2025-02-03
Climbing
Training
Endurance
Assessment
Performance
As climbers, endurance is that elusive quality that allows us to redpoint long routes, overcome endless sequences, and stay on the wall when fatigue sets in. But how do we truly measure our specific climbing endurance (SCE) objectively and precisely? Unlike grip strength, where peak force has been established as a reference, the assessment of endurance has been a constant area of debate in scientific literature.
In this post, we'll explore the complexity of SCE, the proposed tests that have emerged, and, most importantly, how a new paradigm allows us to differentiate its components for smarter and more effective training.
Specific climbing endurance is unique because it can't be characterized with global parameters like in other sports. It involves the ability to repeatedly exert effort to grasp a hold and progress to the next, in a context of:
This intermittence is key: the recovery periods, however brief, allow oxidative pathways to sustain the high-intensity efforts demanded by non-oxidative energy pathways during the contraction phases.
Scientific literature has explored various ways to measure it, from intermittent or sustained contractions on specific holds or dynamometers to climbing simulations on treadwalls, bouldering circuits, campus boards, or standardized routes. Local oxygen uptake has even been measured with NIRS, and the critical force model has been introduced. However, consensus has been difficult to reach.
One of the great dilemmas in assessing SCE is the tension between specificity (how closely the test resembles actual climbing) and reliability/validity (whether the test consistently measures what it's supposed to measure).
A key study by Maciejczyk et al. (2022) has revolutionized the assessment of specific endurance by introducing the notion of differentiating its components. Instead of a one-dimensional measurement, it's recognized that endurance comprises various metabolic elements. The authors propose that tests, while they should reflect the load characteristics of climbing, shouldn't completely replicate real climbing in its intermittence and intensity. Instead, their parameters should be adjusted to specifically assess the capacity one wants to measure.
This study identified the contribution of different metabolic pathways (anaerobic alactic from phosphocreatine, anaerobic lactic glycolytic, and aerobic) in three key tests:
| Test | ANA ALAC (PCr) | ANA LAC (GLUC) | AE |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30″ All-out Test | 62.4% | 18.2% | 19.4% |
| 60% Continuous Test | 54.2% | 17.7% | 28.1% |
| 60% Intermittent Test 8:2 | 27.2% | 12.9% | 59.9% |
These three tests demonstrated reliability and correlation with climbing performance (0.81 for the all-out, 0.71 for the continuous, and 0.41 for the intermittent).
Based on this new approach, we can use a battery of tests to assess different components of endurance:
- Protocol: Apply maximum voluntary and unilateral force on a 23 mm edge for 30 seconds. - Indicator: Average force exerted during the test / body weight. - Characteristics: Very relevant for performance. Positive validity with performance. Very high reliability (ICC=0.921). Very low specificity. Not recommended for beginners or children.
Assessing specific climbing endurance is complex, but with the right approach, we can obtain very valuable data. The paradigm of Maciejczyk et al. (2022) allows us to go beyond a simple measure of "stamina" to differentiate the metabolic components that contribute to our endurance.
By using tests with high reliability and validity, adjusting methodologies (like using hangs for greater stability), and always considering the climber's safety and level, we can transform our understanding of endurance. Thus, we'll stop guessing and start training with the precision that science offers us, boosting our performance on the vertical!