China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Sport climbing
Published in R. C. Richard Davison, Paul M. Smith, James Hopker, Michael J. Price, Florentina Hettinga, Garry Tew, Lindsay Bottoms, Sport and Exercise Physiology Testing Guidelines: Volume I – Sport Testing, 2022
Edward Gibson-Smith, David Giles, Simon Fryer, Mayur Ranchordas
Anthropometric data for climbers are similar to other weight-sensitive sports (Gibson-Smith et al., 2020). The importance of strength-to-weight ratio in the finger flexors and the key musculature involved in climbing are widely acknowledged as key determinants. However, there is currently no consensus on the optimal anthropometric profile (Mermier et al., 2000; Giles et al., 2020a). Nevertheless, key anthropometric characteristics, including height, body mass, ape index, body fat and fat-free mass, should still be routinely assessed. The four-site Durnin and Womersley (1974) equation has been validated against dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) in elite sport climbers and is an acceptable method for the assessment of body composition (see Chapter 3.4) when more robust methods (e.g., DEXA) are not viable (España-Romero et al., 2009a).
Physiological demands and nutritional considerations for Olympic-style competitive rock climbing
Published in Cogent Medicine, 2019
Marisa K. Michael, Oliver C. Witard, Lanae Joubert
Prior to devising nutritional recommendations for competitive climbers, it is important to understand the anthropometric profiles of rock climbers and the physiological demands of elite climbing. Elite rock climbers are typically shorter, leaner, and lighter than non-climbing athletes, with similar anthropometric profiles to ballet dancers and long-distance runners (Booth, Marino, Hill, & Gwinn, 1999; Sheel, 2004; Watts, Martin, & Durtschi, 1993). Elite climbers often report a high “ape index,” which describes the ratio of arm span to height (Mermier, Janot, Parker, & Swan, 2000). These observations have been verified in both children and elite adult climbers (Macdonald & Callender, 2008; Watts et al., 1993). In a cohort study that compared 90 youth (mean age: 13.5 years) climbers with non-climber controls, Watts et al. (Watts, Joubert, Lish, Mast, & Wilkins, 2003) reported a smaller stature (climber: mean = 159 cm, control: mean = 167 cm), lower body mass (climber: mean = 48 kg, control: mean = 54 kg), less body fat as measured by sum 9 of skinfolds (climber: mean = 67 mm, control: mean = 101 mm), and greater handgrip-to body mass ratio (climber: mean = 0.67, control: mean = 0.55) in climbers. Moreover, expressed relative to body mass index (BMI), youth climbers exhibited greater lean mass than controls. However, this study did not address puberty status (Watts et al., 2003) and thus future study is warranted to determine the anthropometric profiles of rock climbers throughout adolescents. Similarly, elite adult climbers reported a short stature, low body mass, and low body fat using the sum of skinfolds than controls (Booth et al., 1999; Watts, 2004; Watts et al., 1993). Indeed, body fat was measured at 4–14% for men and 10–20% for women among semifinalists at a World Cup competition (Sheel, 2004) via sum of seven skinfolds. Whereas a high power-to-mass ratio is commonly considered advantageous in rock climbing (Booth et al., 1999; Watts et al., 1993), one study demonstrated that the training history of climbers (e.g. years training) better predicted competition level than anthropometric profile (Mermier et al., 2000). With more recent competitions including routes with more overhangs, future research on climbers’ anthropometrics are warranted. Comprehensive data on anthropometric profiles of climbers have been summarized elsewhere (Mladenov, Michailov, & Schöffl, 2001; Morrison & Schöffl, 2007).