{"id":67649,"date":"2025-03-31T21:33:03","date_gmt":"2025-03-31T21:33:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/revista-apunts.com\/?p=67649"},"modified":"2025-07-03T09:48:06","modified_gmt":"2025-07-03T09:48:06","slug":"comparative-analysis-of-two-grip-strength-training-protocols-in-experienced-climbers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/revista-apunts.com\/en\/comparative-analysis-of-two-grip-strength-training-protocols-in-experienced-climbers\/","title":{"rendered":"Comparative Analysis of Two Grip Strength Training Protocols in Experienced Climbers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of the traditional weighted dead-hang method (HIMA) and the effects of the active pull training method using a dynamometer (PIMA). Additionally, the strength difference between hands and its evolution after the proposed protocols was analyzed. Eleven climbers were randomly divided into a Control Group, CG (n<\/em> = 5) 33.20 (8.7) years, 14.40 (0.548) climbing level IRCRA, and a Dinamo Group, DG (n<\/em> = 6) 31.50 (6.56) years, 14.67 (1.366) IRCRA climbing level. CG followed HIMA protocol, while DG followed PIMA protocol. The common characteristics of both groups\u2019 protocols were: 4 weeks duration, working on a 14 mm wooden strip, 3 series of dead-hang in the first week, 4 series in the second and third, and 5 series in the last week; 10 second efforts at 85% intensity, with 3-minute rests. An ANOVA analysis showed significant differences (p<\/em> \u2264 .05) after training protocols for both groups in all the variables studied: the peak force, the RFD200ms, the ST, and the MHT_14. No significant differences in strength were found between hands. Despite that, active pull with a dynamometer method reduced the differences in strength values between hands after training. Both grip strength methods (PIMA and HIMA), seem to be effective for improving key factors in climbing performance. Future research should analyze the influence of both training methods with larger samples and with higher level athletes, as well as with female samples.<\/p>\n\n\n

Keywords:<\/strong> dead-hang<\/span>, dynamometer<\/span>, finger strength<\/span>, performance<\/span>, sport climbing<\/span>, training<\/span><\/p> <\/div> \n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The popularity of climbing has continued growing since the debut of the sport at the Olympic Games (Michael et al., 2019<\/a>). Despite many new climbing gyms being built over the last few years (Climbing Business Journal, 2023<\/a>), the increasing number of athletes suggests that new climbing centers will be opened in the future. This interest from the general population has had an impact on the emergence of new elite athletes [International federation of sport climbing (IFSC], 2025<\/a>] and an increase in the number of competitions. This has led the scientific world to also become interested in the discipline and, thus, a multitude of new studies are being carried out on this sport. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The need for new research and training strategies has motivated the creation of new compact and portable devices that can be used to measure determining variables in climbing performance (Breen et al., 2023<\/a>). Among these devices, force sensors stand out, such as the Progressor Tindeq (Tindeq, Trondheim Norway) (Labott et al., 2022<\/a>) or Chronojump (C<\/a>hronojump Boscosystem<\/a>, Barcelona Espa\u00f1a) (Colomar et al., 2020<\/a>; Moreno-P\u00e9rez et al., 2020<\/a>). These new devices allow us to explore new forms of training based on quantitative data with high levels of validity and reliability. These methods contrast with traditional methodologies based on imprecise and subjective measurements, sometimes based on the athlete\u2019s own perception (Michailov, 2014<\/a>). Sensors measure grip strength, the key performance indicator in climbing  (Bergua et al., 2018<\/a>; Consuegra, 2020<\/a>; L\u00f3pez-Rivera, 2014<\/a>; L\u00f3pez-Rivera & Gonz\u00e1lez-Badillo, 2012<\/a>, 2019<\/a>). Among the factors that explain the production of grip force in climbing, the maximum grip force and the Rate of Force Development (RFD) are considered the most adequate for measuring performance  (Consuegra, 2020<\/a>). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are currently two main training methods to improve finger grip strength in climbers; the traditional dead-hang method conceived by Eva L\u00f3pez (L\u00f3pez-Rivera, 2014<\/a>; L\u00f3pez-Rivera & Gonz\u00e1lez-Badillo, 2012<\/a>), which has been the most commonly used, and training with force sensors with active pull (Breen et al., 2023<\/a>) which allows athletes to train unilaterally, even when not supporting body weight, and quantifying the load at all times. While the traditional dead-hang method involves a passive effort on the finger structures, the force sensor training method involves an active voluntary tensile effort. At the same time, the terms Holding Isometric Muscular Action (HIMA) and Push Isometric Muscular Action (PIMA) (Schaefer & Bittmann, 2017<\/a>) describe two types of isometric contractions which we could relate to them respectively. In HIMA, the effort is passively supported, while in PIMA, although there is no movement, an active attempt is made to overcome resistance. Objective measures show that these two types of contractions are physiologically different (Dech et al., 2022<\/a>; Oranchuk et al., 2024<\/a>; Schaefer & Bittmann, 2021<\/a>) which makes both types of training different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even though few studies look at the differences between both types of contractions, it has been suggested that HIMA could be used for injury prevention and rehabilitation, while PIMA could be a better option for prolonged activations and for stimulating agonist adaptations (Oranchuk et al., 2024<\/a>). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is for these reasons that studying the differences between both methods in the sport performance framework seems particularly relevant. Additionally, climbing has traditionally used a grip strength training protocol following HIMA\u2019s characteristics (traditional dead-hang method) which makes studying the differences between both HIMA and PIMA protocols more interesting for this sport. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, the present study aimed to compare the effects of two different grip strength training methods (traditional weighted dead-hang as a HIMA, and force-sensing active pulls as a PIMA) on key markers of climbing performance: peak grip strength, RFD200ms, strength test (ST), and maximum dead-hang time (MHT_14).  The secondary aim was to analyze the differences in peak strength of each hand and to analyze the differences after training.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We hypothesized that both training methods would be effective in improving all the key factors in climbing performance studied (peak grip strength, RFD200ms, ST, and MHT_14); but grip strength training through the active method using the Chronojump device would present better results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For our second aim, we hypothesized that the dynamometer training method, not being bilateral, would help reduce the differences in strength between hands after the training period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Methods<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Participants<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Twenty climbers training twice per week participated in this study. The inclusion criteria are shown in Table 1. Finaly eleven climbers could finish the protocol. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

Table 1<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Inclusion criteria defined<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

See Table<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The sample was divided into two groups using stratified random sampling, based on self-determined climbing level. Main anthropometric and training characteristics are depicted in Table 2.  Every climber in our sample self-identified as either boulderer or lead climber. The IRCRA scale (Draper et al., 2015<\/a>) was used to determine the level of climbing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

Table 2<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Main characteristics of the sample and of each of the groups, mean and standard deviation<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

See Table<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The study sessions took place on Monday and Wednesday afternoons at the same time, after which the participants attended their guided climbing sessions. They carried out identical sessions with the same climbing trainer, who focused the sessions on maximum strength work, in accordance with the objectives of the study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The participants were informed of the procedure through an informative email and signed a consent form. The study was designed in compliance with the recommendations for clinical research of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University (Universidad Europea de Madrid, CIPI\/23.105).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Participants were asked to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n