See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269631902

Strength:volume ratio for the forearm in climbers and non-climbers - ACSM 2012

Data · December 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 435

1 author:

Phillip B. Watts
Northern Michigan University
87 PUBLICATIONS 2,046 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Phillip B. Watts on 16 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Strength:Volume Ratio For the Forearm in
Climbers and Non-climbers
59th ACSM Annual Meeting - 2012 Vanesa and Phillip B. FACSM.
España-Romero 1,2 1
Watts ,
San Francisco, California 1Exercise Science Laboratory, Northern Michigan University, Marquette ,Michigan; 2Department of

Exercise Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA

Abstract Results
Many climbers and coaches perceive strength in the muscles that control finger position critical to
high-level performance. It has also been recognized that handgrip strength is higher in rock climbers
that non-climbers. It is well accepted that muscle cross-sectional area or mass is directly related to Data for Climbers and Non-Climbers are presented in Table 1.
maximum force capability, however, whether applied experience in rock climbing affects the
relationship between muscle size and maximal strength is not known. The purpose of this study was Table 1. Descriptive characteristics, specific force measures, and arm volume.
to examine if a strength: size ratio for the forearm differed between climbers and non-climbers.
METHODS: Twenty-eight experienced climbers (age = 25.2±9.6 yr) and 26 active adults non- Climbers Non-Climbers
Variable
climbers (age = 21±1.7) volunteered as subjects. Height and weight body were evaluated. Maximal (n=28) (n= 26)
handgrip strength (HG) was measured by dynamometry and finger force (FF) via a piezoelectric force Age 25.2 ± 9.6* 21 ± 1.7
sensor fitted with a plate to accept the distal digits of four fingers. Resting forearm volume (FAV) was
determined via water displacement. RESULTS: Significantly higher HG and FF were found in both HT (cm) 175.2 ± 8.5 170.4 ± 9.3
hands for climbers compared with non-climbers expressed both in kg and kg per body weight WT (kg) 70.0 ± 10.4* 76.4 ± 17.1
(P<0.01). Significant differences were not found for FAV between climbers (1311.6 ± 397.3 ml and
1283.9 ± 380.1 ml for right and left hands respectively) and non-climbers (1382.1 ± 556.7 ml and BMI 22.7 ± 2.2* 26.0 ± 3.6
1326.2 ± 548.3 ml for right and left hands respectively) for either right hand or left arm (P>0.05). Right HG (kg) 49.1 ± 10.6* 39.0 ± 14.2
However, the ratio of HG to FAV (HG:FAV) and the ratio of FF to FVA (FF:FVA) were significantly
higher for climbers versus non-climbers for both hands (P<0.01). Right FAV was significantly Left HG (kg) 45.7 ± 10.2*+ 37.3 ± 13.8+
correlated with height (r=0.42, P<0.05), weight (r=0.59, P<0.01), and right and left handgrip strength Right HG/WT 0.70 ± 0.14 0.51 ± 0.13
(r= 0.55, P<0.01 and r= 0.46, P <0.05, respectively) in climbers. However, right FAV was only
Left HG/WT 0.65 ± 0.14+ 0.49 ± 0.13+
correlated with weight in the non-climbers. Similar results were found for left FAV. CONCLUSIONS:
The higher HG and FF in climbers relative to non-climber controls supports a specificity of training Right FF (kg) 24.1 ± 8.0* 17.8 ± 9.7
effect on the associated muscle groups. That the ratios of handgrip strength to forearm volume and Left FF (kg) 24.0 ± 7.4* 16.4 ± 7.4
finger force to forearm volume are higher for climbers vs. controls suggest that neural factors instead
of hypertrophy may account for much of the strength differences between climbers and non-climbers. Right FF/WT 0.35 ± 0.11* 0.22 ± 0.09
Left FF/WT 0.34 ± 0.09* 0.21 ± 0.08
Right FAV (ml) 1311.6 ± 397.3 1382.1 ± 556.7
Left FAV (ml) 1283.9 ± 380.1+ 1326.2 ± 548.3+
Right HG/FAV 0.040 ± 0.015* 0.027 ± 0.011
Introduction Methods Left HG/FAV 0.038 ±0.014* 0.028 ± 0.012

Since the early part of the 1900’s, rock climbing has evolved from an Twenty-eight experienced climbers (age = 25.2±9.6 yr) and 26 active adults non-climbers Right FF/HG 0.49 ± 0.14 0.45 ± 0.17

adjunct training mode for mountain climbing into a specific recreational (age = 21±1.7) volunteered as subjects. All climbers were currently active in rock climbing Left FF/HG 0.52 ± 0.13 0.45 ± 0.14
pursuit and competitive sport. Organized competitive rock climbing events and the mean self-reported ability ranged from 5.8 to 5.12d on the Yosemite Decimal * Indicates significant difference vs Non-climbers. + Indicates significant difference vs Right.
began in Europe in the early 1980’s and appeared in North America by System (YDS) scale. All participants read and signed Informed Consent prior to participation
the end of that decade. Artificial climbing structures fostered this in the study and the study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Northern
competitive extension and brought recreational climbing to a larger Michigan University. Significantly higher HG and FF were found in both hands for climbers compared
segment of the world population. As participation in rock climbing with non-climbers expressed both in kg and kg per body weight (P<0.01).
Maximum finger curl force (FF) was measured via a piezoelectric force sensor (PCB Significant differences were not found for FAV between climbers (1311.6 ± 397.3 ml
increased, interest in improving personal climbing performance through Piezotronics 208A13) fitted with a rigid plate that accepted the first digits of four fingers
specific practice and training grew. This trend fueled a scientific interest in and 1283.9 ± 380.1 ml for right and left arms respectively) and non-climbers
(Figure 2). The force sensor/plate was mounted to an incremented adjustable steel support (1382.1 ± 556.7 ml and 1326.2 ± 548.3 ml for right and left hands respectively) for
climbing performance with a main focus on physiological responses via a moveable bracket that enabled the level of the sensor/plate to be positioned for
during climbing and anthropometric and physiological characteristics of either right hand or left hand (P>0.05). However, the ratio of HG to FAV (HG:FAV)
different arm lengths. The elbow of the participant was flexed to 90° and placed firmly on a and the ratio of FF to FVA (FF:FVA) were significantly higher for climbers versus
the climbers (Watts, 2004). padded wooden support base with the forearm vertical. The level of the sensor/plate was non-climbers for both hands (P<0.01).
Of particular interest for high level climbers has been muscular standardized for each person as the distance from the elbow position on the support base to
performance and fatigue. Climbers often express a perception that a lack the medial interphalangeal joint of the middle finger when the hand and fingers were Right FAV was significantly correlated with height (r=0.42, P<0.05), weight (r=0.59,
of force or progression of fatigue in the musculature that controls hand extended vertically. This set-up produced a finger position equivalent to an “open grip” as P<0.01), and right and left handgrip strength (r= 0.55, P<0.01 and r= 0.46, P <0.05,
and finger position is critical for successful ascents. Watts, et al. (1996) employed in rock climbing (Figure 3). Force was applied to the plate/sensor by the fingers respectively) in climbers. However, right FAV was only correlated with weight in the
found a 22% decrease in handgrip force and a 57% decrease in handgrip via a 3-second maximal contraction. Each participant performed two maximal force non-climbers. Similar results were found for left FAV.
endurance after climbing to the point of failure in a sample of climbers applications with each hand in alternating order. Data were acquired at 500 Hz via a Biopac
with a self-reported ability range of 5.12a/7b to 5.13d/8b (YDS/French MP 150 system. Biopac Acqknowledge 3.9.1 software was used to determine the peak force
difficulty ratings). In contrast, Watts, et al. (2008) found small but amplitude and time to peak force for each trial. The reliability of the finger force test
Conclusion
insignificant decreases in finger curl force following a set of 8 maximum instrument and procedure has been reported previously (Watts and Jensen, 2003). The higher HG and FF in climbers relative to non-climbers supports a specificity of
time hangs from a hang-board climbing training device with either 1 or 3 Maximum handgrip force (HG) was recorded using a manual handgrip dynamometer with training effect on the associated muscle groups. That the ratios of handgrip strength
minute rests between hangs. adjustable grip span (Lafayette Instruments). The test was administered with the subject to forearm volume and finger force to forearm volume are higher for climbers vs
Vigouroux and Quaine (2006) have reported higher handgrip and finger standing and the arm extended fully at the elbow. The participant squeezed gradually and controls suggest that neural factors instead of hypertrophy may account for much of
forces in climbers versus non-climbers. Other studies have found that continuously for a minimum of two seconds, performing the test with the right and left hands the strength differences between climbers and non-climbers.
handgrip force is best correlated with climbing ability when expressed sequentially for two trials per hand. HG data were expressed as the average (HGAVG) of the
relative to body mass (Watts, 2004). In fit individuals, smaller muscle highest values per two trials for each hand in absolute kg. The average HG and FF values
mass combined with high strength could be optimal for climbing. for each hand were also expressed relative to body weight and indicated as HG/WT and References
A question remains whether specific strength in climbers is due to FF/WT respectively. Vigouroux, L and Quaine, V. (2006) Fingertip force and electromyography of finger flexor muscles during a prolonged
intermittent exercise in elite climbers and sedentary individuals. J S[orts Sci. 24(2):1841186.
hypertrophic adaptation, which would result in increased arm volume, or Right and left forearm volumes were measured in a rested condition to the nearest 0.5 ml Watts PB , Newbury V, Sulentic J (1996) Acute changes in handgrip strength, endurance, and blood lactate with
neural adaptation, which could provide strength without an increase in via water displacement and expressed as absolute volumes (FAV) and relative to HG sustained sport rock climbing. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 36: 255-260.
mass. The purpose of this study was to examine if a strength:size ratio for (FAV/HG) and FF (FAV/FF). Watts PB, Jensen RL (2003) Reliability of peak forces during a finger curl motion common in rock climbing. Meas
Physical Ed Exerc Sci . 7:263-267.
the forearm differs between climbers and non-climbers.
Watts PB (2004) Physiology of difficult rock climbing: a review. Eur J Appl Physiol 91:361-372.

View publication stats