Fingerboard Training Guide (III). Program design and Periodization of MaxHangs, IntHangs and SubHangs. Samples of MaxHangs training programs

Tweet

Versión en español

Previous entries:
I. Dead-hangs training guide. Preliminary evaluation.

The first blog entry in this series. If you need a refresher, here it is.

II. Methodology 
The methods, naming conventions and load management were the topic of the second post. You can find it here.

*Note: Most of the times in my entries I have been talking about MED or minimal edge and progressing in smaller edges, but I have to clarify that we would be referring to edges when talking about half-crimp (and also open hand) training. But in reality we could use these same proposal methods to work on every grip type we are interested to enhance: Open hand, sloper strength and pinch strength. Depending on which training goal we chose, we would be talking about edge size or more generally, difficulty of the hold. For instance, if we want to enhance our open hand grip strength, we should choose edges, but these should be more rounded edges, or with softer edges, compared to half-crimp. If we want to work on sloper strength, we would use balls or slopers of different difficulty (slope and diameter) for adjusting the intensity. Lately, for working on our pinch strength, we could use a non-hanging device such as pinch blocks of different width or depth. Only for certain climbers profile could be recommended certain types of hanging or bodyweight exercises (see this entry) like dead-hangs or others. (paragraph added on 12 December, 2018)

III. Periodization

Today’s content. What most people are waiting for, right? I’m sure you are eager to get to the meat of it and have your questions answered:

• how many days per week do I work my dead-hangs?
• is it better at the start, the middle or the end of the session?
• what method do I use, with[out] added weight, intermittent?
• do I start with longer or shorter hang times?
• how many sets?
• if my objectives include strength and endurance, do I start with strength or do I train both simultaneously?

Let’s tackle one bit at a time.

3.1 Training Frequency

For improving: 2 days/week, 48-72 h recovery between sessions.

Maintenance: once you get to a reasonable level, 1 day/week can be enough to keep your gains.

In case you train up to 5-6 days per week, or if you don’t climb on the weekends you can do 3 hangs sessions per week, but the 48-72 h rest between sessions is still compulsory.

During impact microcycles or extended periods using high loads, leave 72 h between sessions to facilitate recovery. The same can be beneficial in these cases:

- When you are under high stress, or if your daily job is very physical.

- If you notice that you can’t reach the same absolute load (hold depth/difficulty or weight) from one session to the next without apparent reason; also if your focus is on high-quality training, prioritizing either the dead-hangs or the rest of the session contents.

- In case your recovery ability is compromised for any reason, or you notice that your performance regularly suffers in the second session of the week.

Anyway, you need to review the way you train/climb the rest of the days, if your diet and sleep habits are right (Chennaoui et al., 2015; Fullagar et al., 2015; Halson 2014). Everything  counts, so you should control the factors that influence you fatigue, cognitive performance, motivation and, critically, those that can end in overuse syndromes or overtraining.

3.2. Order in the session and in the microcycle

3.2.1. Where to place it in the session

A maximal dead-hangs workout (MaxHangs, see the glossary here) should always be the first content of the session. Intermittent dead-hangs (IntHangs) and SubHangs also work better at the start of the session, unless the main content for the day is boulder, in which case the hangs will be after it, and before other climbing-based [power-]endurance methods if there are any.

3.2.2. Order in the microcycle or week

If you train 4 days per week: place MaxHangs on strength/boulder days. However, if you are a boulderer, I would recommend you to dedicate training days only to fingerboarding together with any other strength & conditioning content that didn't involve fingers and others days to climbing-based workouts. For IntHangs choose power-endurance/endurance days. This is valid for linear, nonlinear or undulating periodizations (see next section).

If you train 2 days per week: follow the rule set in 3.2.1.

3.3 The Training Plan: How to periodize or progress from week to week

You are already familiar with the principle of progression, one of the three principles every training plan must honor (with specificity and personalization); the idea is to apply increasing, strong (but not excessive) stimuli, spaced enough for recovery, aiming to gain performance while avoiding injury or overtraining (more correctly, non-functional overreaching).

Our strategy will consist on manipulating volume, intensity and/or rest between repetitions or sets, which is another way of saying ‘periodizing’. The variable we will be tuning depends on our goals:

• Maximal grip strength, through neural aspects, or structural developments (hypertrophy, capillarization, etc.). For more on these adaptations look at this entry.

• Grip strength-endurance, when the objective is to extend the time to fatigue on progressively more difficult holds, or recovering quickly between successive high-intensity grips.

In short, we are looking at different schemes for MaxHangs, IntHangs or SubHangs.

3.3.1. Progressively changing the number of sets: The basic method for planning MaxHangs, IntHangs and SubHangs training

This is a staple of periodization, and I propose you use it when starting with ANY of the methods, up to the point where playing with this parameter does not yield further gains. It’s simple:

Choose a method, and change the number of sets along 4 to 8 weeks: add some sets during weeks 1-4, then rest for 1-2 weeks and do another 4-week cycle increasing the number of sets. The body needs time to undergo the necessary physiological adaptations, and we need to keep the other parameters fixed while they take place. This way the physiological stimulus does not change and we get the desired effect. According to your training experience and level I suggest the following:

LOWER LEVEL AND BEGINNERS

Whenever we use a new method, for any level, it is advisable to start with 2 sets to learn the method and/or exercise correctly, controlling the load in a facilitated manner. This approach is also recommended when restarting training after holidays, rest periods or some injuries. Some patterns and their explanation:

a) 2-3-4-4 in a 4-week cycle, which means:
Week 1: 2 sets; Week 2: 3 sets; Week 3: 4 sets; Week 4: 4 sets

b) 2-3-4-4 :1-2; 3-3-4-4 for two 4-week cycles:
Week 1: 2 sets; Week 2: 3 sets; Week 3: 4 sets; Week 4: 4 sets
Week 5 or Weeks 5 & 6: don’t do dead-hangs
Week 7: 3 sets; Week 8: 3 sets; Week 9: 4 sets; Week 10: 4 sets

INTERMEDIATE LEVEL, FAMILIAR WITH DEAD-HANGS
3-4-4-5 : 1; 3-4-5-5

HIGH LEVEL AND SEVERAL YEARS OF HANGBOARDING EXPERIENCE

We can reach up to 8 sets of MaxHangs during a 6-week cycle if we rest for about 2 weeks after.

In the case of IntHangs and SubHangs it’s possible to link up to 8 weeks (3-4-5-5-3-4-5-5) followed by a compulsory rest from dead-hangs 2-3 weeks long.

3.3.2. Follow-up systems to keep progressing

We designed our 4-8 week plan and successfully completed it, what are our alternatives at this point? There are several:

a) Repeat the same initial plan because you consider it still has potential to yield positive results.

b) Implement a qualitative change:

- Using a different method; or

- Keeping the method and changing other parameter: volume, intensity or rest duration. Examples:

In the IntHangs methods it is common, every 4-8 weeks, to alter the pause between repetitions, then the pause between sets and later the number of repetitions per set; in the long term we can change the hanging duration for each repetition. The decision must take into account if we want to promote intensity (using smaller/more challenging holds -in case you are training sloper strength or heavier weights), adjusting volume and pauses in order to sustain the high load along the workout, seeking hypertrophy and high-intensity endurance; or instead we might focus on volume, which leads to metabolic changes, oxidative capacity and substrate buildup associated to endurance.

In SubHangs we have two options: we can a) keep the pause between repetitions and the intensity (edge or *hold size/difficulty or added weight) and extend the hanging duration for each set in 4-week cycles, or b) use a fixed hanging time and hold/weight while shortening week by week the rest between sets along said 4 weeks.

Finally MaxHangs, where varying the intensity is the way to go; as the intensity goes up the hanging time or the margin to failure go down, also in 4-8 week periods.

*Note: Most of the times in my entries I have talked about size edge or smaller edges when talking about half-crimp training, but in reality we can and we should use these methods to work on every grip type: open hand, sloper strength and pinch strength. For such training goals we should use more rounded edges, with softer edges, compared to half-crimp for open hand training; balls or slopers of different difficulty (slope and diameter) and pinch blocks of different width or depth for the pinch grip workouts (using dead-hangs for improving strength for this latter grip type wouldn't be recommendable except for certain climbers profile).

Let’s have a closer look at each strategy.

3.3.2.1. Progressing in training intensity

In maximal strength methods this is crucial when the aim is neural development; in MaxHangs this is achieved with smaller or more difficult holds or heavier added weight (which correspond to shorter hanging time) and/or reduced margin before fatigue or muscle failure.

When we are working our endurance with the IntHangs and SubHangs methods we have two possibilities:

a) extend the time to fatigue for a fixed absolute intensity (edge depth or added weight). In other words, try to make this absolute intensity into a lighter relative load (a lower percentage of our maximal strength).

b) maintain the relative intensity with moderately long hanging times; to achieve this we need to choose smaller edges/more difficult holds or add more weight as our endurance improves. This way the relative intensity is stable while the absolute intensity goes up.

Time for zooming further in, starting with the margin.

3.3.2.1.1. When is it advisable to modify the margin before failure?

For the MaxHangs method I suggest altering this value if you started with 5+ seconds of margin, and have used it for at least 4-8 weeks. The rest of parameters stay the same while the margin would go from 5 to 3 seconds. The following example shows how this translates into a change in intensity:

• If you did MED hangs x 15”(5) :3’ for 4-8 weeks (2-3-4-4, 3-4-4-5, etc.) then switch to:

• MED hangs x 15”(3) :3’; the holds used in the previous cycle allowed to hang for 20” (even though the hanging time was ‘just’ 15”), but we now must choose a smaller edge/more difficult hold because the potential hanging time is 18”: the absolute intensity is higher, right?

Those among you familiar with 3-second margins, which places you in the intermediate level group, can experiment with 2 and 1-second margins in some cycle. But don’t lose sight of the fact that longer hanging times and mid or mid-high intensities (from 10 seconds onward) combined with margins shorter than 3” put you really close to muscle failure and are comparatively more exhausting. The same three-second margin is harder in a 12-second dead-hang than in a 6-second one. In the former case you’ll probably have to change to a deeper hold or remove some weight as the session progresses. When the margin is too short the expected neural effects can be compromised while metabolic and structural changes are favored, in the form of hypertrophy or enhanced substrate repletion, even if we respect the recovery periods between sessions and mix them correctly with the rest of contents.

No margin or failure:

• Failure or near failure is desirable at the end of a IntHangs or SubHangs session when the pause between sets is less than 2 minutes. When the pause is longer, up to 3 minutes, we want to reach failure in the last repetition of each set (IntHangs) or at the end of each set (SubHangs).
• In the case of MaxHangs, as we already mentioned, reaching failure is discouraged in principle. Nonetheless, if you haven’t had any previous bad experiences in this regard, you can experiment with maximal strength and failure; occasionally, for one repetition, session or even a cycle, you can test your limits or provoke some impact in your training. Sufficient recovery for that kind of effort must be enforced. If you are interested in fatigue control I recommend you read the recent article by Morán-Navarro et al. (2017).

3.3.2.1.2. When should I employ the hanging time for intensity management?

Being consistent with my philosophy of “using the lighter stimulus that still causes adaptation” and “tune one variable at a time”, when the goal is to promote maximum strength via neural improvement it would seem logical to increase the intensity (which implies shortening the hanging time), but only if we have already played with the margin to failure according to the guidelines exposed above. This said, there are special cases where we can skip the margin modification altogether and directly alter the dead-hang duration:

a) When we need to keep a margin of 5-10 seconds, like we would do with young athletes and during the early recovery from an injury. One example:

- We have finished a couple of weeks of MED Hangs x 15” (3) :3’. This is the now familiar 4-8 week planning; we could then switch to:

- MED hangs x 12” (3) :3’ for another 4-8 weeks, and later even progress to:

- MED hangs x 10” (3) :3’

b) In the case of SubHangs we aim to extend the hang duration (lowering the relative intensity to maintain certain absolute intensity); this means sticking to an edge depth/hold difficulty for MED or to an added weight for MAW, like:

Weeks 1 to 4: 3-4-5-6 set x MED SubHangs x 20” ;2’

Weeks 5 to 8: 3-4-5-6 set x MED SubHangs x 30” ;2’

c) When designing a IntHangs plan we have just learned that it’s preferable to start by changing other parameters in each 4-8 week cycle: shortening pauses, then adding more repetitions/set and later focusing on high-intensity by shortening the hanging time like this:

Weeks 1 to 4: 3-4-5-5 sets x 4 reps x MED IntHangs x 10” :5”/1’

Weeks 1 to 4: 3-4-5-5 sets x 5 reps x MED IntHangs x 10” :5”/1’

Weeks 9-10 rest

Weeks 11 to 14: 3-4-5-5 sets x 4 reps x MED IntHangs x 7” :5”/1’

Weeks 15 to 18: 3-4-5-5 sets x 5 reps x MED IntHangs x 7” :5”/1’

3.3.3. Progression by modification of the break between sets or repetitions

You’ll be right to think that this strategy makes sense in the context of IntHangs, SubHangs or other strength-endurance methods (maximal strength needs complete or near complete pauses by definition). But we should not forget that even in endurance methods the rest periods must make it possible to sustain the average intensity that we want throughout the workout.

3.3.3.1. Changing the rest period length in IntHangs and SubHangs

• IntHangs: we can, as an example, start with a 4-week cycle where the pause between repetitions is 30”. The next 4 weeks we cut it to 20”, and later we would do another cycle with 10-second pauses between repetitions. The future progression we could start making the recovery between sets shorter, going from 2 minutes to 90” to 1’.

• In SubHangs we started extending hang times; now, perhaps a season or a year later, the edge depth/hold difficulty or weight will still be fixed and our goal will switch to  briefer recovery times. Example: in the initial 4-week cycles the pause was 2’ and the hanging times 20”, 30” and 45”. Now we are in a new phase and the hang durations can go from 20” to 30” but, additionally, the time between sets will be 90”, 1’ and, in the last 4-week cycle, 30”.

3.3.2.2.2 MaxHangs and recovery

In this method we have already stated that making the rest interval length shorter is not terribly useful; the opposite is true, though, and we can rest for more than 3 minutes in the following situations:

a) When we realize that, whatever the cause, we don’t feel recovered in 3 minutes.

b) When both the absolute and relative loads are high, especially if the hang time is 8 seconds or less.

c) When we feel extra strong and during high-intensity/competition microcycles.

If the categories above don’t apply, the standard pause between sets is 3’; in case you are learning a new exercise, device or method and, thus, are using loads much lighter than the ‘real’ training ones, a 2 minutes rest would be acceptable, you have a choice there.

3.4. Designing a Training Plan: choosing a periodization model and sequencing methods

When deciding which method to choose for each case you first need to be familiar with the effects of the tools available. there is information about a study that compared the effects on grip strength of different hangboard programs, and in this one, the influence on grip endurance. To learn more about intermittent dead-hangs you can visit this blog post and this last one shows why it is better to start with a method were no added weight is used (MED hangs) if you are new to hangboarding, and when you could start with added weight (MAW hangs).

In general, if we seek long-term gains, the way to obtain greater and more sustainable improvements is to periodically change the stimulus by tuning one variable or other. This is what periodization means. We are going to achieve this via a wide range of intensities and hang durations and/or alternating or sequencing methods.

3.4.1. The most usual periodization model: Linear

In the short- and mid-term, most of our periodization proposals can be considered as linear. We are using this scheme when every four to eight weeks of MaxHangs we shorten  one or two seconds the duration of each set, increasing both the absolute and the relative intensity. The same goes for IntHangs when we tune the recovery times while keeping the same total effort duration (sets x reps x repetition duration).

Reverse periodization is another example of the linear pattern, like we do in SubHangs: the absolute intensity (edge size or hold difficulty/weight) is fixed and the hang time goes up every 4-8 weeks.

This kind of periodization is more suited for those who plan to achieve an optimal performance at an specific date or period and is also the most used in sport periodization.

When we zoom out and start looking at the long-term I propose we use a nonlinear pattern, though. There are a variety of schemes and terms, but we can point to two of the best known ones: Undulating (daily or weekly) and Block periodization. In a nutshell, they consist of frequent oscillations in intensity, with a periodicity that can go from monthly to daily.

My suggestion is choosing a linear pattern the first year we start a method and  then switching to a nonlinear one. Let’s see how this works.

3.4.2. Nonlinear models: Undulating and Block Periodization

The novelty and variety these schemes offer make them suitable for:

• Athletes with extended experience with linear periodization that do not progress anymore.
• Stretches of time when the goal is to maintain the previously acquired level, or when the goal is not reaching peak performance at a specific point in time but to perform at an average level for some time (this is habitual in team sports).
• It also makes sense when we value a more relaxed approach to training that prioritizes richness and variety of inputs.

A few examples:

a) Daily undulating periodization:

Mondays: MaxHangs; Wednesdays: IntHangs; Fridays: SubHangs.

b) Weekly undulating periodization:

Week 1: MaxHangs; Week 2: IntHangs; Week 3: SubHangs.

c) Undulating periodization oscillating the load every two weeks:

For intermediate level climbers: Weeks 1-2: SubHangs x 20”; Weeks 3-4 : MED MaxHangs x 15” (4); Weeks 5-6: MAW MaxHangs on a 18 mm edge x 10” (4) .

Turning the intensity up and down in 2-week cycles: from 20” to 10”, then 5”, 8” and so on.

I particularly like block periodization and use it a lot because it fits neatly with the others contents of the mesocycle and my vision of the macrocycle. A 12-15 week-long macrocycle is divided into blocks of 4 to 8 microcycles, each one aimed at some aspect of a quality, the idea being for all aspects to come together at the end of the macrocycle. For example:

- Block 1: 4-8 weeks of MaxHangs for maximum strength. Block 2: 8 weeks of IntHangs or SubHangs to work endurance. Block 3: rest from dead-hangs if it is a competition cycle, or 2-3 weeks of MaxHangs with shorter hang times to recover some maximum strength.

3.4.3. Sequencing and combining methods

Generally speaking, MaxHangs allow us to gain strength via neural changes, while IntHangs improve our endurance and also have certain effect on strength (possibly via hypertrophy). MaxHangs have shown some influence on endurance as well. However, these effects depend on personal characteristics, and we will explain this now.

I’ll soon be presenting at the 4th IRCRA Congress a study conducted by myself where participants with a lower level of strength would gain endurance on an 11 mm edge after performing 4-weeks of MaxHangs, while stronger ones (> 30kg for 5 seconds on MAW test on 15 mm) tended to gain little or even lose endurance after the same intervention, probably due to the fact that more trained athletes need a longer training program or higher stimulus, or more varied to experiment strength gains (Deschenes & Kraemer, 2002; Häkkinen et al., 1985; Mangine et al., 2015; 2018). In any case, with an endurance goal in mind you may opt for IntHangs directly if you fit in the latter group or propose a longer program (> 8 weeks). While if you think to belong to the former there’s a potential advantage to first gaining some strength through MaxHangs -even if your goal is endurance- and then proceed to IntHangs. The immediate result is that you will work your IntHangs on smaller edges or more challenging holds, and what climber doesn’t want to grip a succession of tiny or terrible holds?

My research also gives some pointers regarding the length of each program:

- Those new to MaxHangs can expect benefits in just 4 weeks, but strength will keep going up for 8 weeks, or even further if the hanging time is reduced (from 15 to 12 and 10 seconds, and even 7 and 5 seconds).

- The minimum recommended length of a IntHangs cycle is 8 weeks as was explained in this previous blog.

No matter what method we are dealing with, its marginal effect decreases with time, up to the point where we plateau. This is specially true of MaxHangs with times shorter than 10 seconds. Be prepared to detect this trend and implement changes before it happens (by now you won’t be surprised if I tell you that switching every 8 weeks is a good rule of thumb). At certain point, though, we have to realize that maintaining certain level can be considered a success; the body does not have an unlimited ability to adapt. In the context of strength there are facets that go beyond maximum force: explosive strength is important and at times we’ll have to make room for specific exercises like jumping to edges, explosive dead-hangs and campus board.

3.5. Samples of MaxHangs training programs

At the start of this series we noted that the examples that follow must be taken as a template; they don’t have to be completed or done in the order they are shown. The information we have provided will allow you to:

- Choosing one cycle and repeating it while it still yields some benefit, the default when you are new to a method or start from a low level for some reason.

- Picking one method and sticking with it for one cycle, for example 8 weeks of MED or MAW (instead of 4 wk MAWt + 4 wk MED).

- Shaping the programs to suit your preferences and experience, playing with one variable like hang time, number of sets, etc.

- Applying different linear and nonlinear periodization patterns.

And remember that in the long run there is no “magic bullet”meaning magic load or method, and the stimuli need to be varied periodically and keep in mind the “minimal effective dose” rule. Review all the info if necessary.

3.5.1. MaxHangs planning proposal for lower levels of finger strength climbers and beginners in fingerboarding

Clic to enlarge

3.5.2. MaxHangs planning proposal for those familiar with hangboarding and climbers with medium level of finger strength

Clic to enlarge

3.5.3. MaxHangs planning proposal for expert, high-level hangboarders

Clic to enlarge

3.6. Tips for reducing the incidence of overuse syndrome and plateauing, a for monitoring your training

• Signs of excessive load while working out: raising the shoulders, elbows, torso or legs, and too much tension anywhere in the body.

• Signs of excessive fatigue that should convince you of aborting, and delaying the session one or two days: difference >2 mm in edge depth or >25 % in added weight from the previous session. Smaller, occasional differences can in principle be due to normal fatigue and require just adjusting the load.

• Signs of inadequate load progression: needing an easier edge or added weight for >2 sessions in a row; pain in fingers, wrists, elbows or neck; reduced performance in general. Revise your planning and do lighter workouts while you figure it out.

• Start with the plan for beginners after your holidays, when you finished re-conditioning after an injury and, of course, if you are a beginner. Rest for 1-2 weeks after every 4-week MaxHangs cycle or 8 weeks of IntHangs.

• In advanced phases and long cycles rest for 2 weeks after 8 weeks of MaxHangs or 16 of IntHangs, and observe two or more one-month no-hangs periods every year.

• Keep a training log: exercises, edge sizes/hold difficulty and weights, perceived fatigue and progression, incidents, etc.; it helps monitoring your process, self-knowledge an motivation.

• Signs of an effective planning: being able to hold smaller edges/more difficult holds or heavier weights as the cycle goes on. If your evolution feels a bit slow remember that the higher your starting level is the slower and smaller the gains will be, and vice versa.

And this ends today’s post. Thank you very much for your motivation, I hope you com back for more as I follow with this series, which will feature IntHangs and SubHangs programs as well as nonlinear periodization examples where MaxHangs, IntHangs and SubHangs will be combined.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fingerboard training Guidelines: Condensed version of the info in this series in format poster

The training guidelines that are provided with the Progression and Transgression hangboards  in format poster (330 x 483 mm) contain a condensed version of the info in this series, plus IntHangs programs yet to be published. These guides are now also available separately from the boards. You can order them now at oriol@surfacesforclimbing.com. Its price is 18€ if you live in Europe, and 20€ for the rest of countries.

"Progression hangboard training guide". Indicated for beginners and lower-level in finger strength climbers

"Transgression hangboard training guide". Indicated for intermediate- lo higher-level in finger strength climbers

LINKS RELATED

• Fingerboard Training Guide (II). Maximal grip Strength and Endurance Methods and Load Training management
• Fingerboard training guide (I). Preliminary evaluation
• Maximal hangs, Intermittent Hangs (Repeaters) or a Combination. Which 8-week program is more effective for developing grip strength in rock climbers?
• Why do intermittent dead hangs?
• Comparison on the effects on finger endurance of Max Hangs vs. Int Hangs vs. a combination. (ahead of print in Journal of Human Kinetics).
• Some Finger Training Instructional Videos
• Intermittent Dead Hangs Programs for Your Smartphone

REFERENCES

• Deschenes, M. R., & Kraemer, W. J. (2002). Performance and Physiologic. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(Suppl), S3–S16.
• Chennaoui, M., Arnal, P. J., Sauvet, F., & Léger, D. (2015). Sleep and exercise: A reciprocal issue? Sleep Medicine Reviews, 20(June), 59–72.
• Fullagar, H. H. K., Skorski, S., Duffield, R., Hammes, D., Coutts, A. J., & Meyer, T. (2015). Sleep and Athletic Performance: The Effects of Sleep Loss on Exercise Performance, and Physiological and Cognitive Responses to Exercise. Sports Medicine, 45(2), 161–186.
• Mangine, G. T., Hoffman, J. R., Gonzalez, A. M., Townsend, J. R., Wells, A. J., Jajtner, A. R., … Stout, J. R. (2015). The effect of training volume and intensity on improvements in muscular strength and size in resistance-trained men. Physiological Reports, 3(8), e12472. 
• Mangine, G. T., Gonzalez, A. M., Townsend, J. R., Adam, J., Beyer, K. S., Miramonti, A. A., & Ratamess, N. A. (2018). Influence of Baseline Muscle Strength and Size Measures on Training Adaptations in Resistance-trained Men. International Journal of Exercise Science, 11(4), 198–213.
• Morán‑Navarro, R., Pérez, C. E., Mora‑Rodríguez, R., de La Cruz‑Sánchez, E., González‑badillo, J. J., Sánchez‑Medina, L., Pallarés, G. (2017). Time course of recovery following resistance training leading or not to failure. Eur J Appl Physiol, 117(12), 2387–2399.

Fingerboard training guide (I). Preliminary evaluation

Tweet

Versión en español

We have already talked extensively about how, why and what effects do Maximal Hangs (MaxHangs) and Intermittent Hangs (IntHangs) have on grip endurance and strength. What follows is the start of a series where we will put all those results into practice.

I will suggest a set of guidelines to build a training program; we will see how to progressively modify volume and intensity for each method. Later we will review some MaxHangs and IntHangs planning proposals, and learn when to use them (by themselves or combined) according to your short-, mid- and long-term goals.

Disclaimer: the guidelines and planning that I’m going to put forward are just a subset of all the possible combinations that can yield positive results, which include those proposed by other authors and, of course, the ones that you will create. Anyway, to help you make informed decisions I think it is a good idea to go step by step. Here we go!

I. The current state of affairs: Preliminary Evaluation

There are some questions you need to ask yourself before submitting your fingers to such an intensive and specific method to make sure it will benefit your performance:

1.1. Have you been climbing and training in a systematized fashion for more than 2 years?

Systematized means training or climbing 2-3 days per week, with some consistency and order, specially for the last year, given that the first couple of years it is normal to have a less organized approach to the sport.

On the other hand, this requisite acknowledges that while muscles can adapt to the sport in a matter of months, other structures like capsules, cartilages, tendons and ligaments take years to develop the mechanical adaptations (thickness, tensile strength, etc.) needed to safely perform dead-hangs. Based on my experience and what literature says, I would suggest two to three years as a reasonable interval.

The following question is important although it can overlap slightly with the previous one:

1.2. Do you have an average technical-tactical repertoire?

If you don’t have a lot of spare time for training and are wondering whether to invest part of it on training your fingers, would that detract from the much needed technical gains that you would achieve by climbing in the gym instead and are so important in the early years?

Johnny Dawes. Source: Into the Wild Blog

1.3. Are you 16 or older? Are you past your growth spurt?

The works of  Morrison & Schöffl (2007)  and Schweizer (2012) show correlation between intensive finger training and the use of the crimp grip before puberty and the incidence of severe injuries like stress fractures. The most dangerous period is the growth spurt that takes place at age 11-12 in girls and 13-14 in boys, but the risk remains until the growth plates (the zone where the bones grow) are closed.

Regularly using the full crimp and the half crimp under high loads, like grabbing tiny holds or applying high acceleration on medium ones, can harm an adult’s ligaments, sheaths, capsules, tendons or ligaments, while a youngster can experience from sporadic inflammation and pain to tears, fractures and chronic deformity. The problem is that this tissue is 2-5 times weaker than its surroundings, and one of them is located just where it meets the flexor digitorum superficialis (see picture below).

 When crimping, the dorsal area at the base of the medial phalanx bears a considerable tension precisely where the growth plate is located (copyright by Swiss Medical Weekly, 2012, 142, 1–9)

By the way, we should take this into account when designing our climbing classes and setting routes and boulders in the gym or in competitions.

Iziar Martínez Almendros, a promising climber competing at the “Open La Ola 2017” in Salamanca, Spain. Source: Instagram

If you are still interested in kids developing some grip strength don’t worry, there is a blog post coming to help you precisely with that.

1.4. Are you injury-free? Do you suffer from any condition that makes finger training inadvisable?

Have you adequately recovered from your last injury?

The less severe lesions take at least 2 months to heal, others can take 6 or more. In truth, once the subacute phase is over and reconditioning work starts, dead-hangs are not out of the question. An experienced physical therapist can guide you through a routine of analytic exercises followed by assisted dead-hangs (with rubber bands or pulleys) on deep, rounded holds. In all cases the programs will NOT be the ones recommended in this series.

1.5. What are your level and objectives?

1.5.1. Is your finger strength low, but not ‘very low’?

Check this with the following test on a 25 mm edge (one phalanx and a half):

- If you can hang for 15 seconds you could start doing dead-hangs as a method to develop your grip strength.

- If your time is less than 15 seconds I’d suggest you work your fingers by climbing instead of using an analytic method. Remember my philosophy: “Use the easiest dose, exercise and method that still makes you improve”. If I were you, I’d rather keep on developing my strength by climbing than doing hangs on a deep edge or a bar; instead, you could:

- Occasionally climb on steeper (more overhanging) walls than you are used to.

- Including some (10-20%) small foot- and handholds in your training routes or boulders.

Gekoaventura, Indoor Adventure and Climbing Park in Valladolid, Spain.

It’s still possible that you like to try every kind of method from the very beginning, and you have the time and capacity for it; in the end the choice is always yours.

1.5.2. Using a percentile table to assess the starting level

We can add some extra information to the test above by getting an idea of our position relative to a climber population. I built a percentile table based on data from a 2004 study of maximal hang time on several wooden edges (6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 mm) that was part of my thesis (n=37, levels 6a to 8c+). However, please be aware that the sample size is small and that in the intervening 14 years the population level must have changed. In this line, we have to take in account that this statistical measure is dependent on the study sample features (Spanish climbers, living in Toledo and Madrid, who trained and climbing in specific areas...) so you should be cautious when interpreting it. You can take it as a curiosity. Furthermore, you also need to follow the standardized test protocol (check my Doctoral thesis) to be able to compare the results.

The percentile is a measure that tells us in what position a mark is with respect to a population. In this table, if your maximum time on 14 mm is 30 seconds, then you are approximately in the 25th percentile, which means that in a representative sample of 100 people around 25 would have a worse time than yours and around 75 would do better than you.

As an interesting aside, the 14 mm test was the most reliable and showed a significant positive correlation with sport level. This means that it could be used for predicting performance or even detecting new talent, but always as part of a suite of metrics that measure other physical, technical, tactical, psychological or anthropometric aspects.

Three broad categories can be established based on the table:

Lower level: those equal or below the 25th percentile, like hanging for less than 10 seconds off a 10 mm edge.

Intermediate level: between the 25th and the 75th percentiles.

Higher level: above the 85th percentile.

1.5.3. Objectives and training grip type

If your usual climbing spot or your choice project require climbing on edges, specially at the crux, it’s advisable to train the half crimp or the open crimp (check this series to learn about grip types). If, instead, it’s mainly pockets or slopers it will be a good idea to train the open hand. For training your pinch strength, have a look at this blog post.

Anyway, if you have the capacity, time, experience and level (medium to high) consider training 4 days/week with 2 days for each grip type and 48h rest between them, or work both the same day reducing 25-30% the volume of each grip; for example, instead of doing 3 sets of half crimp/open crimp and 3 of open hand, do just 2 of each. If you need to choose one grip type do it attending to your weaknesses or, by the contrary, looking at what increases your immediate chances of success.

Here ends the first phase of “Designing your own dead-hangs training plan”. The next article will tackle Methodology: naming conventions and methods: MinEd, MaxW, IntHangs, load management and which fingerboard to choose.

LINKS RELATED

-Maximal hangs, Intermittent Hangs (Repeaters) or a Combination. Which 8-week program is more effective for developing grip strength in rock climbers?

-Why do intermittent dead hangs?
- López-Rivera, E. y González-Badillo, J.J. (2012). The effects of two maximum grip strength training methods using the same effort duration and different edge depth on grip endurance in elite climbers. Sport Technol 5: 1–11.
Abstract of my article studying the effect on finger endurance of Max Hangs vs. Int Hangs vs. a combination.
-Some hangboarding Instructional Videos
- Intermittent Dead Hangs Programs for Your Smartphone-Complex Timer: A Training app for Climbing
- Published Research Article, and a Summary of the Guidelines on finger strength Methodology described in this Blog
- #1 Doubts about finger training — The Arch Climbing Wall

REFERENCIAS

• Balyi, I., & Hamilton, A. (2004). Long-Term Athlete Development: Trainability in Childhood and Adolescence, Windows of Opportunity, Optimal Trainability. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: National Coaching Institute British Columbia and Advanced Training and Performance Ltd.
• Canadian Sport for Life. (2017). Sport climbing for sport, for life. LTAD Long Term Athlete Development. Canadian Sport for Life.
• Morrison, A. B., & Schöffl, V. R. (2007). Physiological responses to rock climbing in young climbers. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 41(12), 852–861; discussion 861.
• Schweizer, A. (2012). Sport climbing from a medical point of view. Swiss Medical Weekly, 142(October), 1–9.
• Schöffl, V., Lutter, C., Woollings, K., & Schöffl, I. (2018). Pediatric and adolescent injury in rock climbing. Research in Sports Medicine, 26(1), 91–113.

My paper on The effect on finger endurance of Max Hangs vs. Int Hangs vs. a combination.

Tweet
Versión en español

As I advanced a couple of days ago through social media, I'm happy to announce that past January one of my latest research articles was accepted for publication in The Journal of Human Kinetics, a peer-reviewed, open-access journal. This means you'll be able to read the paper without the need to pay for a subscription or a fee.

Pending the assignment of a DOI (digital object identifier), when the full text paper will be available, here is the abstract, as a little teaser and following this link you will be able to download the preprint version. It is important to remember that, though the abstract gives you a general overview of the contents, it is advisable to read the full text when it is available. By doing so you’ll get all the nuance that will help you understand the methodology and judge the results in the context of its particular experimental design in order to arrive to your own conclusions and eventually extract something useful for your training.

So, without further ado, here it is, brief but intense. Hoping you’ll be eager for more, enjoy it!

“Comparison of the Effects of Three Hangboard Strength and Endurance Training Programs on Grip Endurance in Sport Climbers”

Note. This article has been accepted for print in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Human Kinetics. The full text shall appear in the InPress section in the upcoming weeks; then the DOI will be assigned and the whole manuscript will be available online in the journal website. The abstract appears here in its accepted, peer-reviewed form, as it was provided by the submitting author.

Article title: “Comparison of the Effects of Three Hangboard Strength and Endurance Training Programs on Grip Endurance in Sport Climbers”

Authors: Eva López-Rivera1; Juan José González-Badillo2

Affiliations: 1 Faculty of Sport Sciences, Castilla La-Mancha University, Toledo, Spain. 2 Faculty of Sport Sciences, Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain.

Journal: Journal of Human Kinetics.

Acceptance date: 31 January 2018.

Abstract

Intermittent isometric endurance of the forearm flexors is a determinant factor of sport climbing performance. However, little is known about the best method to improve grip endurance in sport climbing regarding maximal or intermittent dead-hang training methods. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of three 8-week finger training programs using dead-hangs (maximal, intermittent, and a combination) on grip endurance. Twenty-six advanced sport climbers (7c+/8a mean climbing ability) were randomly distributed among three groups: maximal dead-hangs with maximal added weight on an 18 mm edge followed by MaxHangs on minimal edge depth; intermittent dead-hangs using the minimal edge depth, and a combination of both. The grip endurance gains and effect size were 34% and 0.6, respectively, for the group following maximal dead-hang training, 45% and 1, respectively, for the group following intermittent dead-hang training, and 7% and 0.1, respectively, for the group applying the combination of both training methods. Grip endurance increased significantly after 4 weeks in the group performing intermittent dead-hangs (p = 0.004) and after 8 weeks in both groups performing intermittent dead-hangs (p = 0.002) and MaxHangs (p = 0.010). The results suggest that the intermittent dead-hangs training method seems to be more effective for grip endurance development after eight week application in advanced sport-climbers. However, both methods, maximal and intermittent dead-hangs, could be alternated for longer training periods.

Key words: rock climbing, dead-hang training, intermittent isometric training, strength, endurance, climbing performance.

A collage of pictures capturing some moments of my -hard but also enjoyable - researching days with my dear "guinea pigs". Massive thanks, without all of you, this wouldn't have been possible!! Note: The pictures are from 2004 and 2010, excepting that one of my hand, from 2011)

From today (5 July of 2018), you will be able to find and if you wish, to download the preprint version of the paper here.

LINKS RELATED

- Maximal hangs, Intermittent Hangs (Repeaters) or a Combination. Which 8-week program is more effective for developing grip strength in rock climbers?

-Why do intermittent dead hangs?

-Dead Hang Training (6 of 6): The Intermittent Dead Hangs Method (Video)

-Presentation of the article "Comparison of the effects of Three Hangboard Training programs on Maximal Finger strength in rock climbers" at the 3rd IRCRA congress (PDF version)

-Comparison of the Effects of Three Hangboard Training Programs on Maximal Finger Strength in Rock Climbers (conference paper)

-Intermittent Dead Hangs Programs for Your Smartphone-Complex Timer: A Training app for Climbing

- The effects of two maximum grip strength training methods using the same effort duration and different edge depth on grip endurance in elite climbers

Maximal hangs, Intermittent Hangs (Repeaters) or a Combination. Which 8-week program is more effective for developing grip strength in rock climbers?

Tweet

Versión en español

The previous entry was a first look at the Intermittent dead-hangs training method. There I explained why I chose that name over Repeaters and presented the INTRODUCTION to the first of my studies that compared this method to others, focusing on their effect on finger strength and endurance. This particular work was presented at the III International Rock Congress set up by the IRCRA that took place in Telluride (USA) in 2016. Today, as promised, we will have a more detailed discussion about each aspect of the study:

Goals, Methods, Results, Discussion and Practical Applications

(CONDENSED INFOGRAPHIC at the bottom).

You have the full text of the article in this link; so, instead of reproducing it here verbatim I will explain and elaborate every part except for the introduction, that we have already covered in the previous post. As you might know, the length of a text to be presented in a congress has a limit, just 2 pages in this case.

Beginning the presentation of my study:“Comparison of the Effects of Three Hangboard Training Programs on Maximal Finger Strength in Rock Climbers” at Telluride (Colorado, USA), III IRCRA congress

Photo: Real Life Photographs

OBJECTIVES

Comparing the effects on maximal grip strength of an 8-week Maximal Dead-hangs training program (MAXHANGS_MAXHANGS) with an Intermittent Dead-hangs one (INTHANGS_INTHANGS) and a third that combined Maximal and Intermittent Dead-hangs (MAXHANGS_INTHANGS).

METHODS

Apparatus

The device chosen to perform the training and the tests was the one described in López-Rivera and González-Badillo (2012), and consisted on and edge that could be adjusted in depth with a precision of millimeters (Dimensions 500x250x24 mm; by Eva López and Dafnis Fernández, 2004; Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License).

Participants

After being informed in writing about the objectives, characteristics and risks of the study, 26 rock climbers (23 male, 3 female) with and average redpoint level in the past 6 months of 7c+/8a (min 7a, max 9a), 31.7 years of age and 11.7 years of climbing experience were selected under the following criteria:

a) more than 2 years of climbing experience.

b) being active in the sport during the previous 6 months.

c) not having trained dead-hangs for the past 4 months.

d) having a redpoint level of at least 7a.

e) being more than 25 years old.

f) not suffering from an injury or condition that made inadvisable to follow an intensive physical training.

The participants signed their consent and were asked not to change their daily habits or engage in any additional physical activity other than the one prescribed for the duration of the intervention.

Procedures

Strength Test (ST)

This was the one proposed by the aforementioned authors, which had already validated it by observing the significant positive correlation between the test results and redpoint level (r = 0.51; p < 0.001). The ST took place before starting the intervention, in week 5 after the first four weeks of training and in week 9, after the eighth week of training (see figure below). Data collection was carried out at the Club Vertical climbing facility (Toledo, Spain).

The training session 48 hours before the test was light, and 24 hours prior to the test no sport activity was allowed. Each participant knew the conditions and rules of the test and had learned the right dead-hangs technique. The successive tests were conducted the same day of the week, at the same time and in similar conditions of temperature and air moisture. The warm-up before the test was a 15-minute standardized routine that included neck, shoulders arms, wrists, fingers, upper body, hip and legs mobilization; a specific part of 3-5 dead-hangs followed, decreasing edge depth (20-15 mm according to sport level) and increasing hanging time (10-20 seconds), with pauses 2-3 minutes long. A 5-minute rest was observed before the test itself, during which weight and height were measured. Then the ST was conducted.

A 15 mm edge was chosen for ST, using the half-crimp grip, with extended elbows and the maximum added weight that could be held for 5 seconds. The load was determined as follows: the first try an added weight was chosen that would allow the participant to hang for 15-20 seconds. Then, with 5-minute intervals, 5 to 10 kg were added taking into account the previous try’s perceived intensity. The goal was to reach the maximum load in five tries at most, to prevent the effects of fatigue. When the participant could not keep contact of all fingers with the edge, flexed their arms or modified the angle of the shoulders or the hip with the torso before the 5-second mark, the test was finished and load for the last valid try was recorded.

Among all possible grip types, the half-crimp was chosen because it is the most used on small holds (Bollen, 1988; Schweizer, 2001, Quaine & Vigouroux, 2004, Watts, 2004), small hold size being characteristic of the hardest sections in difficult routes (Quaine & Vigouroux, 2004, Watts, 2004), along with shape and texture. Lastly, dead-hangs were selected due to several authors considering it a climbing-specific exercise (Vigouroux et col., 2006; Watts et col., 2008), and it being a popular one among climbers.

Michaela Kiersch training at the First Ascent Avondale climbing gym (Chicago, USA). Picture: Musenpet.  Source: Facebook

Experimental Design

Based on the results of the first ST the participants were randomly assigned to one of three training groups using the ABCCBA method:

1- MaxHangs_MaxHangs: this group did in the first four weeks of training 3 to 5 sets of 10-second dead-hangs on an 18-mm edge with added weight (named as MAW = maximal added weight at the infographic at the bottom). The weight should allow the athlete to hang for 13 seconds, which implies a 3-second margin (effort level = 3; term proposed by González-Badillo & Gorostiaga in 1993). The pause between sets was 3 minutes. During the next 4 weeks,  the progression in number of sets,  hanging time, effort margin and pause were the same; the difference was that no added weight was used: the load was adjusted by choosing the smallest (less deep) edge (named as MED = Minimal edge, at the infographic at the bottom) that would allow to hang for 13 seconds.

Warming-up was specific to these methods, doing 3-4 sets with increasing added weight or decreasing edge depth (50-90% of previous session’s load). There was a need to determine the load for the first set of the first day of training: the climber would estimate an added weight or edge depth that would permit a 13-second repetition. If this repetition was perceived as too difficult or too easy for the session, some weight (2-5 kg depending on body weight) or edge depth (1-2 mm) was added or subtracted to keep the load constant. This procedure was iterated in each set. For context, the strongest athlete used 55 kg / 5 mm, the less strong 5kg / 10 mm.

Presenting at Telluride. Thanks to Kaycee Joubert, from Real Life Photographs for taking this picture and to Shauna Coxsey por giving permission to use hers!

2- IntHangs_IntHangs: the Intermittent method in the first 4 weeks consisted of 3-5 sets of 4 repetitions, each repetition being a 10-second dead-hang; the pause was 5 seconds between repetitions and 1 minute between sets. No added weight was used, the load was managed by choosing the smallest edge (MED) that would allow to complete all the prescribed volume and reach failure or close to failure in the last repetition of the last set. The second 4-week segment the number of repetitions per set went from 4 to 5.

For this method a different warming-up procedure was followed: 4-5 10-second sets, with a 5-second pause and decreasing edge size; the edge for the first set should have allowed the climber to hang for one minute, which amounted to 5-10 mm deeper than the training edge from the last session. For the first set of the first training session the initial training edge was deep enough to hang for up to 30 seconds.

Load training management was analogue to the MaxHang method: if the participant  estimated that the current edge was going to be too easy or too hard to complete the volume close to failure, he or she would change to a smaller or bigger one. For reference, the smallest edge used with this method was 8 mm, the deepest, 22 mm.

3- MaxHangs_IntHangs: This group combined both methods. The first 4 weeks they trained with added weight like group 1 (MAW); the following 4 weeks, 3 to 5 sets of 4 repetitions of 10-second dead-hangs with the same parameters as group 2. The intensity was adjusted as has already been described.

Across all methods the hanging time was 10 seconds, the number of sets 3 to 5. Every athlete had to manage the training load dynamically throughout the session by choosing a different added weight or edge depth to keep the relative intensity constant.

This said, there was a difference in total volume among methods, because MaxHangs amounted to 30 to 50 seconds per workout while total hanging time in IntHangs was 120 to 250 seconds.
Furthermore, the Max methods avoided failure by prescribing a 3-second margin, while IntHangs actively aimed for failure at the end.

The rationale behind the 10-second hanging duration, and for the 10 to 5 work/pause ratio respectively can be found in the previous blog post.

Training Program

Dead-hang programs

The set/reps configuration, hanging time and pause duration for each group can be found in this figure:

Physical-technical training

It is worth noting that the athletes did not reduce their workout to dead-hangs only; these were instead integrated into a weekly plan as it would be the case in real life. Therefore, there were conditioning and climbing contents carried out in the climbing gym. The whole of the training schedule was an 8-week standardized cycle (ATR-model, block periodization approach; edited on 20 March 2018), adapted to each person, that included all contents. This plan was built and supervised by Eva López.

Dead-hang workouts were done on Mondays and Wednesdays, after the mentioned standard warm-up. A 15-minute recovery would follow and then the other contents for the day according to the mesocycle: physical conditioning like maximal and sub-maximal pull-ups, core; as well as extensive or intensive interval, repetition or projecting methods on boulders and routes, no name but a few.

Gym work happened Monday to Thursday, the weekend was devoted to rock climbing. The participants were instructed to do 1-2 routes for warming-up and 1-2 close to their maximum level. All of this was checked via daily feedback shared by the climbers.

Eva López. Club Vertical climbing facility (Toledo). Photo: Javipec

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Descriptive statistics (averages, standard deviations) were obtained for age, years of training, height, weight, sport level in the last 6 months and ST results. A repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction was applied to assess the intra- and inter-group differences in strength. Pearson’s correlation was computed to look at the relations between variables as well as the effect size (ES) to check for intra-group changes (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). An ES < 0.25 was defined as moderate and > 1 as big in line with the scale proposed by Rhea (2004) for strength training interventions with highly trained athletes.

RESULTS

The differences among groups in ST were not significant, either before and after 4 and 8 weeks of training. However, it is worth noting the 28% of improvement in ST after 8 weeks experienced by the MaxHang_MaxHang group, as well as that the strength gains only reached statistical significance in this group and not in the others; and the better outcome after 4 weeks of the groups  that did MaxHangs with added weight (15% and 20%) in contrast with the IntHangs group (4.6%).

The second interesting result was the relatively small change in strength by IntHangs_IntHangs after 4 weeks (4.6%) that tripled at the end of the 8th week (13.9%), a result comparable with what MaxHangs achieved in the first 4 weeks.

Finally, the group that changed from MaxHangs to IntHangs in the 5th week lost almost 7% of the gains developed during the MaxHangs mesocycle.

Results by group in the strength test (maximal added weight hold for 5 seconds off a 15 mm edge, half-crimp grip) after 4 and 8 weeks of training. Source: www.researchgate.net/profile/Eva_Lopez-Rivera

DISCUSSION

To the extent of our knowledge this is the first work to compare the effects on grip strength of a MaxHangs program, an IntHangs program and a combination of both in experienced sport climbers  (7c+/8a average level, 12 years of experience). The most effective program after 4 and 8 weeks of training was MaxHangs_MaxHangs, which was also the only one to show significant change in ST3 (p < 0.05).

CHANGES AFTER 4 WEEKS

The early gains yielded by MaxHangs after 4 weeks with added weight can be attributed to neural changes (Hakkinen & Komi, 1985a; Hakkinen et col., 1998; Sale et col., 1998) and are comparable to the 15-18% observed after 4 to 6 weeks of a similar isometric training (3 to 10-second sets, >80% MVC, complete recovery) by Ikai & Fukunaga (1970), Cannon & Cafarelli (1987) and Davies et col. (1988) with untrained subjects. Also in this line Judge et col. (2003) reported maximal isometric force going up by 15% in throwers after gradually increasing volume and intensity during a 16-week period, in this case through dynamic exercises.

We are not aware of other studies that assessed the effects of a static training with loads on trained athletes, as is the case of this one. On the other hand there are several examples of dynamic exercises producing strength improvements in athletes by the use of loads. Hickson et col. (1988) found a 30% significant change in 1 RM in cyclists that underwent a 10-week cycle doing 3x5 RM strength exercises. The fact that this figure is higher than the one registered by us could be explained by the longer duration of the intervention, or by the participants lacking experience with lower body strength training while having a well-developed specific endurance; the authors do not mention whether this is the case or not.

The only work we have found where a 4 week dead-hangs program is carried out, by Medernach et al. (2015), included a group of boulderers who significantly improved their time to fatigue with the maximum added weight corresponding to an initial hanging test for 6 seconds off a 19 mm edge, by contrast with the group that only did bouldering, with significant but more modest gains (12.5± 2.5 seconds, 8.6 ± 2.0 seconds respectively). However, these results can’t be compared with ours, having a different test and intervention design, mainly because instead of setting different dead-hangs methods side to side it compared a control group with another that did 1 session of MaxHangs and 2 of IntHangs each week; additionally, the dead-hangs programs included pull-ups and lock-offs.

Effects of intermittent dead-hangs after 4 weeks

The IntHangs group improved their strength just 4.6% at ST2. One reason can be not using added weight, or that the intensity was lower than in the other groups; these factors have been shown to be related with maximal strength going up in experienced athletes like the ones in this study (Hakkinen, 1994; Tan, 1999; Fry, 2004; Peterson, Rhea & Alvar, 2005). The lower intensity results from the incomplete character of the recovery pauses (5 seconds between repetitions, 1 minute between sets) as well as from the higher resulting TUT (time under tension) (Rhea et col., 2003; Watts et col., 2004; Mirzaei et col. 2008), that make it unfeasible to maintain a high absolute load during the session. Our estimate is that the relative intensity was 70-80%, corresponding to 30 seconds of maximal hanging time, compared to the 90% which could be associated to the 13 seconds of MaxHangs.

CHANGES AFTER 8 WEEKS

The MaxHang group confirmed the trend after the first training phase and ended up ahead of the others in ST3, after 8 weeks of training (28% up, compared to 13.9% IntHangs_IntHangs and 13.4% MaxHangs_IntHangs). Added weight probably played a role in this respect, causing greater muscle activation and recruitment of motor units (Hakkinen et col., 1985a and 1985b; Sale, 1988; Harris, 2000), which in turn made possible to use smaller edges during the last four weeks resulting in sustained strength gains.

This 28% change in 8 weeks is lower than the 35% improvement in MVC obtained by Jones & Rutherford (1987) with isometric training, doing 4 x 6 repetitions at 80% of MVC, 4 seconds per repetition and 2 seconds between repetitions for 12 weeks. Rich & Cafarelli (2002) registered also a notable 35% change in MVC in 8 weeks doing 5 x10 maximal contractions, 3 to 5 seconds in duration each. These figures could be attributed to the workouts being prescribed to persons lacking strength training experience, where greater development is to be expected.

As far as we know there are no studies looking at experienced athletes doing static training for more than 4 weeks. However, gains similar to the ones shown in this study, 20 to 30%,  have been reported in dynamic tests with participants familiar with strength training (Hakkinen et col., 1985b), trained cyclists (Rønnestad et col., 2010) or competitive swimmers (Tanaka et col., 1993) who performed dynamic training, 1 to 10 RM for 10 weeks.

The better outcome in strength of the group that worked their strength first with added weight and then without it (MaxHang_MaxHang) compared to the other two groups is consistent with the findings of our previous study (López-Rivera & González-Badillo, 2012), where this sequence of exercises also showed a greater effect on strength than the opposite, starting with the minimal edge depth exercise and following with added weight. It is worth noting that this earlier work yielded a 1.34% improvement in strength (for 28% of the current one), a difference which may result from the disparity in level between samples (8a average, 7a min., 9a max. 11.1 years of practice versus 8a+/b average, 8a min., 8c+ max and 16 years of experience in the earlier work). As suggested by authors like Hakkinen et col. (1987) or Peterson, Rhea & Alvar (2004), the expected change after a given training gets smaller as sport level and experience go up. Stronger athletes familiar with strength training show a smaller adaptive response and need a higher dose of strength training (Hakkinen et col., 1987).

THE EFFECTS OF THE INTERMITTENT HANGS METHOD

The second noteworthy result concerns group 2, which used a method generally deemed to promote strength-endurance. Strength going up 4.6% in ST2 did not come as a surprise, but then they achieved a 13.9% change from ST1 to ST3).

The literature offers a possible cause for this good outcome after 8 weeks; doing 4-5 repetitions per set, 10 seconds each repetition amounts to a long TUT; in addition the intensity is sub-maximal and the pause incomplete (5 seconds between repetitions and 1 minute between sets). These characteristics have been hypothesized as promoters of strength by hypertrophy, mainly by adding sarcomeres in parallel rather in series (Kraemer et col., 1990; Hakkinen, 1994; Behm, 1995; Robinson et col., 1995; Fleck & Kraemer, 1997; Hoffman et col., 2003; Goto et col., 2005; Toito & Boutellier, 2006; Ratamess et col., 2007, Willardson, 2007; Miranda et col., 2009) caused by high lactate-induced metabolic stress, hormonal stress, muscle damage and, most importantly, by mechanical tension associated to moderate to high-load training (Hakinnen et col., 1994; Goto et col., 2005; Schoenfeld, 2012), effect becoming more evident after 6-8 weeks of training unlike in the case of the neural adaptations characteristic of the first weeks of training (Hakkinen & Komi, 1985a; Hakkinen et col., 1998; Sale et col., 1998).

The 13.9 difference in strength after 8 weeks of doing 3 - 5 x 4 - 5 x10” :5”/1’ are below the 33% change in MVC after 8 weeks of electrostimulation of the first dorsal interossei of the hand in the form of 4 sets of ten 10-second repetitions with 20 seconds of pause between repetitions and 2 minutes between sets, by Davies et col. (1988). Jones & Rutherford (1987) also recorded a 35% increase in MVC when doing 4 x 6 isometric contractions at 80% MVC, each repetition 4 seconds long, 2-second pauses between repetitions for 12 weeks. Another result that yielded higher figures than ours is Schott et col. (1983), after a 5-week intervention where the participants performed 10 sets of 3-second isometric contractions, with pauses of 2”/1’, and ended up gaining 31%. Lastly, McDonagh et col. (1983) observed a 20% MVC improvement when doing 30 to 50,  3 – 5 seconds long isometric contractions of the elbow flexors, with a recovery duration of 20 seconds, for 5 weeks. All these works used a variety of protocols that differ with ours, but they have in common the participation of persons who lacked experience in strength training, and this may explain part of the differences in outcome. There is one study where an isometric training program was prescribed to trained athletes: Gondin et col. (2005) looked at the effects of 32 18-minute sessions of 40 isometric contractions via electrostimulation of the knee extensors, the change amounting to 6% and 27% after 4 and 8 weeks respectively. While the first 4 weeks the numbers of this study and ours are comparable, the gap widens at the end of the 8th week, probably due to the mentioned work involving a longer TUT than the IntHangs exercise (25 10-second contractions at most); this variable has been advanced as a factor affecting in the magnitude of hypertrophy by some authors (Sale et col., 1985 [in Wemborg et col., 2007]) and its associated strength gains.

EFFECTS OF THE COMBINATION OF 4 WEEKS OF MAXIMAL DEAD-HANGS AND 4 WEEKS OF INTERMITTENT DEAD-HANGS

We want to underline a last interesting result, the 6% loss in strength by the MaxHangs_IntHangs group (group 3) from the 5th to the 8th week after the positive change observed in the first 4 weeks with added weight. Changing the stimulus to a lighter one could be behind this downturn. Similarly, Rhea et col. (2003) observed an effect size (ES) of negative 0.31 in 1 RM after increasing the number of repetitions every five weeks from 15RM to 20RM and 25RM, and thus diminishing the intensity, compared to a control group where the intensity went up, from 25RM to 20RM and 15RM

 On the other hand, a training method that involves incomplete recovery on small edges is more suitable for improving strength-endurance and is liable to provoke a level of fatigue after 4 weeks that the climbers can’t recover from when the time for ST3 comes, not to mention the implications that can have on the effects of the IntHangs, the fact that this group obtained great strength improvements in ST2. Presumably, being able to train with this tiring method using smaller edges could provoke greater fatigue due to a greater muscle activation (Ahtiainen & Häkkinen, 2009) (Also, the smaller the hold is, the more mechanical tension is needed to grip it effectively, and the more intense  -physical and psychological- the resulting effort is). As Anderson & Kearney (1982) suggest, training-induced fatigue can have different effects depending on the way it is produced. In their work, the participants who did a higher volume (100-150 RM) experienced greater homeostatic perturbations in the muscle.

Lastly we have to keep in mind that individual characteristics like muscle fiber composition (Thorstensson & Karlsson, 1976; Willardson, 2006) or genetic profile (Ginszt et al., 2018) that can lead to a greater fatigability among other consequences, can have a non-trivial effect on training response (as hinted by the large standard deviation recorded in this group) when the sample size is as small as ours and therefore a big impact on final results.

Taking all this into account we would suggest carrying out a follow-up study that extended the program by doing 8 additional weeks of IntHangs.

CONCLUSION AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Summing up, the group that displayed greater strength gains was the one that did 8 weeks of MaxHangs. The IntHangs_IntHangs group experienced little change in the first four weeks but strength went up noticeable after the last four, probably because there was time for hypertrophy to set in. Last, it seems that 4 weeks of MaxHangs and 4 weeks of IntHangs would not be advisable in terms of strength outcome, presumably due to 4 weeks being too short a duration for the second method.

The overall results are indicative that MaxHangs are more suited to develop grip strength in climbing, specially in the short and medium term. Nevertheless, with the sights set on the long-term outcome of trained athletes, we are in a position to suggest that sequentially prescribing MaxHangs and IntHangs methods could be a way to avoid plateauing and get greater changes in strength because the neural development caused by the high loads of MaxHangs would add up to the hypertrophy effects of IntHangs.

Who said people of science are boring? Photo: Real Life Photographs

See you at Chamonix 2018?  Picture: Real Life Photographs

AND HERE ENDS THE PRESENTATION OF THIS RESEARCH ARTICLE…

… but don’t leave before this appeal to caution. Please, remember that a single work must not be taken as definitive proof, and that an intervention evaluated through a scientific study can’t be generalized to every kind and level of climbing or repeated in your planning time and again. Training prescription should be always specific to individual goals and abilities (this last sentence was added on 21 March 2018). Furthermore, reading just an abstract and extrapolate it, as well as jumping directly to the conclusions here or the infographic below keeps you from learning the details, 😝 where more often than not resides the nuance that we need to relativize and actually learn). No matter how effective a method is shown to be for a group of people at certain moment in time (be it by your own experience or a controlled, standardized experiment), when dealing with trained athletes the evidence says that periodization (changing parameters, like volume and intensity, according to a previously defined schedule, like the weekly variation in number of sets in this work) and method sequentiation are superior to the alternative, performing the same routine indefinitely (Kraemer et al., 2000; Rhea & Alderman, 2004; Grgic et al., 2017). A quick example would be changing the hanging (exertion) time, or the effort margin in the MaxHangs, as well as the recovery pauses or the hanging time of IntHangs every four weeks…

I’m afraid we have to leave this here, but I encourage you to accompany me in this exploration, and in the next entry we will look at some, more specific training plans that can be effective.

THE CONDENSED INFOGRAPHIC

MAW = Maximal Added Weight; MED = Minimal edge.
Clic to enlarge

RELATED LINKS

-Why do intermittent dead hangs?
-Dead Hang Training (6 of 6): The Intermittent Dead Hangs Method (Video)
-Presentation of the article "Comparison of the effects of Three Hangboard Training programs on Maximal Finger strength in rock climbers" at the 3rd IRCRA congress (PDF version)
-Comparison of the Effects of Three Hangboard Training Programs on Maximal Finger Strength in Rock Climbers (conference paper)
-Intermittent Dead Hangs Programs for Your Smartphone
-Complex Timer: A Training app for Climbing
- The effects of two maximum grip strength training methods using the same effort duration and differ
- Abstract of the article "Comparison of the Effects of Three Hangboard Strength and Endurance Training Programs on Grip Endurance in Sport Climbers"

REFERENCES

• Ahtiainen, J.P. y Häkkinen, K. (2009) Strength athletes are capable to produce greater muscle activation and neural fatigue during high-intensity resistance exercise than nonathletes. Journal of Strength & Conditional Research 23(4): 1129-1134.
• Anderson, T., and Kearney, J.T. (1982). Effects of three resistance training programs on muscular strength and absolute and relative endurance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 53(1), 1-7.
• Bollen, S.R. (1988). Soft tissue injury in extreme rock climbers. British journal of sports medicine, 22(4), 145-147.
• Campos, G. E., Luecke, T. J., Wendeln, H. K., Toma, K., Hagerman, F. C., Murray, T. F. and Staron, R.S. (2002). Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. European journal of applied physiology, 88(1-2), 50-60.
• Cannon, R.J., and Cafarelli, E. (1987). Neuromuscular adaptations to training. Journal of Applied Physiology, 63(6), 2396-2402.
• Davies, J., Parker, D. F., Rutherford, O. M. Y Jones, D. A. (1988). Changes in strength and cross sectional area of the elbow flexors as a result of isometric strength training. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 57(6), 667-670.
• Gondin, J., Guette, M.,  Ballay, Y., and Martin, A. (2005). Electromyostimulation training effects on neural drive and muscle architecture. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 37(8), 1291.
• Badillo, J.J.., & Gorostiaga, . (1993).  Fundamentos del entrenamiento de la fuer za. Aplicación al alto rendimiento deportivo.
• Fry, A.C. (2004). The role of resistance exercise intensity on muscle fibre adaptations. Sports medicine, 34(10), 663-679.
• Ginszt, M., Michalak-Wojnowska, M., Gawda, P., Wojcierowska-Litwin, M., Korszeń-Pilecka, I., Kusztelak, M., Korszeń-Pilecka, I., Kusztelak, M., Muda, R., Filip, A., Majcher, P. (2018) ACTN3 genotype in professional sport climbers. J Strength Cond Res, doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002457.
• Goto, K., Nagasawa, M., Yanagisawa, O., Kizuka, T., Ishii, N. y Takamatsu, K. (2004). Muscular adaptations to combinations of high-and low-intensity resistance exercises. The Journal of Strength &amp; Conditioning Research, 18(4), 730-737.
• Grgic, J, Mikulic, P, Podnar, H, and Pedisic, Z. (2017). Effects of linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training programs on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ 5: e3695
• Hakkinen, K., Komi, P.V. and  Alen, M. (1985a). Effect of explosive type strength training on isometric force and relaxation time, electromyographic and muscle fiber characteristics of leg extensor muscles. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 124(4):587-600.
• Hakkinen, K., Komi, P.V. and Alen, M. (1985b). Effect of explosive type strength training on electromyographic and force production characteristics of leg extensor muscles during concentric and various stretch-shortening cycle exercises. Scandinavian Journal in Sports Science; 7: 65-76.
• Hakkinen, K., Komi, P.V., Alan, M. and Kauhanen, H. (1987). EMG, muscle fibre and force production characteristics during a 1 year training period in elite weight-lifters. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 56:419-427.
• Häkkinen, K. (1994). Neuromuscular fatigue in males and females during strenuous heavy resistance loading. Electromyography and clinical neurophysiology, 34(4), 205-214.
• Häkkinen, K., Kallinen, M., Izquierdo, M., Jokelainen, K., Lassila, H., Mälkiä, E., ... and Alen, M. (1998). Changes in agonist-antagonist EMG, muscle CSA, and force during strength training in middle-aged and older people. Journal of Applied Physiology, 84(4), 1341-1349.
• Harris, G.R., Stone, M.H., O’Bryant H., Prolux C.M. and Johnson R. (2000). Short term performance effects of high speed, high force and combined weight training methods. The Journal of Strength &amp; Conditioning Research 14: 14-20
• Hickson, R.C., Dvorak, B.A., Gorostiaga, E.M., Kurowski, T.T. and Foster, C. (1988). Potential for strength and endurance training to amplify endurance performance. Journal of Applied Physiology 65(5):2285-90.
• Ikai, M. y Fukunaga, T. (1970). A study on training effect on strength per unit cross-sectional area of muscle by means of ultrasonic measurement. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 28(3), 173-180.
• Jones, D.A. and Rutherford, O.M. (1987). Human muscle strength training: The effects of three different regimens and the nature of the resultant changes. Journal of Physiology, 391:1-11.
• Judge, L.W., Moreau, C. y Burke, J.R. (2003). Neural adaptations with sport-specific resistance training in highly skilled athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences 21(5):419-27.
• Kraemer, W. J., Marchitelli, L., Gordon, S.E., Harman, E., Dziados, J.E., Mello, R., ... and Fleck, S.J. (1990). Hormonal and growth factor responses to heavy resistance exercise protocols. Journal of Applied Physiology, 69(4), 1442-1450.
• Kraemer, W.J. , Ratamess, N., Fry, A.C., Triplett-McBride, T., Koziris, L.P., Bauer, J.A., Lynch, J.M., and Fleck, S.J.(2000). Influence of resistance training volume and periodization on physiological and perfor- mance adaptations in collegiate women tennis players. Am J Sports Med 28: 626–633.
• López-Rivera, E. and González-Badillo, J.J. (2012). The effects of two maximum grip strength training methods using the same effort duration and different edge depth on grip endurance in elite climbers. Sport Technol 5: 1–11.
• López-Rivera, E., and González-Badillo, J.J. (2016). Comparison of the Effects of Three Hangboard Training Programs on Maximal Finger Strength in Rock Climbers. In Northern Michigan University (Ed.), 3rd International Rock Climbing Research Congress, Telluride, USA 5th-7th August 2016. Telluride (Colorado, USA): IRCRA.
• McDonagh, M.J.N.; Hayward, C.M. y Davies, C.T.M. (1983). Isometric training in human elbow flexor muscles. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 65, 3:355-358.
• Medernach, J.P.J., Klein Der, H., and Tzerich, H.H.H.L.(2015). Fingerboard in competitive bouldering: training effects on grip strength and endurance. J Strength Cond Res 29: 2286–2295.
• Mirzaei, B., Nia, F. R. and Saberi, Y. (2008). Comparison of 3 different rest intervals on sustainability of squat repetitions with heavy vs. light loads. Brazilian journal of biomotricity, 2(4), 220-229.
• Morán‑navarro, R., Pérez, C.E., Mora‑rodríguez, R., De La Cruz‑sánchez, E., González‑Badillo, J.J., Sánchez‑medina, L., Pallarés, J.G. (2017). Time course of recovery following resistance training leading or not to failure. Eur J Appl Physiol. doi: 10.1007/s00421-017-3725-7.
• Peterson, M.D., Rhea, M.R. and Alvar, B.A. (2004). Maximizing strength development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship. The Journal of Strength &amp; Conditioning Research, 18(2), 377-382.
• Quaine F. and Vigouroux L. (2004). Maximal resultant four fingertip force and fatigue of the extrinsic muscles of the hand in different sport climbing finger grips. International Journal Sports Medicine 25: 634-637.
• Rhea, M.E., Alvar, B.A., Burkett, L.N. and Ball, S.D. (2003). A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Medicine &amp; Science in Sports &amp; Exercise 35(3)456-464.
• Rhea, M.R. and Alderman, B.L.(2004).A meta-analysis of periodized versus nonperiodized strength and power training programs. Res Q Exerc Sport 75: 413–422.
• Rich, C. and Cafarelli, E. (2000). Submaximal motor unit firing rates after 8 weeks of isometric resistance training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32, 190-196.
• Rønnestad, B. R., Hansen, E.A., and  Raastad, T. (2010). Effect of heavy strength training on thigh muscle cross-sectional area, performance determinants, and performance in well-trained cyclists. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 108(5), 965-975.
• Sale, D.G. (1988). Neural adaptations to resistance training. Medicine &amp; Science in Sports &amp; Exercise 20: S135 - S245.
• Schoenfeld, B.J. (2012). Does exercise-induced muscle damage play a role in skeletal muscle hypertrophy?. The Journal of Strength &amp; Conditioning Research, 26(5), 1441-1453.
• Schott, J., McCully, K., Rutherford, O. M. (1995). The role of metabolites in strength training. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 71(4):337-341.
• Schweizer, A. (2001). Biomechanical properties of the crimp grip position in rock climbers. Journal of Biomechanical 34:217-223.
• Tan, B. (1999). Manipulating resistance training program variables to optimize maximum strength in men: a review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 13, 289-304.
• Tanaka, H., Costill, D. L., Thomas, R., Fink, W. J. and Widrick, J. J. (1993). Dry-land resistance training for competitive swimming. Medicine &amp; Science in Sports &amp; Exercise 25(8): 952-959.
• Thorstensson, A. and Karlsson, J. (1976). Fatigability and fiber composition of human skeletal muscle. Acta Physiol. Scand. 98: 318–322.
• Toigo, M. and Boutellier, U. (2006). New fundamental resistance exercise determinants of molecular and cellular muscle adaptations. Eur J Appl Physiol 97: 643–663.
• Vigouroux, L. and Quaine, F. (2006). Fingertip force and electromyography of finger flexor muscles during a prolonged intermittent exercise in elite climbers and sedentary individuals. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(2), 181-186
• Watts, P.B. (2004). Physiology of difficult rock climbing. European Journal of Applied Physiology 91: 361-372.
• Watts, P. B., Jensen, R.L., Agena, S.M., Majchrzak, J.A., Schellinger, R.A., and Wubbels, C. S. (2008). Changes in EMG and finger force with repeated hangs from the hands in rock climbers. International Journal of Exercise Science, 1(2), 62-70.
• Wernbom, M., Augustsson, J. and Thomé, R.  (2007). The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports Medicine; 37 (3): 225-264.
• Willardson, J.M. (2006). A brief review: factors affecting the length of the rest interval between resistance exercise sets. J Strength Cond Res 20: 978–984.