The Connection Between Resistance Training, Climbing Performance, and Injury Prevention.

Background: Climbing is an intricate sport composed of various disciplines, holds, styles, distances between holds, and levels of difficulty. In highly skilled climbers the potential for further strength-specific adaptations to increase performance may be marginal in elite climbers. With an eye on the upcoming 2024 Paris Olympics, more climbers are trying to maximize performance and improve training strategies. The relationships between muscular strength and climbing performance, as well as the role of strength in injury prevention, remain to be fully elucidated. This narrative review seeks to discuss the current literature regarding the effect of resistance training in improving maximal strength, muscle hypertrophy, muscular power, and local muscular endurance on climbing performance, and as a strategy to prevent injuries. Main Body: Since sport climbing requires exerting forces against gravity to maintain grip and move the body along the route, it is generally accepted that a climber's absolute and relative muscular strength are important for climbing performance. Performance characteristics of forearm flexor muscles (hang-time on ledge, force output, rate of force development, and oxidative capacity) discriminate between climbing performance level, climbing styles, and between climbers and non-climbers. Strength of the hand and wrist flexors, shoulders and upper limbs has gained much attention in the scientific literature, and it has been suggested that both general and specific strength training should be part of a climber's training program. Furthermore, the ability to generate sub-maximal force in different work-rest ratios has proved useful, in examining finger flexor endurance capacity while trying to mimic real-world climbing demands. Importantly, fingers and shoulders are the most frequent injury locations in climbing. Due to the high mechanical stress and load on the finger flexors, fingerboard and campus board training should be limited in lower-graded climbers. Coaches should address, acknowledge, and screen for amenorrhea and disordered eating in climbers. Conclusion: Structured low-volume high-resistance training, twice per week hanging from small ledges or a fingerboard, is a feasible approach for climbers. The current injury prevention training aims to increase the level of performance through building tolerance to performance-relevant load exposure and promoting this approach in the climbing field. Key Points: Altering the mechanical and metabolic stress, by using different intensities or varying the number of repetitions and sets, and training frequency per week are the most significant variables in manipulating the overall training volume and the variables requiring emphasis in planning incorporation of resistance training (RT) in climbers. Structured low-volume training at high resistance, twice per week, is a feasible approach to RT in climbers. The following classifications are proposed in climbing: > 15 reps (or hang time > 30 s) strength endurance bias; 8–15 RM (or 3–30 s hang time) hypertrophic bias; 1- 5 RM (or 1–5 s hang time) maximal strength bias. Improving maximal finger and shoulder girdle strength may decrease injury risk; as a result of reducing percentage of maximum strength generated in each move, the overall loading stress in a session is also diminished. Upper body RT programs have proven efficient for improving performance in climbing-specific tests among lower- and intermediate-grade climbers, but whether this training approach may improve climbing performance among advanced or elite climbers remains to be elucidated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]