670 Training & Testing

Upper-limb Power Test in Rock-climbing

Affiliations

Key words

▶ field testing ● ▶ training and testing ● ▶ ecological validity ● ▶ bouldering ● ▶ routes ● ▶ upper-limb test ●

G. Laffaye1, J.-M. Collin2, G. Levernier2, J. Padulo3, 4 1

UR CIAMS – Motor Control and Perception Group, Sport Sciences Department, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, France Motor Control and Perception Group, Sport Sciences Department, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, France 3 Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy 4 SPO Sport Performance Optimization Lab, CNMSS, Tunis, Tunisia 2

Abstract



The goal of the present study was to validate a new ecological power-test on athletes of different levels and to assess rock climbers’ profiles (boulderers vs. route climbers). 34 athletes divided into novice, skilled and elite groups performed the arm-jump board test (AJ). Power, time, velocity, and efficiency index were recorded. Validity was assessed by comparing the distance with the value extracted from the accelerometer (500 Hz) and the reliability of intra- and inter-session scores. Moreover, a principal component analysis (PCA) was used to assess the climbers’ profiles. The AJ test was quite valid, showing a low systematic bias of − 0.88 cm ( − 1.25 %) and low

Introduction

▼ accepted after revision September 27, 2013 Bibliography DOI http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1055/s-0033-1358473 Published online: February 19, 2014 Int J Sports Med 2014; 35: 670–675 © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York ISSN 0172-4622 Correspondence Dr. Guillaume Laffaye UR CIAMS – Motor Control and Perception Group Sport Sciences Department Université Paris-Sud bat 335 91405 Orsay France Tel.: + 33/621/706 945 Fax: + 33/169/15 62 22 guillaume.laff[email protected]

The number of rock climbers has considerably grown in the last 3 decades, as has the level and difficulty of routes and bouldering as well [28]. Climbing performance seems to be related to different parameters [17] such as mental characteristic (25 %), anthropometric data and muscle strength (38 %) and technical strategies (33 %). Furthermore, several studies have sought to define elite climber characteristics, including their physiological [11, 24, 28], and psychological profiles [23]. Several studies have focused on anthropometry [19, 32], muscular strength [26, 30], endurance [12, 15], and physiological with metabolic responses [29]. All of these studies focused on hand, finger or forearm strength or on a battery of strength tests of the arm and forearm [2]. This latter was the first study which tried to design a specific arm explosive strength test by using one traction [2]. This study showed that specific explosive test was better predictor than generic force tests in elite climbers [2]. More recently, Draper et al. (2011) proposed an upperlimb power test [8] with a sport-specific test for

Laffaye G et al. Upper-limb Power Test in … Int J Sports Med 2014; 35: 670–675

limits of agreement ( < 6 %), and reliable ( Intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.98 and CV < 5 %), and was able to distinguish between the 3 samples (p < 0.0001). There was a good correlation between relative upper-limb power (r = 0.70; p < 0.01) and the AJ score. Moreover, the PCA revealed an explosive profile for boulderers and either a weak and quick or slow profile for route climbers, revealing a biomechanical signature of the sub-discipline. The AJ test provides excellent absolute and relative reliabilities for climbing, and can effectively distinguish between climbing athletes of different competitive levels. Thus, the AJ may be suitable for field assessment of upper limb strength in climbing practitioners.

assessing power, showing a good reliability. However, none of them has been validated using an accelerometer device [6]. Furthermore, all of these studies are based on rock climbing, whereas bouldering has existed since world cup competition on artificial walls began (1989) with specific competitions in 2006. Literature on bouldering as a distinct climbing sub-discipline is rare despite its growing popularity worldwide. Bouldering is characterized by short movement sequences that are more powerful and explosive than classic routes [20]. Only 3 studies [10, 16, 20] have investigated the difference between boulderers (BO) and route sport climbers (RO) or nonclimbers. All 3 show comparable anthropometric characteristics but boulderers have greater hand strength [20] or finger strength [16]. Fanchini et al. (2013) showed higher values in isometric maximal voluntary contraction force and the rate of force of finger flexors when comparing BO to route climbers, but none of them characterized the profiles of BO [10]. A recent study on bouldering revealed the short time of this exercise with a prolonged contraction of the forearm muscles [33].

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

Authors

Training & Testing 671

Table 1 Anthropometric profile for 3 climbing ability group (Mean ± SD). Level novice skilled elite

10 11 13

Age (y) 21.5 ± 7 25.4 ± 7 24.8 ± 6

Weight (kg) 73.7 ± 13.0 68.7 ± 2.2 67.2 ± 5.2

Height (m) b,c

1.83 ± 0.05 1.74 ± 0.07a 1.77 ± 0.05a

Body mass index

% of body fat

% of muscle mass

Arm span (m)

Ape index

21.9 ± 2.7 22.6 ± 1.6 21.7 ± 1.4

12.2 ± 4.0 12.9 ± 1.7 11.9 ± 1.6

45.9 ± 3.8 45.3 ± 1.7 46.2 ± 2.1

1.85 ± 0.07 1.78 ± 0.09 1.82 ± 0.06

1.01 ± 0.02b,c 1.02 ± 0.02a 1.04 ± 0.01a

significantly different than novices, b significantly different than skilled (p < 0.05), c significantly different than elite (p < 0.05)

This theoretical background reveals the lack of knowledge on the differences in physical qualities in climbing sub-disciplines and the need for a more upper-limb-specific test to distinguish climbing ability. Therefore, the goal of this study is (i) to validate a new ecological specific-power test on athletes of different levels (arm jump test); and (ii) to assess rock climbers’ profiles (boulderers vs. route climbers) by analysing recorded variables during the test. For the first hypothesis, we assessed the sample based on climbing ability (including novices). For the second, the sample was reduced by removing the novices and dividing up the sample based on their climbing style.

Material and Methods



Participants 34 subjects were recruited for this study, and separated into 3 ▶ Table 1). Each subject groups based on their climbing ability (● completed all of the trials in the same time period of test days in order to eliminate any influence of circadian variation [1]. Each volunteer signed a written informed consent statement prior to the investigation after receiving an oral and written description of the procedures in accordance with guidelines established by the University Human Subject Review Board. They were informed of the risks and benefits of participation in this study. The study procedure was also approved by the University ParisSud’s research ethics committee, which followed the ethical standards of the International Journal of Sports Medicine [13].

Experimental setting Climbing ability (CA) was defined according to the most difficult route ever created 5a to 9b + on the French scale. The French scale was then transformed into a linear scale (5a = 1, 5a + = 2… 9b + = 28) to allow statistical calculation (Univariate regression). To be included in the skilled sample, the climbers had to train at least twice a week. They were categorized as novice ( < 6a), skilled (6c–7b) or elite ( ≥ 8a). Moreover, to characterize the climbers’ profiles, the 24 climbers were separated into 2 samples, either as bouldering specialists (BO) or as route specialists (RO), using the higher level in each category as a criterion. To be included as a specialist in one of the 2 sub-disciplines, we added a criterion of 2 levels of difference and the climbers had to undergo at least 2 specific training sessions per week and perform this sub-discipline exclusively in competition. Based on these criteria: 15 climbers were categorized as route specialists and 9 were categorized as bouldering specialists.

Anthropometric measurement We followed the standardized techniques recommended by the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometric [18]. Body height and arm span were measured using an anthropometer, with 0.1 cm accuracy. Body mass, percentage of body fat ( %BF) and muscle mass ( %MM) were measured using

bio-electric impedance scales (Weinberger model DJ-156; Weinberger GmbH & Co, Germany), with 0.1 % accuracy. Moreover, the body mass index (BMI) was calculated as the ratio of the mass (kg) over height (m) squared. The Ape index was calculated by dividing arm span by height.

Upper-limb power test During the power test, the subjects were equipped with an isoinertial accelerometer (Myotest SA [5], Switzerland, length × width × depth: 9.5 × 5 × 1 cm, mass: 60 g), consisting of a transportable 3D accelerometer system (AS) with a frequency of 500 Hz. The device was attached to a belt and affixed vertically to the middle of the lower back. Vertical velocity (vv) was integrated from vertical acceleration and vertical displacement (AJa) through double integration of acceleration. Power was calculated by multiplying vertical velocity by vertical force and then normalizing it to body mass (R-POWER). ▶ Fig. 1) The arm-jump board test was performed using a board (● with a scale in centimetres and a pair of climbing holds with an easy “jug” grip. The jug is a large hold where all the fingers can be curled over the lip of the hold, allowing an easy and positive grip [8] and minimizing the effect of the grip on hand abilities. The holds were spaced 55 cm apart, which is an optimal spacing, within the range of upper-limb optimal strength [27] for all subjects (165–200 % of biacromial width). Each subject performed a complete and specific climbing warm-up with 5-min of jogging following by mobilizing exercises and light climbing exercises. Then, the subject performed 3 trials with a 3-min rest. The best test was kept as final result. To determine test reliability, each subject participated in 2 separate sessions 7 days apart at the same time of day in order to avoid any circadian fluctuation. From a standing and motionless position with chalked hands hanging at full elbow extension from the holds, the climber performed an explosive pull-up movement releasing both hands to slap the scaled board above as high as he could. Test performance was measured using 2 methods: a direct measurement using the magnesia mark left by the subject’s lower hand on the board; and an indirect measurement recorded at 50 Hz by a digital movie camera in front of the board to avoid parallax error and confirm the direct measurement. The highest point touched by the lower hand during this test was called AJb. During the test, the climbers were equipped with an accelerometer which recorded the acceleration of the centre of mass during the movement. The values recorded by the accelerometer were called AJa and were used to assess the validity of the arm jump board test. 5 variables were extracted from the accelerometer data,: the total duration of the arm jump (TIME), maximal velocity, peak power (in absolute value “POWER” and relative to body weight “R-POWER”) and an index of efficiency (IE) by dividing the AJ score by the total duration of the arm jump.

Laffaye G et al. Upper-limb Power Test in … Int J Sports Med 2014; 35: 670–675

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

a

n

difference between AJ score from board and from accelerometer [cm]

Fig. 1 The arm jump test from the starting to the finishing position. a = starting position, b = pull off motion, c = release and d = finishing position.

Fig. 2 Bland-Altman plotting with limits of agreement between performance from board and from accelerometer for all subjects.

10 8 6 Mean + 2SD

4 2 0 –2 –4

Mean – 2SD

–6 –8 –10 30

40

50 70 80 60 averaged score values of AJ [cm]

Statistical analysis All descriptive statistics were used to verify whether the basic assumption of normality of all of the studied variables was met. The statistical tests were processed using SPSS® (version 16.0, Chicago, IL). Concurrent validity was assessed by comparing the value of AJa measured from the displacement calculated with the accelerometer compared to AJb measured on the board, first by using a t-test and the Bland-Altman [4] method to determine systematic bias between the 2 methods and the lower and upper LoA. The coefficients of correlation (R) of the intra-method differences were also plotted. Test-retest reliability of AJb was assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) [3]. Coefficients of variation (CV %) were also calculated to measure the dispersion of the test and retest scores. The difference between the 3 samples was assessed by a one-way ANOVA with Fisher post-hoc comparison (p < 0.05). Moreover, a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on the data obtained from the 24 climbers (the 3 arm jumps were averaged for each subject and only climbers were kept for this analysis) in order to identify the principal components summarising the 5 variables, using the procedure described by KolLaffaye G et al. Upper-limb Power Test in … Int J Sports Med 2014; 35: 670–675

90

100

lias et al. [14]. The number of principal components in the pattern matrix extracted by the PCA was chosen with an Eigen value greater than one (Kaiser criterion). The original matrix was rotated to extract the appropriate variables, using a normalized VARIMAX rotation (orthogonal rotation).

Results



Considering validity, the paired t-test shows insignificant differences (T(33) = 1.07; n. s.) despite a slightly higher value recorded by the accelerometer (70.4 ± 18.2 vs. 69.16 ± 17.2 cm). The coefficient of correlation between the 2 methods is r = 0.98 ▶ Fig. 2) shows good (p < 0.0001). Moreover, the Bland-Altman (● agreement with a low systematic bias ( − 0.88 cm or − 1.25 %) and low confidence interval ( − 4.61 cm < 95 % CI < 2.70 cm). Considering reliability, the ICC of AJb shows excellent agreement [7] for intra-session reliability (ICC = 0.976) and for inter-session reliability (ICC = 0.984). Moreover, the coefficient of variation is 4.89 %, which is lower than 10 % and consequently shows an insignificant difference between test and retest.

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

672 Training & Testing

100

*

90 Arm Jump Score [cm]

Considering anthropometry, only height and age show signifi▶ Table 1). The post-hoc shows a difference cant differences (● between novices and the other 2 groups. There is a significant ▶ Fig. 3) on the AJ score [F effect of climbing ability (● (2,30) = 13.78, p < 0.0001] with significant differences between all samples. Relative power shows a significant effect [F(2,30) = 4.9, p < 0.01] with values ranging from 18.1 ± 5.2 W/kg for novices to 25.2 ± 5.8 W/kg for experts, with significant effects only between the novices and the other 2 groups. Few differences were observed between RO and BO when focus▶ Table 2). Only velocity ing on the climbing sub-disciplines (● during the AJ test showed a significant difference. ▶ Fig. 4). The AJ shows a good correlation with relative power (● model found explained 78.3 % of the total variance and revealed ▶ Table 3, 4 and ● ▶ Fig. 5). The first 2 principal components (● component (x-axis) linked power output (0.920) and velocity with moderate loading (0.508), meaning that an arm jump performed with high power is associated with a high peak of velocity. The second component (y-axis) linked the efficiency index (0.897) to time ( − 0.945), showing that a high efficiency index is linked to short motion duration. When plotting individual climbers in this model, we found 4 kinds of behaviour. The right side of the figure indicates a powerful arm jump done in an explosive manner, and the left side a weak arm jump. The top of the figure corresponds to AJ with a long time and low efficiency whereas the bottom revealed efficient climbers with a short time. Finally, we found 4 different motor signature profiles: weak and slow (A), powerful and slow (B), weak and quick (C) and powerful and quick (D). Bouldering specialists are characterized by a D-profile (individual loading between 0 and + 4.5 on the power component and between − 1.5 and + 0.5 on the time component except for one subject), whereas route specialists are characterized by a C or A profile (individual loading between − 3 and + 0.8 on the power component and between − 2 and + 2.5 on the time component).

*

*

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Novices

Skilled

Elite

Fig. 3 Arm jump score difference between novices, skilled and elite climbers. “*” significant difference with p < 0.05.

Table 2 Anthropometric characteristics and physical performance during the arm jump test (Mean ± SD). Variables

Bouldering Climbers

weight (kg) height (m) body mass index % of body fat % of muscle mass arm span (m) ape index velocity (m · s − 1) Time (ms) efficiency index relative power (W/kg) arm jump score (cm)

67.5 (5.7) 1.77 (0.04) 21.3 (1.13) 11.5 (1.36) 46.4 (2.27) 1.84 (0.05) 1.04 (0.01) 1.81 (0.28) 743 (12) 2.48 (0.52) 28.4 (7.55) 76.98 (11.3)

Routes Climbers 68.1 (3.07) 1.74 (0.06) 22.6 (1.51) 12.8 (1.68) 45.5 (1.74) 1.78 (0.08) 1.03 (0.02) 1.63 (0.59)* 788 (13) 2.13 (0.87) 23.4 (3.7) 61.27 (10.44)

“*” significant difference with p < 0.05

Arm Jump score [cm]

120 100

Discussion

y = 1.746x + 20.56 R2 = 0.49

80



The goal of this study was (i) to validate a new ecological-specific power test for climbing and (ii) to assess rock climbers’ profiles (boulderers vs. route climbers). These 2 goals were independent, and consequently the way we chose the climber for the samples was also different. For the first hypothesis, the sample was assessed using climbing ability (including novices). For the second, the sample was reduced by eliminating the novices and by dividing the sample based on their climbing style.

60 40 20 0 0

10

20 30 40 Relative Peak Power [W/kg]

50

Validation of a new ecological-specific power test

Fig. 4 Single regression analysis between relative peak power and arm jump score for all subjects.

Velocity velocity time efficiency index relative power absolute power arm jump score

1.00 0.02 0.35 0.51 0.46 0.43

Time

1.00 − 0.57 − 0.11 − 0.12 − 0.12

Considering study validity, our results show a high level of intraand inter-session reliability (all ICCs > 0.95) and validity when

Index of

Relative

Absolute

Arm Jump

Efficiency

Power

Power

Score

1.00 0.61 0.61 0.87

1.00 0.94 0.70

1.00 0.68

1.00

Table 3 Correlation matrix between variables extracted during the arm jump test (subject).

Laffaye G et al. Upper-limb Power Test in … Int J Sports Med 2014; 35: 670–675

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

Training & Testing 673

674 Training & Testing

Anthropometric and climbing ability Few differences were noted between the 3 studied samples. While it appears that good climbers have a lower percentage of

Table 4 Principal component analysis: factor loadings, commonalities, eigenvalue for each variables and percentage of variance for each rotated component. Variables

Factor loadings 1

velocity time efficiency index relative power absolute power eigenvalue % of variance

Commonalities 2

0.508

0.132 0.674 0.734 0.954 0.954

− 0.945 0.897 0.952 0.920 2.49 42.4

1.45 36.1

body fat than the non-athletic population [24], it did not differ from other trained athletic groups. Indeed, our novice sample was composed of athletic men who were actually taller ( + 8 cm) than the climbers but had a comparable body mass index (21.7 –22.6 BMI), percentage of body fat (11.9–12.9 %) and muscle mass (45.3–46.2 kg). These values are quite comparable to the literature [9, 19]. The only difference found is on Ape index, with values significantly higher in climbers (1.04 ± 0.01 in elite, 1.02 ± 0.02 in skilled climbers) than in novices (1.01 ± 0.02), with values slightly higher than in the literature, which is generally about 1.0 [17, 19, 31]). This difference confirms a previous study [31] which compared climbers (Ape = 1.01) to non-climbers (Ape = 0.95) and suggests that having a high arm span to height ratio is advantageous in climbing.

Climbing sub-discipline characteristics Considering the characteristics of the climbing sub-disciplines, the results show similar anthropometric profiles. The anthropometric variables for boulderers are quite comparable with previous studies with highly accomplished boulderers [16] in terms of BMI (22.3 ± 2 vs. 21.3 ± 1.1), percentage of body fat (12.1 ± 4 vs. 11.5 ± 1.3) and height (1.77 ± 0.05 vs. 1.77 ± 0.04) and differs slightly when compared to world-class boulderers [20] who are slightly smaller (1.75 ± 0.05), leaner (5.8 ± 1.8 % of body fat) but with comparable BMI (22 ± 1.4), suggesting that anthropometric variables did not play a crucial role in reaching top levels. Moreover, the major finding of this part of the study is that the specificity of climbing ability affects the way the AJ test is performed ▶ Fig. 5). (● Bouldering climbers revealed an explosive profile (powerful and quick motion). This is in agreement with a recent study [10], which found a higher rate of force development produced in “crimp” and “open-crimp” positions. The rate of force development reveals the ability to produce a high level of force in a short time. This ability seems to be a characteristic of this climbing style, since our study revealed the same explosiveness profile. This result completes the little knowledge on this topic which found that elite BO have greater hand strength than RO [20]. This new knowledge revealed a signature of this climbing sub-discipline which requires quick displacements in an explosive manner [16], as shown by the exercise-to-recovery ratio of 1:4 for attempting a problem and of 13:1 for forearm muscle activity [33]. The route climbers revealed 2 different profiles, either a

Individual scores on Power-component

1

–3

–2

–1

0

A

2

3

4

TIME

RO

5 B

2

RO

0.6 0.4

1.5 1

RO RO

0.2

Velocity

RO

BO

RO

0

RO

RO

–0.2

RO

–0.4

C

–0.6

–0.4

BO BO

RO

BO RO

RPOWER 0

–0.5

BO

RO

BO

BO RO

–1 –0.8

0.5

BO

RO RO

–0.6

3 2.5

BO

0.8

–0.8

1

POWER

–1.5 –2

IE

0.4 –0.2 0 0.2 Variables scores on Power-component

–1

D

0.6

Laffaye G et al. Upper-limb Power Test in … Int J Sports Med 2014; 35: 670–675

0.8

1

–2.5

Individual scores on Time-component

Variables Scores on Time-component

–4 1.2

Fig. 5 Principal component analysis illustration. The left and bottom part represents the variables scores on the 2 rotated principal components. The right and upper part represents the individual scores for each subject (bold circles for boulderers and grey diamonds for routes climbers).

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

compared to the distance calculated by the accelerometer. Systematic bias is low ( − 0.88 cm) as were the limits of agreement (LOA) (from − 4.61 cm to 2.70 cm). This is the first test to validate the score of such a specific climbing test when compared with a reliable device (accelerometer [6]). The previous one [8] was only able to reveal good relative reliability, despite a large LOA, without investigating validity. Moreover, the AJ test is able to distinguish between the 3 samples (p < 0.0001), with a difference of 23 % between novices and skilled and of 17.8 % between skilled and elite. When expressed in a linear regression, the AJ test is correlated significantly with climbing ability (r = 0.69), which is close to the correlation found during the power slap test (r = 0.70). This means that the higher the score during the AJ test, the greater the climbing ability. Further, the AJ test is the first to assess upper-limb power in a direct calculation with good accuracy (r = 0.70). The power slap test [8] assesses power with Lewis formulae, which has never been validated for the upper limbs. Upper-limb power is different between novices and the other 2 categories showing that minimal power is required to rise to a skilled level, but is not a key variable within a population of experts. Crossing this result with the fact that the AJ score is different between skilled and elite climbers revealed that AJ is a test that not only requires power but also a specific ability to synchronize the motion and perhaps use specific strength power for using the jug.

weak and quick profile or a weak and slow profile. This is probably due to the different physiological profiles of these 2 styles and mechanical specificity, which is the appropriate movement pattern, force application and the velocity of movement resulting in a greater transfer of training [25]. Moreover, this result shows that specific training can help develop specific force (more isometric for routes climbers and more explosive for boulderers). In fact, the adaptations induced by the speed of movement [21] result from the performance technique [22]. Finally, the present study shows that a threshold of minimal power is necessary to be skilled climbers. This power could be assessed by the arm jump test, which identifies climbing experts. Moreover, the way the test is performed depends more on the climbing sub-discipline than on the level of expertise.

13 14

15

16 17

18

19

Acknowledgements



Authors want to thank Mr Ludovic LAURENCE for these valuable advices during the elaboration of the test design. There is no conflict of interest in the manuscript, including financial, consultant, institutional and other relationships that might lead to bias or a conflict of interest.

20

21 22 23

References 1 Atkinson G, Reilly T. Circadian variation in sports performance. Sports Med 1996; 21: 292–312 2 Berrostegieta JI. Relation between specific force tests and chained degree in high level sport climbers. Engin Sport 2006; 6: 275–280 3 Bland JM, Altman DG. A note on the use of the intra-class correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med 1990; 20: 337–340 4 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–310 5 Casartelli N, Muller R, Maffiuletti NA. Validity and reliability of the Myotest accelerometric system for the assessment of vertical jump height. J Strength Cond Res 2010; 24: 3186–3193 6 Crewther BT, Kilduff LP, Cunningham DJ, Cook C, Owen N, Yang GZ. Validating two systems for estimating force and power. Int J Sports Med 2011; 32: 254–258 7 Donner A, Eliasziw M. Sample size requirements for reliability studies. Stat Med 1987; 6: 441–448 8 Draper N, Dickson T, Blackwell G, Priestley S, Fryer S, Marshall H, Shearman J, Hamlin M, Winter D, Ellis G. Sport-specific power assessment for rock climbing. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2011; 51: 417–425 9 Espana-Romero V, Jensen RL, Sanchez X, Ostrowski ML, Szekely JE, Watts PB. Physiological responses in rock climbing with repeated ascents over a 10-week period. Eur J Appl Physiol 2012; 112: 821–828 10 Fanchini M, Violette F, Impellizzeri FM, Maffiuletti NA. Differences in climbing-specific strength between boulder and lead rock climbers. J Strength Cond Res 2013; 27: 310–314 11 Giles LV, Rhodes EC, Taunton JE. The physiology of rock climbing. Sports Med 2006; 36: 529–545 12 Grant S, Shields C, Fitzpatrick V, Loh WM, Whitaker A, Watt I, Kay JW. Climbing-specific finger endurance: a comparative study of intermedi-

24 25

26

27 28 29 30

31

32

33

ate rock climbers, rowers and aerobically trained individuals. J Sports Sci 2003; 21: 621–630 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Update – Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research: 2014 Update. Int J Sports Med 2013; 34: 1025–1028 Kollias I, Hatzitaki V, Papaiakovou G, Giatsis G. Using principal components analysis to identify individual differences in vertical jump performance. Res Q Exerc Sport 2001; 72: 63–67 Köstermeyer G. Determination, importance and practise the local muscular endurance of the finger flexors in sport climbing. Ed Neuried: Ars Ulna University, Erlangen, Nürnberg: 2000 MacDonald JH, Callender N. Athletic profile of highly accomplished boulderers. Wilderness Environ Med 2011; 22: 140–143 Magiera A, Roczniok R, Maszczyk A, Czuba M, Kantyka J, Kurek P. The Structure of Performance of a Sport Rock Climber. J Hum Kin 2013; 36: 107–117 Marfell-Jones M, Olds T, Stewart AD, Carter L. International Standards for Anthropometric Assessment. Potchefstroom (South Africa): International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK) 2006; 61–75 Mermier CM, Janot JM, Parker DL, Swan JG. Physiological and anthropometric determinants of sport climbing performance. Br J Sports Med 2000; 34: 359–365 Michailov ML, Mladenov LV, Schoffl VR. Anthropometric and strength characteristics of world-class boulderers. Med Sport 2009; 13: 231– 238 Padulo J, Mignogna P, Mignardi S, Tonni F, D’Ottavio S. Effect of different pushing speeds on bench press. Int J Sports Med 2012; 33: 376–380 Sale DG. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1988; (Suppl): 135–145 Sanchez X, Lambert P, Jones G, Llewellyn DJ. Efficacy of pre-ascent climbing route visual inspection in indoor sport climbing. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2012; 22: 67–72 Sheel AW. Physiology of sport rock climbing. Br J Sports Med 2004; 38: 355–359 Stone M, Plisk S, Collins D. Training principles: evaluation of modes and methods of resistance training – a coaching perspective. Sports Biomech 2002; 1: 79–103 Vigouroux L, Quaine F. Fingertip force and electromyography of finger flexor muscles during a prolonged intermittent exercise in elite climbers and sedentary individuals. J Sports Sci 2006; 24: 181–186 Wagner LL, Evans SA, Weir JP, Housh TJ, Johnson GO. The Effect of Grip Width on Bench Press Performance. J Appl Biomec 1992; 8: 1–10 Watts PB. Physiology of difficult rock climbing. Eur J Appl Physiol 2004; 91: 361–372 Watts PB, Drobish KM. Physiological responses to simulated rock climbing at different angles. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30: 1118–1122 Watts PB, Jensen RL, Gannon E, Kobeina R, Maynard J, Sansom J. Forearm EMG during rock climbing differs from EMG during handgrip dynamometry. Int J Exer Sci 2008; 1: 2 Watts PB, Joubert LM, Lish AK, Mast JD, Wilkins B. Anthropometry of young competitive sport rock climbers. Br J Sports Med 2003; 37: 420–424 Watts PB, Martin DT, Durtschi S. Anthropometric profiles of elite male and female competitive sport rock climbers. J Sports Sci 1993; 11: 113–117 White DJ, Olsen PD. A time motion analysis of bouldering style competitive rock climbing. J Strength Cond Res 2010; 24: 1356–1360

Laffaye G et al. Upper-limb Power Test in … Int J Sports Med 2014; 35: 670–675

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

Training & Testing 675

Copyright of International Journal of Sports Medicine is the property of Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Upper-limb power test in rock-climbing.

The goal of the present study was to validate a new ecological power-test on athletes of different levels and to assess rock climbers' profiles (bould...
478KB Sizes 2 Downloads 3 Views