropometric characteristics (0.246). Then, the factors with less importance were core strength factor and flexibility factors. Our model predicted 81.7% of the climbing performance variance.

Between the training variables, climbing experience has a better influence than number of training sessions per week in predicting performance.

When analyzing the upper body variables that explained a good percentage of red-point performance, power slap on Gullich was the most predicting (1.155), then number of pull-ups (0.933), then number of seconds hanging on the different holds (0.799), followed by number of seconds hanging in pull-up position (0.579), followed by dips (0.549), then, lastly, push-ups (0.281).

Between anthropometric factors, with important influence were: arm span (0.919), ape index (0.733) and forearm circumference (0.613). With a small influence was age (0.247).

References

  1. Stien N, Frøysaker TF, Hermans E, et al. The Effects of Prioritizing Lead or Boulder Climbing Among Intermediate Climbers. Front. Sports Act. Living 3 (2021): 661167.
  2. Stien N, Pedersen H, Vereiden VAet al. Effects of Two vs. Four Weekly Campus Board Training Sessions on Bouldering Performance and Climbing-Specific Tests in Advanced and Elite Climbers. Journal of sports science and medicine 20 (2021): 438-447.
  3. Saito M, Ginszt M, Semenova EA, et al. Is COL1A1Gene rs1107946 Polymorphism Associated with Sport Climbing Status and Flexibility? Genes 13 (2022): 403.
  4. Saito M, Ginszt M, Semenova EA, et al. Genetic profile of sports climbing athletes from three different ethnicities. Biol Sport39 (2022): 913-919.
  5. Woollings KY, McKay CD, Emery CA. Risk factors for injury in sport climbing and bouldering: a systematic review of the literature. British Journal of Sports Medicine 49 (2015): 1094-1099.
  6. Folkl AK. Characterizing the Consequences of Chronic Climbing-Related Injury in Sport Climbers and Boulderers. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine 24 (2013): 153-158.
  7. Valenzuela PL, de la Villa P, Ferragut C. Effect of Two Types of Active Recovery on Fatigue and Climbing Performance. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 14 (2015):
  8. Draper N, Giles D, Schöffl V, et al. Comparative grading scales, statistical analyses, climber descriptors and ability grouping: International Rock Climbing Research Association Position Statement. Sports Technology (2016).
  9. Leskošek B, Blagus R. The Reliability of the Difficulty Grading of Sport Climbing Routes. [ZANESLJIVOST OCENJEVANJA TEZAVNOSTI ŠPORTNOPLEZALNIH SMERI] Kinesiologia Slovenica 27 (2021): 5-20.
  10. Morrison AB, Schöffl VR. Physiological responses to rock climbing in young climbers. British Journal of Sports Medicine 41 (2007): 852-861.
  11. Fuss FK, Niegl G. Instrumented climbing holds and performance analysis in sport climbing. Sports Technology 1 (2008): 301-313.
  12. Mermier CM, Janot JM, Parker DL, et al. Physiological and anthropometric determinants of sport climbing performance. Br J Sports Med 34 (2000): 359-366.
  13. Sanchez X, Boschker MSJ, Llewellyn DJ. Pre-performance psychological states and performance in an elite climbing competition. Scand J Med Sci Sports 20 (2010): 356e363.
  14. Magiera A, Roczniok R, Maszczyk A, et al. The structure of performance of a sport rock climber. Journal of Human Kinetics 36 (2013): 107-117.
  15. Baláš J, Panácková M, Strejcová B, et al. The relationship between climbing ability and physiological responses to rock climbing. The Scientific World Journal2014 (2014): 678387-678387.
  16. Watts PB, Martin DT, Durtschi S. Anthropometric profiles of elite male and female competitive sport rock climbers. J Sports Sci 11 (1993): 113-117.
  17. MacKenzie R, Monaghan L, Masson RA, et al. Physical and Physiologic Determinants of Rock Climbing. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (2019): 1-30.
  18. Watts PB. Physiology of difficult rock climbing. Eur J Appl Physiol 91 (2004): 361-372.
  19. Giles LV, Rhodes EC, Taunton JE. The physiology of rock climbing, Sports Med 36 (2006): 529-545.
  20. Espana-Romero V, Santaliestra-Pasias AM, et al. Hand span influences optimal grip span in boys and girls aged 6 to 12 years. J Hand Surg Am 33 (2008): 378-384.
  21. Billat V, Palleja P, Charlaix T, et al. Energy specificity of rock climbing and aerobic capacity in competitive sport rock climbers. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 35 (1995): 20-24.
  22. Fryer S, Stoner L, Lucero A, et al. Haemodynamic kinetics and intermittent finger flexor performance in rock climbers. International Journal of Sports Medicine 36 (2015): 137-142.
  23. Fryer S, Stoner L, Scarrott C, et al. Forearm oxygenation and blood flow kinetics during a sustained contraction in multiple ability groups of rock climbers. J Sports Sci 33 (2015): 518-526.
  24. Philippe M, Wegst D, Müller T, et al. Climbing-specific finger flexor performance and forearm muscle oxygenation in elite male and female sport climbers. European Journal of Applied Physiology 112 (2012): 2839-2847.
  25. Grant S, Hynes V, Whittaker A, et al. Anthropometric, strength, endurance and flexibility characteristics of elite and recreational climbers. J Sports Sci 14 (1996): 301-309.
  26. Noe F, Quiane F, Martin L. Influence of steep gradient supporting walls in rock climbing: Biomechanical analysis. Gait and Posture 13 (2001): 86-94.
  27. Deyhle MR, Hsu HS, Fairfield TJ, et al. Relative Importance of Four Muscle Groups for Indoor Rock Climbing Performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research29 (2015): 2006-2014.
  28. Levernier G, Laffaye G. Rate of force development and maximal force: reliability and difference between non-climbers, skilled and international climbers. Sports Biomechanics(2019b): 1-12.
  29. Vigouroux L, Devise M, Cartier T, et al. Performing pull-ups with small climbing holds influences grip and biomechanical arm action. Journal of Sports Sciences(2018): 1-9.
  30. Draper N, Brent S, Hodgson C, et al. Flexibility assessment and the role of flexibility as a determinant of performance in rock climbing. Int J Perform Anal Sport9 (2009): 67-89.
  31. Kikuchi N, Zempo H, Fuku N, et al. Association between ACTN3 R577X Polymorphism and Trunk Flexibility in 2 Different Cohorts. Int J Sports Med 38 (2017): 402-406.
  32. Grant S, Hasler T, Davies C, et al. A comparison of the anthropometric, strength, endurance and flexibility characteristics of female elite and recreational climbers and non-climbers. J Sports Sci 19 (2001): 499-505.
  33. Draper N, Dickson T, Fryer S, et al. Performance differences for intermediate rock climbers who successfully and unsuccessfully attempted an indoor sport climbing route. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport 11 (2011): 450-463.
  34. Draper N, Giles D, Taylor N, et al. Performance Assessment for Rock Climbers: The International Rock Climbing Research Association Sport-Spercific Test Battery. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (Ahead of print) (2021).
  35. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43 (2015): 115-135.
  36. Chin J, Henseler H, Wang E. Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods, and Applications (1st) Springer (2010): 655-690.
  37. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, et al. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM, European Business Review 31 (2019): 2-24.
  38. Baláš J, Pecha O, Martin AJ, et al. Hand–arm strength and endurance as predictors of climbing performance. European Journal of Sport Science12 (2012): 16-25.
  39. Vigouroux L, Quaine F. Fingertip force and electromyography of finger flexor muscles during a prolonged intermittent exercise in elite climbers and sedentary individuals. Journal of Sports Sciences24 (2006): 181-186.
  40. Quaine F, Vigouroux L, Martin L. Finger flexors fatigue in trained rock climbers and untrained sedentary subjects. International Journal of Sports Medicine24 (2003): 424-427.
  41. Stien N, Vereide VA, Atle HS, et al. Upper body rate of force development and maximal strength discriminates performance levels in sport climbing.PLoS One 16 (2021).
  42. Ozimek M, Rokowski R, Draga P, et al. The role of physique, strength and endurance in the achievements of elite climbers. PLoS One 12 (2017): e0182026.
  43. Grønhaug G. Lean and mean? associations of level of performance, chronic injuries and BMI in sport climbing.BMJ Open Sport and Exercise Medicine 5 (2019).
  44. Laffaye G, Levernier G, Collin JM. Determinant factors in climbing ability: Influence of strengh, anthropometry and neuromuscular fatigue, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in sports (2015).
  45. Nichols J, Wing D, Bellicini Z, et al. Climbing-Specific Fitness Profiles and Determinants of Performance in Youth Rock Climbers, Journal of Sports Science 6 (2018): 257-267.
  46. Sibella F, Frosio I, Schena F, et al. 3D analysis of the body center of mass in rock climbing. Human Movement Science 26 (2007): 841-852.
  47. Pandurevic D, Sutor A, Hochradel K. Methods for quantitative evaluation of force and technique in competitive sport climbing.Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1379 (2019).
  48. Draper N, Jones GA, Fryer S, et al. Effect of an on-sight lead on the physiological and psychological responses to rock climbing. J Sports Sci Med 7 (2008): 492-498.
  49. Bertuzzi RC, Franchini E, Kokubun E, et al. Energy system contributions in indoor rock climbing. Eur J Appl Physiol 101 (2007): 293-300.
  50. MacLeod D, Sutherland DL, Buntin L, et al. Physiological determinants of climbing-specific finger endurance and sport rock climbing performance. J Sports Sci 25 (2007): 1433-1443.
  51. Fryer S, Stoner L, Stone K, et al. Forearm muscle oxidative capacity index predicts sport rock-climbing performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 116 (2016): 1479-1484.
  52. Draper N, Giles D, Balas J, et al. The IRCRA Performance-Related Test Battery for Climbers. (2015).
  53. Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. “PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet". The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19 (2011): 139-152.
  54. Michailov M. Workload characteristics, performance limiting factors and methods for strength and endurance training in rock climbing. Medica Sportiva 18 (2014): 97-106.

Journal Statistics

Impact Factor: * 4.3

CiteScore: 2.9

Acceptance Rate: 11.01%

Time to first decision: 10.4 days

Time from article received to acceptance: 2-3 weeks

Discover More: Recent Articles

Grant Support Articles

© 2016-2024, Copyrights Fortune Journals. All Rights Reserved!