Content uploaded by Eva López-Rivera
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eva López-Rivera on May 07, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Comparison of the Effects of Three Hangboard
Training Programs on Maximal Finger Strength in
Rock Climbers.
E. López-Rivera1 & J. J. González-Badillo2
1Club Vertical, Toledo, Spain
2Faculty of Sport Sciences, Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain
Summary – The effect of three dead-hang training programs, each
comprising two 4-week cycles, over strength improvement measured by
maximum added weight borne while hanging off a 15 mm edge, was studied
in three groups of sport climbers with a sport level of 7c+/8a. The group that
performed lower-volume sessions of maximal repetitions with complete
pauses (n=11) experienced greater improvement than the group doing a
medium-volume of submaximal dead-hangs with incomplete rest (n=8) and
the group that combined both methods (n=7).
INTRODUCTION
Climbing requires a high level of finger strength to maintain the grip on handholds.
Hanging off the fingertips is the method most frequently used by climbers to
develop grip strength. When prescribing a training program, the volume, intensity
and recovery variables are determinant for its effects. Traditionally there have been
two methods that climbers used: one based on low volume, high intensity and
complete pauses, and other, commonly known as “repeaters” with moderate to high
volume, submaximal intensity and incomplete recovery. Despite their popularity, no
scientific study had compared the effects of both methods over strength development
to this date.
PURPOSE
Comparing the effect on strength development of three dead-hangs training
programs, comprised of two 4-week phases each: group 1 used low volume,
maximal loads and complete pauses (LvMax-LvMax), group 2 employed medium
volume, submaximal loads and incomplete pauses (MvSub-MvSub) and group 3
combined both methods (LvMax-MvSub).
METHODS
The hangboard with adjustable wooden edge described and validated by López-
Rivera & González-Badillo (2012) [1] was used for both dead hang training and
finger strength testing. The finger strength test (ST) consisted in hanging off a 15-
mm deep edge for 5 seconds with maximum added weight. Once the initial
strength test was completed (ST1), twenty six climbers (average of French 7c+/8a
redpoint level, 31.7 years old and 11.7 years of climbing experience) were
randomly assigned to one of three training groups: the LvMax-LvMax group used
the most effective program in terms of maximal strength in the previously cited
study [1], 8 weeks doing 3-5 sets of 10-second maximal dead-hangs with 3-minute
pauses between them. The MvSub-MvSub group spent the two 4-week cycles
performing 3-5 sets of 4 to 5 10-second repetitions each, resting 5 seconds between
repetitions and 1 minute between sets. The LvMax-MvSub group used the former
method in phase one and the latter in phase two. On weeks 4 and 8, ST2 and ST3
were carried out respectively. Repeated measure ANOVA with Bonferroni post
hoc tests and the magnitude-based inference [2] were used to analyze the data.
RESULTS
No significant differences in strength were found among groups prior to
training. Although no statistical significance was reached in strength gains
among groups at ST2 and ST3 compared to ST1, magnitude-based inferences
revealed that LvMax is possibly beneficial (51 % and 71 %, for group 1 and 3
respectively) compared to MvSub after 4 weeks of training. Furthermore,
LvMax-LvMax is possibly beneficial compared to LvMax-MvSub (58%) and to
MvSub-MvSub (60%). Lastly, LvMax-MvSub lost at ST3 6 % of the gains
obtained at ST2.
Table I. Strength results by group (kg, mean ± s)
LvMax- LvMax group
(n = 11)
MvSub-MvSub
(n = 8)
LvMax-MvSub
(n = 7)
%
ES
%
ES
%
ES
ST1
30,00 ± 11,67
33,75 ± 13,43
34,64 ± 14,68
ST2
34,55 ± 9,21
15,2
0,4
35,31 ± 10,73
4,6
0,1
41,79 ± 14,34
20,6
0,5
ST3
38,41 ± 9,17 a
28
0,7
38,44 ± 11,64
13,9
0,3
39,29 ± 12,22
13,4
0,3
ES = Effect size; where an ES < 0,25 was defined as trivial, 0.25 to 0.50 small, 0.50-1 moderate and >1
large, according to Rhea (2004) for well-trained athletes. Differences among groups not significant (p >
0.05).a Intra-group significant differences compared to ST1 (p <0.05).
DISCUSSION
This study’s main result was the greater strength development observed with the
LvMax-LvMax method, probably due to neural adaptations linked to the use of high
intensities [3]. It is worth noting that MvSub-MvSub gains peaked after 8 weeks of
training, probably via hypertrophy promoted by the combination of higher volume
per set, submaximal intensity and shorter pauses between repetitions [4]. These
results suggest that the most beneficial method for grip strength in climbing is
LvMax-LvMax, but a medium-term planning could benefit from sequentially
prescribing LvMax-LvMax and MvSub-MvSub so that the effects of hypertrophy
add up to the neural ones. REFERENCES
[1] Lopez-Rivera, E., & González-Badillo, J. (2012). The effects of two maximum grip strength training
methods using the same effort duration and different edge depth on grip endurance in elite climbers.
Sports Technology, 5(3-4), 1–1
[2] Batterham, A.M. & Hopkins, W.G. (2006). Making meaningful inferences about magnitudes.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance; 1:50
[3] Hakkinen, K., Alen, M., & Komi, P. V. (1985). Effect of explosive type strength training on isometric
force- and relaxation-time, electromyographic and muscle fibre characteristics of leg extensor
muscles.pdf. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 125, 587–600.
[4] Miranda, H., Simão, R., Moreira, L. M., de Souza, R. A., de Souza, J. A. A., de Salles, B. F., &
Willardson, J. M. (2009). Effect of rest interval length on the volume completed during upper body
resistance exercise. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 8(3), 388–39
