A review of strength & endurance research in rock climbing - page 3 Anthropometric characteristics of climbers Several studies have measured anthropometric data in various populations of climbers. Watts et al. (1993) studied a highly homogenous group of climbers; semi-finalists in a sport climbing world cup event. This study observed that this group were characterised by low stature and very low percentage body fat values (4-14% for men, 10-20% for women). This finding has been supported by several subsequent studies of trained climbers (Binney and Cochrane, 1999; MacLeod et al., unpublished data; Mermier et al., 2000; Sheel et al., 2003; Watts et al., 1996, 2000, 2003) and percentage body fat has been proposed as a key predictor of sport climbing performance. Grant et al. (1996, 2001, 2003) failed to observe any differences in percent body fat between trained climbers and controls or other athletic groups. However, the absence of significant differences might be attributable to the comparatively low ability of the climbers compared to the studies mentioned above and/or different equations used to estimate body fat percentage.. It is logical that a large body mass or any excess body fat would be disadvantageous in elite level climbing as body mass must be repeatedly moved against gravity. However, it is well known that climbers have long considered excess body fat to be a disadvantage and control it strictly. It is also considered advantageous to avoid hypertrophy training of lower body muscle groups. Hence, the question remains whether body mass and body fat percentage are important determinants of climbing performance or merely a feature of climber’s training patterns (Farrington, 1999). It is conceivable that any performance advantage conferred by maintaining very low body fat may be offset by problems with consumption of sufficient caloric energy to support a rigorous training regime. Longitudinal study of the effect of manipulation of percentage body fat on climbing performance would yield more meaningful data on the subject (Sheel, 2004). Low stature might be an advantage in climbing due to volume-mass ratios. However, any advantage may be offset to some degree by a reach limitation in shorter climbers (Sagar, 2001). Reach is universally recognised as a common limitation on climbing moves among rock climbers. This has led to ‘ape Index’, a measure of reach relative to height, (arm span/height) being proposed as a performance predictor. Watts et al. (2003) measured ape index in adolescent competitive climbers and found small but significant differences relative to age matched controls. There was no relationship between climbing ability and ape index. Watts suggests this may be due to the lack of variability between climbers. Grant et al. (1996, 2001) found no differences between trained climbers and controls for leg or arm length. The significance of these findings is limited due to the small sample sizes and ability level of the climbing groups. It is not possible to make any conclusions about these variables from the available data. Given that climbers perform repeated contractions of the forearm muscles and appear to possess greater finger strength than controls, it has been hypothesised that climbers will develop greater forearm muscle mass. Muscle force is highly correlated to muscle mass, whereas no consensus has been reached on whether force per unit muscle mass is influenced by training (Fukunaga et al., 2001). Only three studies have attempted to measure forearm muscle mass in trained climbers and controls. MacLeod et al. (unpublished data) measured forearm circumference is 12 elite climbers and found significantly higher forearm circumference to body mass ratios in climbers. The absence of significant differences in absolute values is explained by the difference in body mass between the subject groups. This finding agrees with those of Watts et al. (2003) who observed similar forearm volumes in competitive climbers and controls, despite the climber’s lower stature and body mass. Reid et al. (unpublished data) measured forearm circumference in height and body mass matched trained climbers and controls. Climbers had higher forearm circumference although the difference was not significant. Again, the low variability in this anthropometric measure calls for further study using larger subject groups and more sensitive methods of measurement. Mermier et al. (2000) attempted to quantify the relative contributions of anthropometric variables (Height, mass, leg length, percentage body fat), hip flexibility and training variables (grip, shoulder and leg strength, grip and hang endurance, lower body anaerobic power) in a study of 44 trained climbers of varying standard. It was concluded that trainable variables were much more important predictors of climbing ability and that anthropometric and hip flexibility variables were very poor predictors of ability. It was concluded that climbers do no need to possess particular anthropometric characteristics to be successful sport climbers.
|
