Michał Ginszt,Mika Saito,Estera Zięba,Piotr Majcher,Naoki Kikuchi
Body Composition, Anthropometric Parameters, and Strength-Endurance Characteristics of Sport Climbers: A Systematic Review
sport climbing,lead climbing,bouldering,body composition,strength,endurance
Abstract Ginszt, M, Saito, M, Zięba, E, Majcher, P, and Kikuchi, N. Body composition, anthropometric parameters, and strength-endurance characteristics of sport climbers: a systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 37(6): 1339–1348, 2023—Sport climbing was selected to be part of the Summer Olympic Games in Tokyo 2021 with 3 subdisciplines: lead climbing, speed climbing, and bouldering. The nature of physical effort while speed climbing, lead climbing, and bouldering performance is different. This literature review aimed to describe differences between body composition, anthropometric parameters, and upper-limb strength-endurance variables between sport climbers with different ability levels and nonclimbers. The following databases were searched: PubMed and Scopus. The following keywords were used: “sport climbing,” “rock climbing,” “lead climbing,” and “bouldering.” Articles were considered from January 2000 to October 2021 if they concerned at least one of the following parameters: body composition (mass, body mass index, body fat, lean muscle mass, bone mineral density), anthropometric parameters (height, ape index), muscle strength (MVC finger strength in half-crimp grip, MVC finger strength to body mass, handgrip strength), and muscle endurance (force time integral, pull-ups). A review shows that body mass and body fat content were lower in the sport climbers compared with controls and in elite sport climbers compared with those less advanced. Sport climbers presented higher values of MVC finger strength in half-crimp grip, MVC finger strength to body mass, handgrip strength, and force time integral parameter than control subjects. Significantly higher MVC values in half-crimp grip were observed in elite sport climbers than in advanced athletes. None of the analyzed work showed differences between sport climber groups in the ape index. The abovementioned parameters may be a key factor in elite sport climbing performance.
Body Composition, Anthropometric Parameters, and Strength-Endurance Characteristics of Sport Climbers: A Systematic Review

Ginszt, M, Saito, M, Zięba, E, Majcher, P, and Kikuchi, N. Body composition, anthropometric parameters, and strength-endurance characteristics of sport climbers: a systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 37(6): 1339–1348, 2023—Sport climbing was selected to be part of the Summer Olympic Games in Tokyo 2021 with 3 subdisciplines: lead climbing, speed climbing, and bouldering. The nature of physical effort while speed climbing, lead climbing, and bouldering performance is different. This literature review aimed to describe differences between body composition, anthropometric parameters, and upper-limb strength-endurance variables between sport climbers with different ability levels and nonclimbers. The following databases were searched: PubMed and Scopus. The following keywords were used: “sport climbing,” “rock climbing,” “lead climbing,” and “bouldering.” Articles were considered from January 2000 to October 2021 if they concerned at least one of the following parameters: body composition (mass, body mass index, body fat, lean muscle mass, bone mineral density), anthropometric parameters (height, ape index), muscle strength (MVC finger strength in half-crimp grip, MVC finger strength to body mass, handgrip strength), and muscle endurance (force time integral, pull-ups). A review shows that body mass and body fat content were lower in the sport climbers compared with controls and in elite sport climbers compared with those less advanced. Sport climbers presented higher values of MVC finger strength in half-crimp grip, MVC finger strength to body mass, handgrip strength, and force time integral parameter than control subjects. Significantly higher MVC values in half-crimp grip were observed in elite sport climbers than in advanced athletes. None of the analyzed work showed differences between sport climber groups in the ape index. The abovementioned parameters may be a key factor in elite sport climbing performance.

Sport climbing, a popular sport worldwide, can be performed either indoors in climbing gyms or outdoors on artificial walls and on natural rocks. Moreover, this discipline was selected to be part of the Summer Olympic Games in Tokyo 2021 with 3 subdisciplines (“lead climbing,” “bouldering,” and “speed climbing”) with one set of medals per gender. In lead climbing, routes are typically up to 30-m high, where the climber is attached to a rope clipped into permanent bolts using “quickdraws,” spaced intermittently from the bottom up (45). In bouldering, the climber ascends short technical routes up to 4–5 m on low walls using crash mats instead of ropes (7,15). During speed climbing competition, 2 climbers race against each other to get to the top 15-m wall set at a 95-degree angle with protection using safety ropes. All of these subdisciplines demand distinct physical and psychological parameters. Although speed climbing requires high-level motor coordination and explosive power, both lead climbing and bouldering require more technical skills and higher strength-endurance preparation (7,11,44). Both lead climbing and bouldering are similar to overcoming difficult climbing movements compared with speed climbing. However, the nature of physical effort during lead climbing and bouldering performance is different. Bouldering with shorter bouts of climbing activity (30 seconds of climbing activity during boulder ascent) is more power oriented than lead climbing (2–7 minutes of climbing activity during route ascent) (4,44). Moreover, there are differences in strength-endurance variables, such as grip strength, finger-flexor maximal muscle strength, and rapid force capacity between lead climbers and boulderers (7,8). Differences in physiological parameters and body composition were also observed between sport climbers of different skill levels and nonclimbers (12,16,17). Several articles showed a difference between sport climbers and control subjects in anthropometric parameters, e.g., height and arm span (25,36,40). According to somatotype classification, both male and female elite sport climbers are significantly less endomorphic and more ectomorphic, with a predominant musculoskeletal development (28). Moreover, forearm characteristics, e.g., strength-to-mass ratio, aerobic or vasodilatory capacity, and reoxygenation, were significantly higher in elite vs. recreational sport climbers (35). Thus, both finger flexors parameters and body composition of athletes seem to play an important role in sport climbing performance. Besides endurance-strength parameters, several other factors may influence the performance of sports climbing. Flexibility has been identified as an ability that determines success in sport climbing (5). Preascent climbing route visual inspection—route preview—has been suggested as a critical climbing performance parameter (34). Some psychological traits of the sport climbers (e.g., high versus low levels of anxiety) help them to climb unimpeded, whereas others hamper the ascent (27). The neurocognitive functioning of sport climbers manifests itself in faster recognition and differentiation of tactile input and better spatial perception, tactile perception, and movement memory in comparison to control subjects (24). Moreover, success in sport climbing performance may be influenced by genetic determinants (13,32,33). However, a thorough analysis and comparison of individual climbing groups are complicated because of differences in research methodology and the classification of sport climbers' levels. Thus, the International Rock Climbing Research Association (IRCRA) Reporting Scale is proposed to be used for climbing classification and statistical analyses studies to allow comparisons of the results between the studies, according to the recommendation of the IRCRA in 2016 (6). Up to date, several literature reviews on sport climbing characteristics have been performed (35,37,43). However, none of the abovementioned reviews used a unified grading classification system for sport climbing level. This literature review aimed to describe differences between body composition, anthropometric parameters, and upper-limb strength-endurance variables between sport climbers with different levels of training and nonclimbers. To overcome the heterogeneity of grading systems used in analyzed studies, we converted and standardized the values of the ascents difficulty level to the French scale for lead climbing and the Font scale (FB) for bouldering.

The literature search was performed from January 2000 to October 2021 in the PubMed (Medline) and Scopus databases. The following keywords were used: “sport climbing,” “rock climbing,” “lead climbing,” and “bouldering.” Original full-text articles in the English language published in scientific journals were included. Reports were qualified to the presented review if they concerned at least one of the following parameters: body composition (mass, body mass index, body fat, lean muscle mass, bone mineral density), anthropometric parameters (height, ape index), muscle strength (MVC finger strength in half-crimp grip, MVC finger strength to body mass, handgrip strength), and muscle endurance (climbing-specific endurance test—force time integral, pull-ups), as presented in Table 1. This systematic review considered only cross-sectional studies. Articles concerning nonclimbers, mountain climbers, injuries or climbing intervention in climbers and nonclimbers, without separate gender analysis, review articles, conference papers, case studies, animal studies, studies published in other languages, and studies with incomplete statistics data were excluded. Moreover, works where it was not possible to establish the sports level of climbers were not included in this review. However, reference lists of review articles were reviewed for additional relevant articles. Two independent reviewers (M.G. and E.Z.) completed the review of selected articles. In the first stage, the literature was screened by title and abstract. Next, each reviewer screened the full-text articles to determine whether all inclusion criteria were met. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with collaborating authors (P.M., M.S., N.K.) and subsequent consensus. Data from reports based on study features and populations, measurements, and outcomes were independently extracted by 2 authors (M.G. and E.Z.). Following descriptive data were extracted from studies: study design, population, body composition, muscle strength, and endurance parameters. Data were qualitatively analyzed in all relevant studies. In addition, statistical significance was presented. To describe if effects have an appropriate magnitude, effect sizes were used to describe the strength of a phenomenon, according to Lenhard and Lenhard (18). To overcome heterogeneity of grading systems (e.g., Union Internationale des Associations D'Alpinisme scale, French scale, Saxon grades, British technical grading scale, Yosemite Decimal System, Ewbank score, and Watts score) used in analyzed studies, the values of the ascents difficulty level have been converted to the French scale for lead climbing and Font scale for bouldering. In addition, studies using the IRCRA scale were marked (6). It was not possible to perform the meta-analysis because of the heterogeneity of the methodologies of the studies and the heterogeneity of the climbers' sports level. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and checklist were used to guide this systematic review, as presented in Figure 1 (26). This systematic review identified 6,043 titles. After the initial analysis (n = 275), removal of duplicate items (n = 146), and a reanalysis of the remaining articles (n = 129), 18 articles were included in the final analysis. Other works were excluded because of intervention study (n = 46), lack of comparison group or control group (n = 34), no specific scale of climbing difficulty (n = 15), the lack of a separate gender analysis (n = 7), mountain climbers study (5), and statistical data absence of specific information related to body composition or muscle strength and endurance (n = 4) (Figure 1).

Mass, height, body mass index (BMI), and body fat percentage of sport climbers and control subjects are shown in Table 2. Body mass differs significantly between analyzed groups in the studies of MacLeod et al. (23), Schöffl et al. (36), Fryer et al. (9,10), Limonta et al. (21), and Levernier et al. (19). Body mass was lower in the sport climbers compared with control subjects (23,28,30), in sport climbers achieving 7c + RP (red point) compared with 6a + RP (9), and in elite lead climbers achieving >8c RP to speed climbers (19). Only one study found a difference in height between female lead climbers and the control group. The lead climbers had significantly lower height than those in the control group (36). Body mass index was lower in sports climbers than in control subjects in only one study (21). Body fat percentage was determined from the estimate of body density (29), by technician-blinded dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (16,22), with a “Tanita BC545n InnerScan” diagnostic scale (19), by taking 4 skinfold measurements (Holtain skinfold limiting calliper) using Durnin and Womersley, 1974 formula (12,23), by tetrapolar multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (31), using the BodPod system (8). Several studies did not describe the methodology of body fat testing (9,10,20,42). Most studies have shown lower-body fat content within advanced sport climbers than the control group (9,10,16,23,31) and less advanced athletes (10,12,20). The remaining works did not significantly correlate climbing level and body fat content (8,19,22,29,42). Lean muscle mass, ape index, and bone mineral density of sport climbers and control subjects are shown in Table 3. Both male and female sport climbers presented higher lean muscle mass than control subjects only in the study of Philippe et al. (31). None of the analyzed work showed differences between sport climber groups in the ape index (12,19,29). The total body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan was used to determine total and regional areal bone mineral density in the study of Kemmler et al. (16). In mentioned work, significantly higher bone density both in the upper limb and the whole body was observed in sports climbers compared with the control group. Similar results were observed in the study of Macdonald and Callender (22); however, significant differences were observed only within the arm area. Table 4 presented the strength characteristics of sport climbers and control subjects. Finger strength was determined in a half-crimp position, with 90° flexion at the proximal interphalangeal joint with the thumb not engaged in the grip. Subjects were instructed to develop as much force as possible within dominant hand for 3–5 seconds. In all analyzed studies, sport climbers demonstrated higher values of MVC finger strength in half-crimp grip, MVC finger strength to body mass, and handgrip strength than control subjects (Table 4). Moreover, studies of Giles et al.(12) and Baláš et al. (2,3) showed significantly higher MVC values in half-crimp grip in elite than in advanced sport climbers (2,12). Significant differences between climbers in different sport levels were also observed in MVC to body mass in the study of Fryer et al. (9,10,23,29). Moreover, the study of Fryer et al. (8) showed higher MVC values in boulderers achieving 6B+ to 7B+ RP than in lead climbers reaching 7a+ to 8a RP (8). Both boulderers achieving ≥7B (22) and lead climbers (38) presented greater handgrip strength parameters than control subjects. Endurance characteristics of sport climbers and control subjects regarding climbing-specific endurance test (force time integral) and pull-ups are presented in Table 5. In analyzed works, the force time integral was determined using the equation “force time integral = 0.4 × length of contraction (s) × force (N)” (9). A special device developed at the University of Glasgow was used to perform this climbing-specific endurance test (14). The device was developed to simulate the positions that sport climbers encounter at the climbing wall. When the finger muscles in the hand contract, the horizontal plate of the device bends. The degree of strength in the fingers is determined by how much a sport climber can bend the plate and influence the reading on the strain gauge attached to the plate (14). The climbing-specific endurance test was conducted in 2 conditions: continuous test and intermittent test. The subjects maintained a continuous isometric contraction on the plate until volitional exhaustion during the continuous test. In the intermittent test, the subjects maintained a cycle of continuous isometric contractions for 10 seconds, followed by 3 (8,10,23) or 30 (9,31) seconds of rest periods until volitional exhaustion. The force time integral was greater for sport climbers than nonclimbers in the intermittent (8,10,23,31) and continuous test (31). However, no differences were observed between the groups of climbers of different sport levels. Moreover, the work of Fryer et al. 2015 did not show significant differences between sport climbers and control subjects within force time integral parameters (9). Only one research measurement used pull-ups to measure muscle resistance to fatigue. The maximum number of pull-ups performed by the subject was recorded in accordance with the International Physical Fitness Test rules. Research has shown a significantly greater number of pull-ups in elite climbers than in the advanced group (29).

Differences in anthropometrical, physiological, and strength-endurance parameters were observed between sport climbers specializing in particular subdisciplines, sport climbers of different skill levels, and nonclimbers (35,37,43). However, differences in climbers' classification to individual groups (e.g., advanced, elite) make it challenging to draw adequate conclusions from the analyzed studies and reviews. Moreover, the sports level was often determined in various grading systems (e.g., Union Internationale des Associations D'Alpinisme scale, French scale, British technical grading scale Yosemite Decimal System), which could also be confusing. In this review, we converted and standardized the values of the ascents’ difficulty level to the French scale for lead climbing and the Font scale for bouldering. This makes it possible to easily interpret the results in this work to compare the outcomes in studied groups within analyzed studies. This review aimed to describe differences between body composition, anthropometric parameters, and upper-limb strength-endurance variables between sport climbers with different levels of training and nonclimbers. The main finding of this systematic review was that body fat percentage, and forearm strength and endurance differ between sport climbers of different skill levels and nonclimbing control subjects. This systematic review also shows that anthropometric variables such as ape index and height do not seem to be crucial in climbing activity. Body mass values differ significantly between the analyzed groups. More precisely, body mass was lower in the sport climbers compared with control subjects. Moreover, significant differences between sport climbers achieving 7c + RP compared with 6a + RP (9) and in elite lead climbers achieving >8c RP to speed climbers (19) showed that lower body mass seems to play an important role in sport climbing performance. However, differences in mass, height, and BMI cannot be taken as relevant indicators in this review because the researchers in several articles tried to recruit subjects of similar age and body size. The ape index did not differ significantly between sport climbers of various skill levels and ranged from 1 to 1.03 (12,19,29). However, both male and female sport climbers may present higher lean muscle mass than control subjects. However, the difference mentioned above was shown in only one study (31). This phenomenon may be explained by the fact that the mentioned study compared high-level female and male lead climbers (8a − 9a + RP) with nonclimbers. The above difference within lean muscle mass was not observed between boulderers (≥7B) and nonclimbing individuals (22). In the remaining studies, sport climbers between different levels of advancement were compared, which could have resulted in the lack of significant differences. Furthermore, the body fat content deserves special attention when it comes to other body composition parameters. Lower-body fat content was observed in advanced sport climbers compared with the control group (9,10,16,23,31) and less advanced athletes (10,12,20). The lowest values of body fat below 10% were presented by male lead climbers at the 8b − 8c RP level (7.97%) (29), >8c RP (7.95%) (19), and 8a − 8b + RP (9.8%) (20), male boulderers at the >8B RP level (7.43%) (19), and male speed climbers (9.42%) (19). Climbers at a lower level of advancement and control subjects showed the value of body fat above 10%. Hence, low body fat of less than 10% of body mass seems crucial for top-level sport climbers in each of the 3 climbing subdisciplines. Significantly higher bone density within the upper limb was observed in sports climbers compared with the control group (16,22). Higher bone density has been observed in both male boulderers achieving ≥7B level (1.1 g·cm−2) (22) and male lead climbers achieving >8a RP level (0.972 g·cm−2) (16) in comparison to the control subjects. However, there is a lack of research between sport climbers of different skill levels. The body composition parameters seem considerably more critical than the studied anthropometric parameters in sport climbing achievements. Low body fat with higher lean muscle mass may allow better ergonomic movement and less strain during climbing. Thus, a nutritional assessment, including the evaluation of anthropometric and biochemical data, should be considered in climbing athletes. Concerning bone mineral density, the mechanical impact of sport climbing activity on the bone structure is induced by high muscular tension during climbing. The strain distribution is complex, promoting bone adaptation, especially in upper limbs (16). Hence, this parameter seems to be an adaptation mechanism of the skeletal system to sport climbing activity. Sport climbers presented higher values of MVC finger strength in half-crimp grip, MVC finger strength to body mass, and handgrip strength than control subjects. Moreover, significantly higher MVC values in half-crimp grip were observed in elite sport climbers than in advanced athletes (2,12). Significant differences between climbers in different sport levels were also observed in MVC to body mass (23,29). Higher MVC values were also presented in boulderers achieving 6B+ − 7B+ RP than lead climbers reaching 7a+−8a RP (8). In addition, boulderers have been observed to have a greater rate of force development, which requires a more considerable contribution from the anaerobic metabolism (7). However, the analyzed studies do not allow comparing the MVC results with each other because of methodological differences (e.g., different position of the upper limb during the examination, sitting and standing position during the test, and different grip width and time of effort). Moreover, male boulderers achieving ≥7B RP level (22) and male lead climbers achieving 8a − 9a RP level (38) presented greater handgrip strength parameters (562 N, and 716 N, respectively) than control subjects (521 N and 549 N). In the analyzed articles, the force time integral was chosen to measure climbing-specific endurance. The force time integral parameter was greater for sport climbers than for nonclimbers in the intermittent (8,10,23,31) and continuous (31) tests. However, no differences were observed between the groups of climbers of different sports levels. Male lead climbers achieving 7c + RP level presented the highest force time integral parameters (53,252 0.4 × N × s) in the intermittent test (31). Climbers achieving 8a − 9a+ RP level (31) and 6c − 7c on-sight (OS) level (23) also presented high results in climbing-specific endurance measurement (52,760 0.4 × N × s and 51,769 0.4 × N × s, respectively). Lead climbers on lower level score lower force time integral result in remaining studies (7a+−8a RP level: 47,696 0.4 × N × s (8), 6a + RP level: 33,717 0.4 × N × s, 7a RP level: 31,990 0.4 × N × s (10), 6a + RP level: 17,391 0.4 × N × s (9), 6c + RP level: 16,826 0.4 × N × s (9), 7c + RP level: 15,605 0.4 × N × s (9)). Female elite lead climbers achieving 8a+−8b+ level also presented high values of force time integral parameters 53,023 0.4 × N × s (31). Conversely, male boulderers climbing at 6B+ − 7B+ RP level scored 42,899 0.4 × N × s in the intermittent test (8). In the continuous test, no differences were observed between sport climbers of different sports levels. Therefore, a climbing-specific endurance test, especially during intermittent measurements, is beneficial for distinguishing between sport climbers and nonclimbers, and between sport climbers of various skill levels. Moreover, a considerably greater number of pull-ups was observed in elite lead climbers (n = 33.17) than in the advanced group (n = 25.75). It seems that finger strength parameters are essential in both bouldering and lead climbing. During lead climbing, athletes need to climb crux moves within the most challenging section on a route that requires anaerobic metabolism. Therefore, despite the differences in physical effort during bouldering and lead climbing, both disciplines require high strength capabilities. Moreover, several forearm endurance parameters like force time integral, aerobic or vasodilatory capacity, and reoxygenation were significantly higher in elite vs. recreational lead climbers (2,12,35). However, little data are available on the endurance capabilities of boulderers. Despite this, proposed findings demonstrate that forearm strength and endurance variables differentiate elite climbers in bouldering and lead climbing. However, all analyzed works used forearm strength and endurance parameters assessed in a half-crimp grip. During climbing, sport climbers choose the appropriate grip techniques according to the movement that has to be performed (1). Hence, to confirm the differences mentioned above, research should be consucted using other grips, e.g., slope, full crimp, pockets, pinch. Up to date, several studies have analyzed the genetic profile of sports climbers. A previous study investigated the frequency of ACTN3 R577X between elite and higher elite Polish sport climbers (boulderers and lead climbers) and control subjects. The authors presented that the percent distribution of RR genotype in the boulderers was significantly higher than in lead climbers and control subjects (13). However, the meta-analysis results on 3 cohorts (Japanese, Polish, and Russian) showed that the frequency of XX + RX genotypes in the ACTN3 R577X polymorphism was significantly higher in sport climbers than in the control group (33). Moreover, the frequencies of the C allele in the CKM polymorphism and the T allele in the TRHR polymorphism were higher in Russian sport climbers than in control subjects (33). In addition, the T allele of the MCT1 T1470A polymorphism was overrepresented in Polish sport climbers compared with control subjects (32). Hence genetic predisposition may also influence athletic performance in sport climbing. However, the influence of these genetic variants on individual physiological parameters in sports climbing athletes requires further research. Although many physiological variables may influence climbing performance, it seems that body fat percentage and forearm strength and endurance are crucial in characterizing high-level climbing athletes. However, sport climbing activity is complex and may depend on various technical (3), psychological (30), and genetic (13,32,33) factors. Therefore, determining the most crucial factors may be essential for the development of future elite climbers. More reliable comparisons require using the International Rock Climbing Research Association classification and a consistent methodology for testing strength and endurance parameters. We have to acknowledge several limitations. First, multiple methods were used to assess the outcomes, e.g., body fat percentage measurement, force time integral, MVC finger strength in half-crimp grip procedures. Second, most of the analyzed studies had a small number of subjects. Thus, the sample size may influence our research outcomes. Hence, the conclusions of this work should be considered with caution. Third, articles without separate gender analysis and works where it was impossible to establish the sports level of climbers were not included in this review. However, limitations in the sport climbing level classification may lead to confounding results. Hence, we decided to apply such detailed exclusion criteria to the research. Finally, sport-related parameters such as somatotype classification, flexibility, cognitive functions, aerobic or vasodilatory capacity, and core strength should be included in future reviews.Practical ApplicationsThis literature review suggests that the body fat percentage and forearm strength and endurance seem to be more crucial for sport climbing performance than anthropometric parameters. Hence, in the planning of special training for sport climbing ascents, forearm strength and endurance exercises should be taken into account to maximize the efficiency of sport climbing. In addition, in preparing sport climbing athletes, appropriate dietary recommendations should be considered to obtain a low level of body fat.