Original Paper.
Physical Education and Sport, 52, 73 - 76, 2008
DOI: 10.2478/v10030-008-0015-5
Authors’ contributions:
A Study design
B Data collection
C Statistical analysis
D Data interpretation
E Literature search
F Manuscript preparation
G Funds collection
Somatic and functional profile of sport rock climbers
André Padrenosso 1,2 A D, Erik S. de Godoy 1 – 5 A B D - F, Eurico César 2 E F, Ana
Barreto 1,2 C E F, Vitor Reis 5 E F, Antonio Silva 5 E F, Estélio Dantas 2,5 C - F
1 Centro Universitário Celso Lisboa, Rio de Janeiro, RJ; 2 Laboratório de Biociências da Motricidade Humana, Universidade Castelo Branco, Recreio dos Bandeirantes, RJ; 3 Centro Universitário Augusto Motta, Rio de Janeiro, RJ; 4 Universidade Veiga de Almeida, Cabo Frio, RJ,
Brazil; 5 Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
Summary
Study aim: To evaluate the physical fitness of rock climbers.
Material and methods: A group of 21 male and 9 female climbers, mean age 30.5 ± 8.8
years, training on indoor climbing walls and on outdoor rocks participated in the study.
Cardio-respiratory fitness was evaluated using the Polar OwnIndex, highly correlated
with the ‡O2max. Neuromuscular fitness was evaluated by maximum repetition and
maximum endurance tests for upper extremities, simulating the holding conditions specifically met by climbers.
Results: Male climbers were far stronger than the female ones as evidenced by the average numbers of pull-ups (13.8 and 3.2, respectively; p<0.001) and had higher cardiorespiratory fitness (p<0.05). Moreover, women rated their climbing skills markedly lower
than men (4.8 ± 0.9 and 6.3 ± 1.2, respectively).
Conclusion: Cardio-respiratory fitness and dynamic strength of upper extremities seem to
be the key factors in sport climbing.
Key words
Rock climbing – Cardio-respiratory fitness – Neuromuscular fitness
Introduction
Rock climbing has increased in popularity in Rio de
Janeiro (Brazil), a city with many rocky mountains of
easy access. Climbers look for excitement and adventure without, however, giving up safety. Nevertheless, it
is usual to observe climbers who use established methods with no regard to biological individuality and specificity. It is therefore important to identify the level of
physical fitness required for the safe practice of climbing, so that training regimens, whether recreational or
competitive, may be adequately prescribed and a safer
initiation to the sport may be provided. Physical evaluation can be performed with two main objectives: to determine the health-related physical fitness and the sport
performance. According to the American College of
Sports Medicine [1], cardio-respiratory fitness, one of
the most important components of health-related physical fitness, refers to the ability to perform prolonged
physical activity of dynamic, moderate-to-high intensity, engaging large muscle groups. Strength, localised
muscle resistance and flexibility are components of neuro-
muscular fitness. According to Heyward [12], these components are necessary for maintaining functional independence and for the capacity to perform physical activities without excessive fatigue and stress.
These basic principles pose the question about the
somatic and functional characteristics, as indicators of the
training process of rock climbers. The aim of this study
was thus to evaluate the anthropometric, cardio-respiratory
and neuromuscular fitness measures, as well as climbingspecific muscle activity and skills in sport climbers.
Material and Methods
The study, based on a project [18,23] aimed at evaluating somatic and functional features of rock climbers,
included 21 male and 9 female climbers training on
indoor climbing walls, as well as on rocks. The subjects
were members of an indoor climbing training centre in
Rio de Janeiro, who practiced rock climbing for at least
one year, training volume amounting to at least three
sessions per week, including obligatory rock climbing.
All the participants were adequately informed about the
Dr Erik Salum de Godoy LABIMH UCB/RJ, Av Salvador Allende 6700, 22780-160, Recreio dos BandAuthor’s address eirantes, RJ, Brazil [email protected]
74
A. Padrenosso et al.
objectives of the study and the procedures they would
be submitted to, and signed an informed consent according to the guidelines for research with human participants
[5,20,24].
The following variables were measured: anthropometric (body mass and height, body composition [10,11,
15,19], cardio-respiratory fitness (by using Polar OwnIndex, highly correlated with ‡O2max; r = 0.97; [13]),
neuromuscular fitness (by applying a maximum repetition test consisting of pull-ups on a bar [4]) and maximum
endurance (straight-arm hang). Neuromuscular tests were
conducted with the use of resin holds, specific for indoor
climbing walls. A 5-min interval was allowed between
the tests. The participants were requested to restrict their
physical activities for 48 h before the tests and to drink
at least 2 l of water on the day preceding the tests, so
they were properly hydrated for evaluation of body composition with use of electrical bioimpedance.
A
Body height was determined with a portable stadiometer (Cescorf, Brazil), body mass with a portable
digital scale (Plena, Brazil), relative body fat content
with a bipolar bioimpedance device (Techline, Brazil)
cardio-respiratory fitness with a heart rate monitor (Polar, model M52, Finland); symmetrical holds (Wall type,
VDoze, Brazil), attached to an artificial wall, and a manual digital chronometer (Polar, model S120, Finland)
were used to assess neuromuscular fitness; rating scale
adopted by FMERJ (Rio de Janeiro´s Mountain Sports
Federation) was applied to rate climbing skills (FMERJ:
1-11a). Details of the tests and equipment are shown in
Fig. 1.
The data were described by using means, standard
deviations, ranges and coefficients of variability [17,22].
The distributions of all variables proved normal by the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s test, SPSS v.10 software being
used.
B
C
D
Fig. 1. Equipment used in assessing the fitness of climbers
A – VDoze holds; B – System Wall model Attachment of the holds to the artificial climbing wall; C – Performance
of the maximum repetition test; D – Performance of the maximum endurance test
Table 1. Somatic and functional characteristics of male (n = 21) and female (n = 9) climbers
Gender
Variable
Mean ± SD
Age (years)
28.7 ± 5.1
Body height (cm)
173.9 ± 9.2
Body mass (kg)
67.0 ± 8.1
Lean body mass (kg)
61.6 ± 6.4
Body fat content (%)
8.3 ± 4.4
Climbing experience (months) 90.6 ± 61.6
Training frequency (days/wk) 3.5 ± 1.2
CRF (ml/kg/min)
46.9 ± 8.4
Isometric force (s)
96.5 ± 27.0
Dynamic force (n)
13.8 ± 5.1
Self-rated climbing skills
6.3 ± 1.2
Men
Range
21 - 40
155 – 187
55,5 – 80,7
52,0 - 74,2
4,7 – 18,3
6 – 228
1–6
37 – 68
58 – 153
5 - 24
4–8
CV
18
5
12
10
53
68
33
18
28
38
19
Mean ± SD
34.8 ± 13.7
160.2 ± 3.8***
53.3 ± 5.3***
43.0 ± 4.1***
18.8 ± 7.9***
32.7 ± 26.4***
3.3 ± 1.4
38.0 ± 10.5*
90.3 ± 28.3
3.2 ± 4.7***
4.8 ± 0.9**
Women
Range
23 – 68
152,3 – 165,5
45 – 59
33,6 – 47,5
7,5 – 30,4
1 – 84
1–6
21 – 53
53 - 142
0 – 11
4–6
CV
39
2
10
9
49
81
42
28
31
144
19
Legend: CRF – Cardio-respiratory fitness; Self-rated climbing skills – Scale 1-11a; Significantly different from the respective
value in men: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001
75
Somatic/functional profile of sport climbers
Results
Mean results (± SD and ranges) of the studied variables are presented in Table 1. Body height of the subjects was rather average and body mass in relation to
height was low and they were very lean. Men were far
stronger than women as evidenced by the average numbers of pull-ups (13.8 and 3.2, respectively; p<0.001)
and had higher cardio-respiratory fitness (p<0.05). Moreover, women rated their climbing skills also markedly
lower than men (4.8 ± 0.9 and 6.3 ± 1.2, respectively).
Discussion
Bertuzzi et al. [2] suggested that some somatic features, e.g. body composition, were of importance: climbers having low body fat performed better than those more
fatty. More frequent trainings and a longer experience
had a positive effect on somatic features. In this study,
high training frequency, long experience and high skill/
technique ratings tended to be associated with low body
fat. On the other hand, Mermier et al. [14] reported different results and concluded that specific somatic patterns
had no direct effect on rock climbing performance. Body
fat content we found in male climbers was quite low,
while in many female ones was above average according to the classification of Pollock and Wilmore [16].
The method of electrical bioimpedance used in this study
was easy and sufficiently reliable as the technique does
not depend on evaluators skills and/or expertise [11,12].
Cardio-respiratory fitness and upper body isometric
and dynamic strength represent the functional aspects of
sport climbing [17]. These influence blood pressure, a
vital factor to be considered for the safe practice of this
sport. With the Polar Ownindex, cardio-respiratory fitness can be evaluated at rest, relating anthropometric
variables, age, gender and level of physical activity to
measurements of heart rate and variability, obtained with
a heart rate monitor. In spite of some criticism, the method
has been recently validated by studies showing that the
results are highly correlated with ‡O2max [6,7,13].
Sheel [17] showed that oxygen consumption by sport
climbers was relatively low on trails classified as “easier”, suggesting that the contribution of aerobic capacity
was not essential for the success at that level of difficulty.
However, competitive climbers who were climbing at or
near their maximum ability in trails classified as “harder”,
e.g. levels 5.12a - 5.14c or 8a - 11b in the Brazilian system, ‡O2 was also higher, suggesting a significant contribution of aerobic metabolism. Those results point to
possible adaptation, as suggested by Sheel [17]. Billat et
al. [3], however, observed that the contribution of aero-
bic metabolism depends more on the degree of perceived
difficulty than on the actual one, which still seems to
support the idea of functional adaptation. Climbers adapted to higher and more intense grades of difficulty tend
to have improved functional performance, as expected
for any other type of activity. Other factors, e.g. competition stress, weather conditions, interpersonal relations
among the climbers, quality of equipment used etc.,
were not considered either in this study or in other literature reports.
Table 2. Climbing rating scales used in different countries
USA
–
5.10a
5.10b
5.10c
5.10d
5.11a
5.11b
5.11c
5.11d
5.12a
5.12b
5.12c
5.12d
5.13a
5.13b
5.13c
5.13d
5.14a
5.14b
Europe
–
6a
–
6b
–
6c
–
7a
–
7b
–
7c
–
8a
–
8b
–
8c
–
Brazil
5c
6a
6b
6c
7a
7b
7c
8a
8b
8c
9a
9b
9c
10a
10b
10c
11a
11b
11c
Standardised
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
The rating system of trails and climbers differs a little from country to country, but the ratings in relation to
difficulty are alike. The systems used in the US, Europe
and Brazil are presented in Table 2. It ought to be emphasised that rating scales were based on expert assessments and their validity was verified for an empirical
internal stability only [9]. Generally, the following factors are being considered in those rating systems: type
of climb, slope, type of hold, rest points, time needed to
climb, physical difficulties, exposure risk (risk to fall
and the severity of its consequences), manoeuvres and
resources needed. The procedure to rate a new trail, a
climbing that have never had been done, involves the
assessment contributed by the first climber who completed it without a fall, and that assessment then has to
be validated by other experts. The standardisation of
76
such a system, based on rating the difficulty of the climbing pattern, is not an easy task as it is subjective and
factors like the physical and psycho-emotional fitness of
the climber may affect the judgement [12].
The scale of self-rating climbing skills was identical
with that used in external rating on a climb performed
without falls on a not too difficult a trail. Female climbers had a considerably lower climbing experience than
the male ones and that was associated with a significantly
lower self-rating and cardio-respiratory fitness, the latter
being similar to that reported by others [8,14,16].
The gender-related difference in climbing performance was associated with the strength of upper extremities; inasmuch no significant difference was found in the
isometric strength, the female climbers had markedly
lower dynamic strength and repetitive isometric contractions of the forearm musculature are known to increase
blood pressure and oxygen consumption which, in turn,
may represent a key factor in the performance of highlevel competitive climbers [12,16,21].
As the studied group was markedly non-homogenous,
a reliable somatic and functional profile of sport climbers could not be established due to smaller than planned
number of subjects but some conclusions and recommendations could be formulated. One of the key factors
seems to be the cardio-respiratory fitness and dynamic
strength of upper extremities. Other factors, like flexibility, co-ordination, balance and psycho-emotional
features should be considered in future studies.
References
1. American College of Sports Medicine. Guidelines for
Exercise Testing and Prescription (1991) 4th ed., Williams &
Wilkins, Baltimore.
2. Bertuzzi R.C.M. J.F.L.Gagliardi, E.Franchini, M.A.P.D.
Kiss (2001) Características antropométricas e desempenho
motor de escaladores esportivos brasileiros de elite e intermediários que praticam predominantemente a modalidade
indoor. Rev.Bras.Ciênc.Mov. 9:7-12.
3. Billat V., P.Palleja, T.Charlaix, P.Rizzardo, N.Janel (1995)
Energy specificity of rock climbing and aerobic capacity in
competitive sport rock climbers. J.Sports Med.Phys.Fitness
35:20-24.
4. Boldori R (2002) Aptidão física e sua relação com a capacidade de trabalho dos bombeiros militares do estado de
Santa Catarina. M.S. thesis, Post-Graduation Programme in
Production Engineering, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, SC, Brazil.
A. Padrenosso et al.
5. Conselho Nacional de Saúde (1996) Resolução 196 de
10 de outubro de 1996, dispondo sobre as diretrizes e normas
regulamentadoras das pesquisas envolvendo seres humanos.
Brazilian Health Ministry, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
6. Crouter S.E., C.Albright, D.R.Bassett Jr. (2004) Accuracy of polar S410 heart rate monitor to estimate energy cost
of exercise. Med.Sci.Sports Exerc. 36:1433-1439.
7. Crumpton S., H.N.Williford, S.O'Mailia, M.S.Olson, L.E.
Woolen (2003) Validity of the polar m52 heart rate monitor in
predicting ‡O2max. Med.Sci.Sports Exerc. 35(Suppl.1):S193.
8. Dantas E. (2003) A Prática da Preparação Física. 5ª ed.,
Editora Shape, RJ.
9. Delignières, D. J.P.Famose, C.Thápaut-Mathieu, P.Fleurance (1993) A psychophysical study of difficulty rating in rock
climbing. Int.J.Sport Psychol. 24:404-416.
10. FEMERJ - Federação de Esportes de Montanha do Estado
do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro (2000) Banco de dados.
www.femerj.org/documentos%5Csistema_graduacao.pdf
11. Fernandes F.J. (2003) A Prática da Avaliação Física.
Shape, RJ.
12. Graydon D., K.Hanson (1997) Mountaineering: the
freedom at the hills (6th ed.) The Mountaineers, CA.
13. Godoy E.S.G., P.Barroso (1999) Manual de Avaliação
Funcional do Projeto Esporte & Saúde. Secretaria de Ação
Social Esportes e Lazer do Governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.
14. Heyward V.H. (1997) Advanced Fitness Assessment and
Exercise Prescription. 3rd ed., Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.
15. Laukkanen R (1999) Exercise and heart rate. Research
and Development: Information about heart rate and exercise.
www.polar.fi.
16. Mermier, C.M., J.M.Janot, D.L.Parker, J.G.Swan (2000)
Physiological and anthropometric determinants of sport
climbing performance. Br.J.Sports Med. 34:359-365.
17. Morrow, J.R.A.W.Jackson, J.G.Dish, D.P.Mood (2000)
Measurement and Evaluation in Human Performance.2nd ed.
Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.
18. Nieman D.C. (1999) Exercício e Saúde. São Paulo. Editora Manole.
19. Pinto J.R. (1977) Cadernos de Biometria das FICAB.
FICAB, RJ.
20. Pollock M., J.H.Wilmore (1993) Exercícios na saúde e
na doença: avaliação e prescrição para prevenção e reabilitação. 2nd ed., MEDSI, RJ.
21. Sheel A.W. (2004) Physiology of sport rock climbing.
Br.J.Sports Med. 38:355-359.
22. Shimakura, S. E. (2005) Coeficiente de Variação. Disponível em.www.est.ufpr.br/~silvia/CE055/node26.html.Acesso
em 14 out. 2005.
23. Thomas, J.R., Nelson J.K. (1996) Research Methods in
Physical Activity. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.
24. World Medical Organization. Declaration of Helsinki
(1966) Br.Med.J. 313:1448-1449.
Received 14.01.2008
Accepted 1.03.2008
© University of Physical Education, Warsaw, Poland