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.

Lock-off training in Sport Climbing (V). Goal-based Exercise Proposals.

Tweet
Versión en español

After this long and verbose chain of entries, now it's time to wrap up the series by putting forward some exercises that attend to each particular objective. But first we will go over some previously presented statements that will serve as a kind of preface:

Conclusions about Lock-offs in Climbing

- A specific strength exercise is one that reproduces the mechanical pattern (joint angles, speed of movement), duration of force application and kind of exercise regimen (concentric, isometric, eccentric), along the same muscle groups (or parts of them), that is typical of the gesture that we want to increase performance on. An additional characteristic is that they can also be facilitated or the opposite, like when we use elastic bands or added weight (Wilson et col., 1996; González-Badillo and Ribas, 2002; González-Badillo and Izquierdo, 2008).

- Regarding the usual duration of a lock-off, and focusing on technically proficient climbers, most of the time it is so short that it's even hard to appreciate it. The static phase of every move is the one where the elbow is no longer flexing and we start to let go of the hold with the other hand; a very brief moment that, as we already saw, lasts for 0,15 to 0,30seconds. From these figures we can deduce an important practical aspect:

This phase is so short that there are circumstances, specially for boulderers, or when grabbing small holds on steep overhangs, or that when a move requires a lot of precision, where there actually is not enough time for us to apply all the force that we are capable of. In these cases -and here we are just talking physical factors- what comes into play is what we can call explosive lock-off strength.

- In other situations a lock-off can last longer (from 0,5 to 1 second) and condition the performance in certain circumstances such as roofs, crossing hands, transitioning from roof to vertical, clipping, or long moves on a slab. They are also more frequent when onsighting or bouldering than when working a lead route.

- The more typical, and as such, specific joint angles are 90-100º and 45-60º.

- Performing either a high intensity or a prolonged lock-off (like the lock-offs to fatigue method) is very stressing for the elbow anddangerous. The reason is that in a tiny area a lot of structures come together: bicipital aponeurosis, ulnar collateral ligament, ulnar nerve, pronator teres, finger and wrist flexor muscles... so that this region is prone to suffer from compression (neuropathies). In addition, each of them is disproportionately small for the load that it has to bear, making it prone to microtraumas and overload (epicondylalgia and tendinopathies) when the intensity is excessive or the workout volume is suddenly increased. As someone who knows a thing or two about the elbow says, they are not at all prepared for the effort we subject them to while climbing

- So, if we ever feel we have to train lock-offs, it should be only after a long enough adaptation phase, so that the structures are better prepared to sustain the punishment of climbing; this includes hypertrophy, and changes in composition, visco-elastic properties and stiffness, metabolic changes, etc. The scale here is in years of constant and progressive activity (perhaps as long as 5), not in months.

Who can train lock-offs and when?


It goes without saying that beginners must NOT work this quality, not even those with an intermediate level. As that point it is better to focus on the development of a rich perceptive-motor repertory as the main physical work. In my opinion, there are JUST SOME cases, regarding particular goals, that justify training them, and this assuming an already advanced level. Even then, not the whole season long, and carefully picking the methodology:

- If you have ample (5+ years) of climbing experience, and an already high technical-tactical development that allows you to solve most sequences in a more efficient, not-so-static fashion

- If you have extensive (3+ years) upper body strength training experience, and are familiar with the pull-up gesture, strong enough and well-balanced shoulders, and high pulling force (15-20 pull-ups, and 5 or more with 10-15 kg added weight);

- If you aren't fully recovered from a previous weakness or injury in your elbows (at least 2-6 months of progressive rehab). NOTE: if the day after training lock-offs you notice elbow or shoulder pain, stop that training and take immediate measures no matter what;

- So, if after all the information you still deem beneficial to train this muscle action in some of its variants because it is a limiting factor for you; and you find a method that will not harm your technique or your tactics (see this previous entry); then, depending on your objective, you could perform 1-2 sessions a week for 4-8 weeks, resting 24-72 h between sessions and making sure you feel well-rested, always at the beginning of the workout and after a good warm-up, of some of the following proposed exercises:

Objective: Maximum Strength Lock-off


This would be the case where you feel limited in many of your climbs by your capacity -once the most efficient method is found- to hold a high percentage of your body mass, or to hold a position with just one arm for longer than usual.

1- Maximum lock-off: Suitable for climbers who can lock-off with one arm for more than 2 seconds and less than 5. Those who can hold longer could skip to the explosive methods described later. The methodology is as follows:

• 2-5 sets of 1-2 seconds with complete recuperation (3+ minutes); 4-week cycles at most (ex.: 1st week 2 sets, 2nd week 3 sets...). Then we either stop it or rest for some weeks and start again changing some parameter (like number of sets or duration of effort) or, better yet, doing a different exercise for 4-8 weeks with a reduced load.
• The load will be such that we avoid muscle failure, using added weight or facilitating (rubber bands) as needed. Don't worry, your gains won't be smaller this way, an you will reduce your risk of injury. We can use the concept of Effort Level (EL), that is the margin in seconds that we leave before muscle failure for a given load. For lock-offs we could use an EL of 1-4. We will choose the load like this: if we have to do 1-second sets with an EL(3), we will use a stronger aid or by the contrary add some weights so that we could hold the lock-off for 1-3=4 seconds, but we will only do 1 second, leaving that 3-second margin.
• Depending on our level we can do it one-handed or with both arms.
• Better to use a bar or a really good hold, preferably with our palm(s) facing us.

 
2-A facilitated exercise, good for familiarization, could be to grab the bar with our arm(s) already flexed, and always keeping both feet on the floor and maintaining the same elbow angle try one of these two: a) pull with the arms for one second max, or b) flex our legs a little so that some of our weight is transferred to the arms for around one second.

Objective: Explosive Lock-off strength

We learned that in a maximum isometric action, the highest force to time ratio or maximum explosive force is reached at 0,10-0,15 seconds, that incidentally is the usual length of locking-off while climbing. This doesn't mean that we are constantly working our explosive force while climbing, because most of the time the intensity is too low. But for those times when we need to apply a lot of force in a hurry (overhang, small holds), the goal would be to get the highest possible peak force at those 0,10-0,15 seconds. In other words, that we can unleash our capacity to generate a lot of force inside the available time window.

Here there are the exercises I propose, from easiest to more difficult, always keeping the load at a 30-50% of the maximum (the one that we could reach without the time constraint). We could do 1-2 cycles of 4 weeks each: 2-5 sets of 2-3 repetitions each, resting 3-5 minutes between sets (ex.: 1st week: 2 sets x 2 rep, 2nd week: 3 x 2 rep, 3rd week: 4x2rep, 4th week: 4x2rep...):

1-Explosive lock attempt. This consists of trying to perform an explosive contraction against an immovable resistance. This method was first proposed by Olsen and Hopkins (2003), based on the idea from Behm and Sale (1993) that the main stimulus for explosive strength development is the attempt itself and the force generated per time unit in that attempt, more than the actual muscle action or movement that results from it.

Attempt of Explosive Lock-off against a fixed resistance: starting with the desired angle, try to lock-off as fast and hard as possible. Note: the strongest among you will feel your feet leave the floor.

2-Jump-to-lockoff with both arms. Jumping to a good jug or preferably a bar, so that the angle of the elbow is the desired and we can apply force as soon as we make contact; hold the position just for the time needed to stabilize (ideally, less than 0,5 seconds), and drop back to the floor with our elbow still flexed to avoid additional stress. We can start doing this after having used easier methods (like facilitated lock-offs) without suffering pain. We can progress from using our body weight to adding some extra weight if we have already a high level and need further improvement (but never going beyond 30% of the maximum).

Jump-to-lockoff with both arms. Phase a: preparation to jump

Jump-to-lockoff with both arms. Phase b: jump and lock. Note; if you use added weight it's better to wear a weighted belt or vest than hanging some discs from the harness

3- Jump-to-lockoff with one arm.

Objective: Neural improvement for fast and efficient switch from dynamic to static contraction or vice versa.

Objective: Neural improvement for fast and efficient switch from dynamic to static contraction or vice versa.
With this we try to make our muscles used to fast regimen change (like static to dynamic), because it is a common situation in our sport. It is compulsory to have enough level on both types of contraction before working this capacity (ex.: 15 pull-ups with our body weight, more than 30 seconds hanging with flexed arms or more than one second with one arm, perhaps we won't ever be able to do it). We could use these exercises from least to most difficult:

1- Static-dynamic pull-ups (Cometti, 2000). There are several versions, and we need to keep in mind that the deceleration before the locking-off phase can cause sore biceps and triceps 1-2 days after the session. So, be careful:
      -Variant 1: Pull-up + 90º lock-off. This is the one that I consider the most specific. Given that we have enough strength, we pull as fast as possible until reaching 90º and holding the position for 0,5 to 1 second. I prefer this way to the popular one where there are 3 stops at 3 different angles both in the concentric and the eccentric phase like in Ruben's video 3:25 to 3:52
            *Variant 1b: Even more specific and probably more funny, but requiring high explosive and technical level. It consists of doing a long dyno where we have to swiftly flex our arm upon contact to fight the resulting cut-loose.

Nacho Sánchez, Tolmojón, 8B+- Tamajón (Guadalajara, España). Photo: Raul Santano

             *Variant 2a: Lock-off + pull-up (really advanced) Start by locking-off at 80% of the maximum and then doing an explosive pull-up at 30% of the maximum. The challenge here is the fast switch in load. I suggest you use rubber bands, rest your feet on something or even this solution:

Phase a: one-armed lock-off

Phase b: hold with both arms and pull-up

           *Variant 2b: Jump + lock + pull-up. This is one step above the previous one, more explosive and for elite level. It begins by jumping to a hold, doing a short lock-off and finally an explosive pull-up. There is a video of Nacho Sánchez performing it while training for Insomnio, his second 8C boulder (2:12 to 2:15)

     -Variant 3: pull-up + lock-off + pull-up. Here the load is constant, around 57-80% of the maximum both for the static and the dynamic phases. This exercise could be indicated for working the strength-endurance to the change in regimen. The number of repetitions will be higher, and the goal is to reach failure in the last set of the session.

2- Ladder hand-walking. High transfer to roof climbing. Depending on our level and goals, we will do the usual 2-5 sets of 2-4 reps with a complete rest.

Jurgen Reiss training. Source: http://www.juergenreis.at

3-Pull-up and release one arm. It is a fast pull-up that ends raising one arm as if we wanted to reach a hold. If we can have something to actually reach and touch it will be faster and more real.

Variant a: Reaching up when the elbow is at 90º

Variant b: Reaching up with the elbow at 45º

4- Campus board: The static phase in this exercise is the moment that we spend "tightening" the elbow prior to reaching with the other hand, that my video analyses show is identical to the 0,15-0,20 seconds typical of climbing. This makes it very specific, but if we lack some system to facilitate the exercise (like pulleys) the intensity tends to be too high and we run into the eternal problem: the control of the load. Partly because we are not always aware of its importance.

Nacho Sánchez seems to display the qualities needed for the campus board

About the campus...
This is why, no matter if we focus on the fingers (with small edges), the pulling force (with long reaches) or the explosive component (like what we described today); and given that there is always some mix of the three...

... This is an exercise that must be reserved for advanced phases, and only by those who are familiar with other, easier methods, that have provided them with the strength necessary to pull and, more importantly, to absorb the deceleration/acceleration of the body when reaching the next edge.

How are you struggling up a campus board if you can't do 15 pull-ups in a row?
Each time your hand lands on the next hold your body sinks, your elbows fly; do you wriggle your whole body when reaching because you can't simply ascend by flexing your arms?
Keep in mind that what our muscles can't cope with, is in part transferred to the supporting structures like tendons, ligaments, joint capsules, cartilages...

This is true for all kind of exercises. But the campus board is so explosive that shoulders, elbows and fingers have no time to give us warning before getting overloaded by a brusque movement. Why is it so common to hear people say their elbows hurt when doing campus? And.. has anyone taken a moment to think what capacity does this exercise develop? What can it be used for?
Well... as you see it can be used for several things (but not all of them at once, please!). Be careful, picture your elbows taking turns to bear the weight of your whole body.

So, some planning is in order, ask yourselves what quality you need to improve at each moment, use the easiest method available to you, keep away from injury and develop steadily. Only that way you will get long-term results.

Good luck!

RELATED LINKS

• Lock-off Strength Training (I). Does Static (lock-offs) Training have any Effect over Dynamic (pull-ups) Performance?
• Lock-off Training in Sport Climbing (II) Does our locking-off ability have any influence on our performance? Is it so important to train it?
• Lock-off Training in Sport Climbing (III) Do you really lock-off?
• Lock-off Training in Sport Climbing (IV). A Review of several Methods and an Introduction to Explosive Lock-Offs

REFERENCES

• Behm DG, Sale DG (1993) Intended rather than actual movement velocity determines velocity-specific training response. Journal of Applied Physiology 74(1):359–68.
• Cometti, G. (2000): Los métodos modernos de musculación. Paidotribo
• Gonzalez Badillo and Ribas, J (1996): Fundamentos del entrenamiento de la fuerza. Inde
• González-Badillo, JJ, and Izquierdo, M. (2008): Evaluación de la fuerza en el control del entrenamiento y el rendimiento deportivo. In Izquierdo, M. (editor); Biomecánica y Bases Neuromusculares de la Actividad Física y el Deporte. Panamericana
• Maloney, S. (2012). Explosive Isometrics: Speed Training with the Brakes On. www.elitefits.com. [online] Entry from july 25, 2012. Available at: http://articles.elitefts.com/training-articles/explosive-isometrics-speed-training-with-the-brakes-on
• Olsen PD, Hopkins WG (2003) The effect of attempted ballistic training on the force and speed of movements. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 17(2):291–98.
• Siff MC (1993) Understanding the mechanics of muscle contraction. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal 15(5):30–3.    
• Wilson, G. J., Murphy, A. J., & Walshe, A. (1996). The specificity of strength training: the effect of posture. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 73(3), 346-352.

Lock-off Training in Sport Climbing (IV). A Review of several Methods and an Introduction to Explosive Lock-Offs

Tweet

Versión en español

As I promised Randy some time ago when responding to his comment -which was the starting point for this series-, we are going to look at some well known methods: statical-dynamical pull-ups and functional isometrics. And, shocker, this already long series will have one more entry (the 4th) that will suggest some specific exercises based on all the information gathered at this point. Afterwards, it will be you who will decide whether they are suitable for your needs, and how to incorporate them into your training.

Ramón Julián at 2009 Arco Rock Master (Italy). Photo: Giulio Malfer. Fuente: rockmaster.com

Functional isometrics
This method was proposed in 1962 by Hoffman, and valued by authors like Giorgi et al. (1998), Fleck and Kraemer (2004), or Keogh et al. (1999). At the present there are a number of variations, using it by itself, or as part of a sequence of exercises in other method that we will discuss later and that has several different names: complex, combination training, contrast loading system, or contrast training

In their more basic form, they consist of a dynamic movement like a pull-up, followed by a maximum isometric contraction at the angle of maximum effort (Fleck and Kraemer, 2004).

A functional isometric set-up for bench press: Start the bar at a specific height, and lift it two to three inches against a second set of safety pins. Then hold the position for six to nine seconds. Keep on adding weight until you can't lift it. Just hold the bar firmly against the second set of safety pins for at least six seconds, while maintaining a good lifting posture. Source: www.t-nation.com

The goal is to put the maximum resistance at the point where the joint has the least mechanical advantage or sticking point (Zatsiorsky and Kraemer, 2006), the underlying logic being that if we gain strength at the most difficult angle, we will experience an improvement along the whole range of movement. For example, there are two such points for the elbow flexors, at 170º and 50º, very similar to those for the triceps.

THE EFFECTS OF FUNCTIONAL ISOMETRICS ON TRAINED ATHLETES
Keogh et col. (1999) evaluated the effects of functional isometrics on trained subjects using the bench press (6RM that included a 2'' maximum isometric contraction at 160º), and compared it with other classic methods for 6RM, eccentric training and power exercises. The functional isometrics group of participants registered the highest values for the concentric phase when doing 1RM. This is in line with the work of Jackson el al. (1985), Giorgi et al. (1989) and O'Shea and O'Shea (1989), who suggested that this method could be useful for experienced and very strong subjects to improve on 1RM (RM = repetition maximum).

Jesús Beltrán "Brother". Photo: Javipec

On the other hand, in the study by Keogh et al. (1999), the effects of this method over power and endurance were significantly lower than those experienced by the groups that used eccentric, explosive and heavy load (dynamic) methods.

WHAT ABOUT THE LESS TRAINED ATHLETES?
For non-trained subjects the results are more varied. Gentil et col. (2006) found that 10 reps of 5-second maximal isometric leg extensions with a load that provoked muscle failure, induced a greater blood lactate accumulation and time under tension than the more traditional dynamic repetitions. This facts, according to some authors, is associated to an increase in muscle volume and maximum strength.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED EXERCISES
In my opinion, the key issue here is that, according to the mentioned studies, we should manage to apply, during each repetition, a maximum or near maximum load both in the concentric and the isometric phase. We usually can bear 10-15% more weight with an isometric contraction than with a concentric one; so, when we momentarily lock-off, we should add (don't ask me how right now) that 10-15% load. Later we will propose an exercise that can fullfill those requirements.

Complex training
The above mentioned combination (a.k.a. conjugated, combination, bulgarian, or contrast (Cometti, 2000) training, is based on the postactivation potentiation (PAP) effect that results from mixing light and heavy loads and different types of contraction during the same set or session (isometric and dynamic, for example). Given that the exercises must be executed at the maximum possible speed and that different intensities are used, there will be an increased dynamic power (Pmax) and rate of force development during the lighter load exercise. This would have in theory a positive effect on neural activation, power and therefore on maximum strength.


LOOKING AT THE EFFECTS
Research into complex training has been done from two perspectives: the acute, immediate benefits of performing a heavy strength exercise as a warm-up prior to a maximal power or speed performance (such as vertical jump test) and the long-term training adaptations that can be developed from a periodized complex training program.
Regarding acute effects in Some studies have evaluated how combination training affects performance of the upper limb in power exercises like throws; they suggest that it can be as, but no more, effective than other "traditional" methods for children, women and people with a low training level (Ebben, 2000).

Nonetheless, as was the case with the previous method, it can be more beneficial for men, and for those with a higher level of training (Ebben and Watts, 1998), possibly due to their higher percentage of fast twitch fibers (Hamada et al., 2000), and/or their superior maximum strength (Ebben, 2002).
French, Kraemer and Cook (2003) did a study with fourteen track and field athletes, and data indicate that performing a sequence of repeated maximal isometric knee extensions (3 repetitions of 3 seconds)  prior to (30 minutes) selected dynamic exercise (0.25 seconds) may have favorable effects on performance beyond standards achieved without prior heavy loading. Lastly, it is interesting to note that the PAP ergogenic stimulus has been found to last between two-to-thirty minutes (Chiu, Fry, Weiss, et al. 2003; Rixon, Lamont, Bemden, 2007)

Luis Muñoz. Photo: Javipec

THE STATIC-DYNAMIC METHOD
There's a class of combination trainings popular among climbers, the so called iso-dynamic by Verjoshansky (1986), or static-dynamic by Cometti (2000). Depending on the desired effects, they can also be called iso-miometric and iso-ballistic. Now, the most used variant among european climbers is the one described by Cometti, that in our case consists of mixing pull-ups and lock-offs like this:

An explosive pull-up is done up to certain angle, then a lock-off is maintained for certain amount of time, and finally the pulling movement is finished at high speed. The author suggests the use of 2-second lock-offs, and loads of about 60% of maximum concentric strength for the pull-ups. In this video there's an example (min 3:25 to 3:50).

STUDY OF THE EFFECTS
I couldn't find any studies that tested the effects of this exercise on pull-up maximum strength and power endurance, on power when doing more specific exercises like campus board, or general climbing performance.
In theory, given the similarity to the pulling-locking gesture so common in climbing, it coul be of some interest. But it remains to be seen what for and how to use it.

WHERE CAN THIS METHOD BE OF HELP?
Several facts must be taken into account before answering:
Obviously, the deceleration that occurs when we stop pulling and lock, clashes with the explosive pulling force that we were generating the moment before.

Lega on "Supertitte", Castillo de Bayuela (Toledo, Spain). Photo: Carles de Diego. Source: carlesdediego.blogspot.com

Secondly, if we have to resume the interrupted movement in an explosive fashion, we will be subject to an effect observed by Tihanyi et col. (1989) and Van Cutsem and Duchauteu (2005): the act of performing an isometric contraction reduces the amount of force that can be immediately be applied per unit of time (RFD = rate of force development) in a subsequent concentric contraction. The explosive force will be lower than if we hadn't previously done an isometric contraction.

Mery on "Valle de Rosas", 8a+, Cuenca (Spain). Photo: javipec

Thirdly, regarding the development of locking-off strength, and lacking any relevant literature in this matter, it stands to reason that if we want to improve our maximum or explosive locking strength it will be more effective to work it by itself instead of mixing it with pull-ups. The reason is that the control of the load gets more difficult, because both types of contraction require different absolute loads and exertion durations.

So, especially for developing maximum strength (using more than 1RM), power, and power-endurance, the dynamic methods seem more effective when it comes to pulling; conversely, the static methods will be more suitable for maximum and explosive locking strength and locking power-endurance.
Nevertheless, there is an area where this method can be of help, and that is to improve our ability for swiftly and effectively transitioning from a dynamic contraction (pulling) to a static one (locking-off) and vice versa. Ability that, as we already know, is constantly demanded in our sport.

Oscar Martinez on "La Soucoupe", 7C+, Chironico (Switzerland). Photo: Joseba Saiz. Fuente: Oscar facebook profile

Training Objectives for Improving the Locking-off Ability
Summing up, with the intention of setting priorities and choosing a training methodology for our planning, we could determine different training goals, or different effects to have in sight related to lock-off ability:

• Maximum locking strength
• Explosive locking strength
• Fast and effective transition form pulling to locking-off and vice versa
• Power-endurance specific to the pulling-locking gesture

We have already gone over the two last, and the first is easy to figure out but, what about maximum locking strength? Is it not an oxymoron to put 'explosive' and 'static' in the same sentence? What can this possibly mean?

This explosive isometric exercise consists of trying to push the bar against the stoppers, or pulling it, in an explosive way. Source: articleselitefts.com

Explosive and maximum isometrics: fast and slow lock-offs
As stated by Verkhoshansky and Siff (2000) it would be very reductionist and wrong to define isometric contraction symply as one where a static muscle action takes place for certain amount of time. If we look at a graph showing how the force applied against an unmovable resistance until fatigue varies with time, we will see what is called the force-time (f-t) curve. The important word here is 'curve' and has several phases:

1- Force-generation or development phase: The muscle builds up tension until the Peak Maximum Force (PMF) is reached. It's been shown that this maximum isometric force takes at least 0,8 to 1 second.

Another remarkable aspect of this phase is that there is a moment, when the f-t curve is steepest, that is, the ratio between the force produced and the time to reach it is at its best. Such is the value for the maximum explosive force, the peak of force that has been achieved in the shortest possible time. This is around 30% of the PMF (max RFD in the graph below). Stone, Stone and Sands (2003) call "starting strength" the one that is applied during the first 30ms, and that determines the speed of the movement when we talk about a dynamic contraction. Do any of these figures remind you of the previous chapter?

Sample f-t curve. "Starting strength" is the force produced at 30ms; "explosive strength" is max RFD, which is the moment of highest explosive strength, and takes place at about 30% of PMF. "maximum strenght" or peak force (PF) is the greatest force produced under a given set of conditions. (Stone, Stone and Sands, 2007)

2- Steady State phase: Holding the maximum force. Lasts for about 3-6 seconds.

3- Final or Force-decay phase: Reduction in force due to fatigue.

According to this, we find fast or explosive isometric contractions where the generation-force phase is short, and the force generated per unit of time (RFD or explosive force) is very high; the downside is that there is no time to reach our maximum strength (PMF). Reversely, in a slow or maximum isometric the explosive component is much lower, but we can reach our peak force. Using one or the other is not only a question of what method we use to solve a movement; many variables take part, like personal climbing style, wall angle, hold size, finger strength (if we can barely grab a hold, we don't have time to gather a lot of maximum pulling or locking strength), and even muscle composition and training habits.

RFD curve for fast or explosive isometrics versus slow or maximum isometrics

Nacho Sanchez on Memento, 8C, Silvretta (Switzerland). Photo: Rebeca Morillo. Source: Nacho's blog

And now, if you have a lot of general climbing experience (more than 3 years), and upper body strength training experience (more than 3 years), a high pulling force (15-20 unweighted pull-ups, more than five with 5kg added weight); if you don't have any injuries or other limiting factors in your elbows; if you are convinced that, after absorbing all this information, it can help you countering some of your weaknesses, then I'll show you some exercises.
But that, will be the topic of the next entry in the series.

LINKS RELATED
Lock-off Training in Sport Climbing (I). Does Static (lock-offs) Training have any Effect over Dynamic (pull-ups) Performance?
 Lock-off Training in Sport Climbing (II) Does our locking-off ability have any influence on our performance? Is it so important to train it?
Lock-off Training in Sport Climbing (III) Do you really lock-off?
 

REFERENCES

• Cometti, G. (2000): Los métodos modernos de musculación. Paidotribo.
• Chiu, L.Z., Fry, A.C., Weiss, L.W., Schilling, B.K., Brown, L.E., & Smith, S.L. (2003). Postactivation potentiation response in athletic and recreationally trained individuals. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 17(4), 671-677.
• Ebben, W. P., Watts, P. B., Jensen, R. L. and Blackard, D. O. (2000): EMG and kinetic analysis of complex training exercise variables. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 14(4), 451-456.
• Ebben, W. P. (2002): Complex training: A brief review. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 1, 42-46
• Fleck SJ, Kraemer WJ (1997). Fleck SJ, Kraemer WJ (2004): Designing Resistance Training Programs, ed 2. Designing Resistance Training Programs. Human Kinetics Publishers 
• French, DN, Kraemer, J, Cooke CB (2003) Changes in Dynamic Exercise Performance Following a Sequence of Preconditioning Isometric Muscle Actions. Journal in Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(4), 678-685
• Gentil, P., Oliveira, E., and Bottaro, M (2006): Time under Tension and Blood Lactate Response during Four Different Resistance Training Methods. Journal of Physiological Anthropology; 25(5): 339–344
• Giorgi A., Wilson GJ, Weatherby RP (1998) Functional isometric training: its effects on the development of muscular function and the endocrine system over an 8- week training period. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 12, 18-25
• González Badillo JJ and Gorostiaga Ayestarán E. (1995) Fundamentos del entrenamiento de la fuerza. Aplicación al alto rendimiento deportivo. Zaragoza: INDE; 1995.
• Gonzalez Badillo and Ribas, J (1996): Fundamentos del entrenamiento de la fuerza. Inde
• González-Badillo, JJ, and Izquierdo, M. (2008): Evaluación de la fuerza en el control del entrenamiento y el rendimiento deportivo. In Izquierdo, M. (editor); Biomecánica y Bases Neuromusculares de la Actividad Física y el Deporte. Panamericana
• Hamada, T., Sale, D.G., MacDougall, J.D., and Tarnopolsky, M.A. (2000): Postactivation potentiation, fiber type, and twitch contraction time in human knee extensor muscles. J Appl Physiol, 88: 2131–2137 
• Jackson, A.; Jackson, T., Hnatek, J., and West, J. (1985): Strength development: Using functional isometrics in an isotonic strength training program. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport, 56:234–237.
• Keogh, J.W.L., Wilson, G.J., and Weatherby, R.P. (1999): A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Different Resistance Training Techniques in the Bench Press. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 13(3), 247–258
• O’Shea, K.L., and O’Shea, J.P. (1989):  Functional isometric weight training: Its effects on dynamic and static strength.J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res.3(2):30–33
• Rixon, K.P., Lamont, H.S., and Bemden, M.G. (2007). Influence of type of muscle contraction, gender, and lifting experience on postactivation potentiation performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(2), 500-505.
  
• Tihanyi J, Bosco C, Fekete G, and Apor G (1989) The effect of muscle structure and training conditions on the rate of torque development. Review of the Hungarian University of Physical Education, Budapest, 185-198
• Zatsiorsky VM, and Kraemer WJ (2004) Science and Practice of Strength Training-2nd edition. Human Kinetics
• Van Cutsem, M., and Duchateau, J. (2005). Preceding muscle activity influences motor unit discharge and rate of torque development during ballistic contractions in humans. The Journal of Physiology, 562(2), 635-644.
• Verkhoshansky, Y., and Siff, M. C. (2004). Superentrenamiento.Madrid. Paidotribo.