Next Article in Journal
Analysis of Penetration Performance Between a Hollow Penetrator and Seabed Clay by Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian Method
Previous Article in Journal
BTCAM: Attention-Based BiLSTM for Imbalanced Classification of Political Inquiry Messages
Previous Article in Special Issue
Multidomain Connectivity as a Marker of HIIT-Induced Adaptation in Elite Youth Soccer Players: A Correlational Mapping Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 16
10.3390/app15168797
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of Lower Limb Performance Determinants in Sport Climbing

by
Fabio García-Heras
1,*,
María Diez-Martín
2,
Diego González-Martínez
2,
Jorge Gutiérrez-Arroyo
1,
Olga Molinero
3 and
Alfonso Salguero
3
1
VALFIS Research Group, Department of Physical Education and Sports, Institute of Biomedicine (IBIOMED), University of Leon, 24071 León, Spain
2
Faculty of Physical Activity and Sports Sciences, University of León, Campus de Vegazana s/n, 24017 León, Spain
3
Faculty of Physical Activity and Sports Sciences, Institute of Biomedicine (IBIOMED), University of León, Campus de Vegazana s/n, 24017 León, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(16), 8797; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15168797
Submission received: 21 May 2025 / Revised: 15 June 2025 / Accepted: 7 August 2025 / Published: 8 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Performance Analysis and Training Process in Sports: Bridging Science and Practice)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Sport climbing has evolved into a demanding discipline where lower limb performance is increasingly relevant, particularly in indoor bouldering. This exploratory study aimed to identify trends in strength and flexibility variables of the lower limbs in 24 recreational climbers (17 males, seven females), classified by sex and climbing level. Male climbers showed significantly greater performance in all measures of strength and power, including vertical and horizontal jumps, pull-ups, and handgrip strength. In contrast, female climbers demonstrated superior lower-limb flexibility and hip mobility, with significant differences observed when normalized to height. They also showed slightly better ankle dorsiflexion, although this difference was not statistically significant. Climbing level (mean: 6c+) correlated significantly with pull-ups (r = 0.598, p = 0.002), relative grip strength (r = 0.440, p = 0.032), and fat mass (r = −0.415, p = 0.043). Despite the lack of association between lower-limb performance and climbing grade, unilateral tests such as the Hop Test and hip mobility assessments may hold value for injury prevention and movement control. These findings highlight that lower-limb training, particularly strength, unilateral control, and flexibility, should not be excluded from physical preparation in climbing. Preventive strategies focusing on joint stability are especially recommended for female climbers due to their higher joint laxity and increased ACL injury risk. Future research should incorporate climbing-specific assessments and explore these variables in other climber profiles, such as elite, youth, or injured athletes.

1. Introduction

Sport climbing is a multifaceted discipline encompassing various modalities practiced both on rock and in indoor settings [1,2,3]. The inclusion of climbing in the Tokyo 2020 Olympic program [4], along with the global proliferation of indoor climbing gyms, has drastically accelerated the sport’s development and the rise in participation rates [3,5,6]. Moreover, recent years have seen a significant increase in both the scope and performance levels of recreational and competitive climbing, which has sparked growing interest in sports science, particularly regarding performance factors, physiology, and injuries [3].
Performance in sport climbing is primarily determined by strength and endurance during intermittent isometric contractions of the finger flexor muscles [7,8,9]. However, performance is not solely limited to physiological factors related to finger flexors and the upper body; it also relies on a combination of technical skills, flexibility, coordination, psychological, and genetic factors [10,11,12].
In recent years, competitive climbing has increasingly incorporated more coordination-intensive styles that require greater involvement of the lower limbs [13,14,15], partly contributing to a rise in injuries in this body region, particularly in disciplines such as bouldering [16,17,18]. While traditionally injuries have been concentrated in the upper extremities—such as shoulders and fingers [19,20]—recent studies suggest that up to ~55% of bouldering injuries affect the lower limbs, compared to 25–35% in the upper limbs. These injuries, often caused by falls, jumps, or extreme movements [16,17,18,21], frequently require emergency care, in contrast to hand injuries, which are often managed in physiotherapy clinics or do not require medical attention [15].
This phenomenon has fueled growing interest in research on lower limb strength and flexibility, variables that could be linked to climbing performance or injury prevention [2,10,13,22,23,24,25]. In this regard, although research is still in its early stages, it is reasonable to assume that lower limb strength training—similarly to what has already been demonstrated for the upper body [23]—could enhance performance by improving stability, postural control, and efficiency in coordination-based movements, in addition to reducing the risk of associated injuries.
Therefore, the main aim of this study was to describe and analyze lower limb flexibility and strength variables in recreational climbers, considering sex and climbing level, as well as the differences among these groups. Based on previous research and the physiological and technical demands of climbing [3,11], we hypothesize that male climbers and those with higher climbing levels would exhibit greater values in lower limb strength variables compared to female climbers and those with lower levels. This difference is considered attributable to the physiological characteristics and specific technical demands of each group.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was an exploratory cross-sectional design that involved the assessment of each participant over two sessions conducted 48 h apart due to organizational constraints, between 1 February and 1 March 2023. This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and complied with Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, on the Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of digital rights. Participants’ right to privacy and confidentiality was always ensured by avoiding the collection of any identifying data. All athletes gave their informed consent to participate in the study and for the publication of the results in an open-access format online [26].

2.1. Participants

Participants were recruited voluntarily at the local climbing gym. The study included 24 climbers (7 female and 17 males) (Table 1), with at least one year of climbing experience. None of the participants had sustained any injuries during the four months prior to the start of the study. All climbers completed a familiarization session with the tests before the evaluations. Participants were classified based on two main criteria: sex (male and female), climbing level (Intermediate (male <7a+, female <6c), advanced (male 7a+–7c+, female 6c–7b+), and elite (male >8a, female >7c)) [27]. Although the elite category was defined, the number of elite climbers was too small to allow for meaningful statistical analysis as a separate group. Therefore, for statistical purposes, the advanced and elite levels were merged into a single ‘advanced’ group (n = 13). The average climbing level for our sample was 6c+.

2.2. Procedure

Initially, basic data was collected from Google Forms (pre-designed for this study) to collect basic information about the subjects, such as climbing discipline, maximum climbing grade obtained, and training method. Before the tests, three basic instructions were given: (i) attend after two hours of fasting, (ii) avoid coffee before the tests, and (iii) avoid intense exercise 24 h prior to the tests. The methodology followed in this study, including data collection and testing procedures, is summarized in Figure 1, which shows the methodological flowchart.
Body 770® was used to measure corporal composition. The first test conducted on the participants was the assessment of body composition. Height was measured first using a portable stadiometer with a precision of 1 mm (SECA®, Hamburg, Germany), followed by weight, using a scale with a precision of 0.1 kg (COBOS®, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain). After obtaining both measurements, a body composition analysis was performed using a bioimpedance scale (InBody 770®, Seoul, Republic of Korea). To ensure the correct execution and accuracy of these measurements, participants were asked to comply with the following recommendations: [28]: not to eat or drink 2–3 h prior, not to perform strenuous exercise 12 h before, not to consume alcohol 48 h prior, not to take diuretics 7 days before, to urinate 30 min before the test, and to remove all metal items from the body (watches, rings, bracelets, earrings, piercings, etc.) before performing the test.
Hip joint mobility was measured by the Grant Test modified by Draper [29]. In this test, the climber stays in front of the wall, 23 cm away, with their palms supported on it. After that, they must make an external lateral rotation in the hip joint (in abduction, pointing with toes to the top and raising their knee to the maximum point while no flexion or movement in the supporting leg).
Hamstring flexibility was assessed using the Sit and Reach Test [30]. The subject sat on a mat with knees extended, legs slightly apart to straddle the support board, and feet firmly placed against the board. With arms extended and palms facing down, the subject performed four forward movements, holding the maximum position reached on the fourth attempt. The score was recorded at the farthest point touched by the fingertips of both hands, considering the hand that reached the shorter distance in case of discrepancy.
Ankle dorsiflexion was measured with My Rom App (Dorsiflex iPhone app, v.3.0.4), which has been demonstrated to have scientific force against other mobility test methods [31]. It gives information about the dorsiflexion angle and asymmetry degree. To obtain this data, it is necessary to do the following procedure: (i) the climber stays with akimbo arms, barefoot, and in stride position on the floor; (ii) the climber pushes to the front until their maximum flexion without lifting their heel; and (iii) the climber stays in their maximum position for 5 s.
To obtain information about vertical jump, the Bosco Test Battery was developed [32]. Climbers performed Squat Jump, Countermovement Jump, and Drop Jump with a Sport Jump Pro platform. They made three familiarization jumps with each type to understand and practice the technique. Afterwards, three valid measures were collected in each jump (in case of execution mistake or software fault, those were removed and repeated). In every jump, the subjects followed these instructions: (i) akimbo arms for the whole move, (ii) leave the floor on the same surface you land, (iii) execute a vertical jump and not to the front or the side, and (iv) the subject must have 30 s recovery between each jump.
Horizontal Jump was measured by the Hop Jump and Triple Hop Jump (dominant and non-dominant for each test) [33]. Climbers place their feet on the starting line and make a horizontal jump to the front with free arms. In the beginning, the supporting leg was always stable and quiet, while the other one was able to bounce to start the movement. The free leg could not touch the ground to push the jump. Landing was always on one leg, and it was necessary to hold for 15 s in this position. In the case of the Triple Hop Jump, the static position must be maintained at the end of the sequence of three consecutive Hop Jump-type jumps. In the case of an unstable landing or fall, the measurement was excluded and the jump was repeated [34]. The distance between the starting line and the heel line at landing was the one used. There was a 30 s recovery between each jump, and three previous jumps were made with the aim of familiarization, providing better execution, and optimization of elastic strength.
To evaluate the upper body muscular endurance, the participants were instructed to perform the maximum number of consecutive pull-ups possible, with a maximum of 2 s of rest between repetitions [35,36]. Each participant began hanging from a fixed bar with a pronated grip, hands placed approximately shoulder-width apart, and elbows fully extended. The legs remained fully extended, with the feet together or crossed according to the participant’s preference. A repetition was considered valid when the participant met the following criteria: starting with elbows fully extended, lifting the body in a controlled manner until the chin clearly surpassed the bar, and descending back to the initial position without generating swings with the torso or legs. All participants completed an identical 10 min warm-up, which included shoulder movements and two submaximal sets of pull-ups.
Handgrip strength was measured using a dynamometer (TKK 5401, Takei Scientific Instruments Co., Ltd., Nigata, Japan). Subjects were instructed to squeeze the device as hard as possible while keeping the elbow flexed to 90° and the forearm in a neutral position while sitting [37].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The results are presented as mean ± standard deviation. The Shapiro–Wilk normality test was used to assess the distribution of the data across the sample (p < 0.05). Subsequently, the data were stratified by sex and climbing grade. Levene’s test was performed to check the homogeneity of variance. An independent samples Student’s t-test was applied to compare means between groups. To analyze differences between sex and climbing grade, a two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. In cases of significant results (p < 0.05), a post hoc Bonferroni test was conducted to identify between which groups the differences occurred. A 95% confidence interval was considered, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Additionally, Pearson’s correlation analysis was performed to explore the relationship between climbing level, measured using the IRCRA scale, and the various variables studied. To examine the performance profile of climbers based on sex, climbing grade, and years of experience, IBM® SPSS® Statistics software (version 28.0.0.0, New York, NY, USA) was used. Finally, the statistical power of the study, calculated for the primary variable countermovement jump (CMJ) with a total sample size of 24 participants (17 males, 7 females), a mean difference of 8 cm, and a standard deviation of 5.6 cm (effect size d = 1.43), was ~86% with a significance level of α = 0.05.

3. Results

Overall, participants reported an average of 6.6 ± 6.8 years of climbing experience, with differences between women (3.5 ± 3.8 years) and men (7.8 ± 7.5 years) (Table 1). Regarding performance level, which was assessed using the IRCRA index, the overall mean was 16 points, with a lower value in the female group (14) and a higher value in the male group (20). Statistically significant differences between sexes were also observed in various body composition variables, such as body mass, body mass index, and body fat percentage (p < 0.05).
Physical performance data by sex are presented in Table 2. Men showed significantly higher performance in all vertical jump tests (CMJ and DJ) and horizontal jump tests (HR and H3JL), with differences of approximately 20% (p < 0.001). They also obtained higher values in absolute power output, although these differences were halved when the data were normalized to body weight (35.3% vs. 18.4%). Conversely, women performed better in lower limb mobility tests (Sit and Reach, LFM, and RFM), although the differences compared to men were not statistically significant.
The two-way ANOVA (sex and climbing level) indicated a significant effect of sex on most of the variables evaluated, except for ankle mobility, hip mobility, and hamstring flexibility (p > 0.05). These results are consistent with those presented in Table 2, where the observed differences are mainly attributed to sex. Therefore, in the subsequent analyses, participants were regrouped only based on climbing level in order to avoid redundancies and facilitate the interpretation of results. When examining differences between climbing levels (Table 3), only three variables showed statistically significant differences: the number of pull-ups, as well as handgrip strength in both absolute values and values normalized to body weight (p < 0.05).
Finally, a Pearson correlation analysis was performed to explore the relationship between climbing level, measured by the IRCRA scale, revealing significant correlations with years of experience (r = 0.433, p = 0.034), body fat percentage (r = −0.415, p = 0.043), number of pull-ups (r = 0.598, p = 0.002), as well as handgrip strength relative to body weight (r = 0.484, p = 0.016) and to fat-free mass (r = 0.412, p = 0.046). In contrast, no significant correlations were found with lower limb-related variables, including vertical jump height (SJ: r = 0.347, p = 0.097; CMJ: r = 0.354, p = 0.090; DJ: r = 0.363, p = 0.081), or with horizontal jump tests (Hop3Test left: r = 0.197, p = 0.356; Hop3Test right: r = 0.330, p = 0.116). Similarly, flexibility as assessed by the sit-and-reach test showed no association with climbing performance (r = −0.159, p = 0.458).

4. Discussion

This study aimed to characterize lower limb strength and flexibility in recreational climbers, an aspect that has been scarcely explored in the current literature. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to specifically analyze these variables in this population. While previous research has addressed the lower limbs mainly from an injury perspective [13,16,17,18,38], more recent studies have begun to consider their role in performance [7,22,29], although often as a secondary focus.
Our CMJ results are lower than those reported in disciplines where jumping is a key performance component, such as volleyball or track and field [39], but higher than those reported in recreational climbers with a higher level (~28 vs. ~32 cm) [40], and clearly below the values observed in speed climbing specialists (49.6 cm) [41]. This supports the idea that the type of climbing influences the expression of lower limb power [41]. The inclusion of unilateral tests, such as the Hop Test, allowed for the assessment of not only lower limb power but also functional asymmetries, which are relevant both for performance and injury prevention [42,43]. Although no significant associations were found in this study between performance on these tests and climbing level, it is worth noting that lower limb movements in climbing are often asymmetrical, suggesting that unilateral assessments may have greater applicability than traditional bilateral tests. While no between-group differences were found in our sample, future studies should more deeply explore the predictive value of these tests in relation to both performance and musculoskeletal injury prevention, especially considering clinical asymmetry thresholds above 10%, which have been linked to a higher risk of injury [43,44].
Regarding the upper body, general strength tests such as pull-ups and handgrip strength were useful in differentiating between climbers of varying levels, and values were comparable to those reported in previous studies with recreational populations [40], although lower than those found in more advanced climbers [35,45,46]. While handgrip strength measured with a dynamometer is recognized as a valid indicator of overall health [47], its usefulness as a specific performance marker in climbing has been questioned. Several studies suggest that this type of test does not adequately capture the functional demands of climbing movements, and it may be preferable to use tools and protocols that assess finger flexor strength and endurance in more representative contexts [48,49].
Limited ankle range of motion is a relevant risk factor for injury and a common consequence of previous injuries [50]. In our sample, dorsiflexion values were adequate (>30°) and showed minimal imbalance between ankles (<5°), suggesting a low functional risk, since greater imbalances have been associated with increased injury incidence in various sports [31,51]. To assess lower limb flexibility, two complementary tests were used: a generic one, the Sit and Reach, widely used to estimate hamstring extensibility [52], and another specific to sport climbing, the modified Grant Test [22], designed to replicate technical climbing gestures. While the Sit and Reach allows for a general assessment of posterior chain flexibility, its application in climbing is limited as it does not reflect the joint and muscular patterns involved in real ascent situations. In this sense, the Grant Test offers greater ecological validity, as it involves movements characteristic of climbing technique, such as extreme hip opening and lower limb extension on high footholds, making it a more sensitive tool for discriminating between performance levels and detecting specific functional deficits. In our sample, Sit and Reach results (9.9 ± 9.0 cm) were below the reference values (15–25 cm) established by the ACSM [53], and well below those reported in higher-level recreational climbers (~30 cm) [22,40], which could be associated with a higher risk of hamstring and lumbar overload [54]. Similarly, values obtained in the Grant Test were lower than those observed both in its validation study and in subsequent research with more advanced climbers [29], who exceeded grade 7b on the IRCRA scale, while our sample had an average level of 6b+.

4.1. Sex Differences

Our results confirm marked sex differences in the physical performance of recreational climbers, with men showing significantly superior performance in all explosive strength tests (vertical and horizontal jumps) and maximal strength tests (handgrip strength and number of pull-ups). Due to the differences within the sample, these results should be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, they accurately reflect the distribution of participants in this sport. These differences align with findings in the literature, which document greater strength and power capacity in men, attributed to physiological factors such as greater muscle mass, higher testosterone levels, and muscle architecture more favorable for force production [12,55,56]. However, when these values were normalized for body mass and fat-free mass, the sex differences were considerably reduced (35.3%, 18.4%, and 13.3% in power; 33.2%, 13.0%, and 9.9% in handgrip strength), indicating that part of the male advantage in absolute values is influenced by body composition. Additionally, in disciplines involving frequent jumping and landings—an increasingly common situation in modern indoor climbing—women face a higher risk of knee joint injuries, especially involving the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), due to structural factors such as greater dynamic valgus, a wider Q angle, and increased ligamentous laxity [57,58]. In this context, the growing prevalence of dynamic moves and jumps in modern bouldering [13,16,17] highlights the need for specific preventive programs, particularly for female climbers. On the other hand, women demonstrated greater lower limb mobility, with clear advantages in ankle dorsiflexion and dynamic flexibility tests, showing percentage differences of 57.5% (Sit and Reach), 5.5% (LFM), and 2.4% (RFM). These findings align with previous studies that describe greater general flexibility in women, associated with hormonal and biomechanical factors such as higher levels of relaxin and estrogens, which reduce muscle stiffness and increase tendon elasticity by inhibiting collagen synthesis [59,60,61]. However, this increased joint mobility may also elevate injury susceptibility, especially in the lower limbs and structures like the ACL, where a higher incidence of injuries has been observed in women [62]. Overall, our findings are consistent with studies evaluating lower limb mobility in climbers by sex [2,22], as well as with research in disciplines like gymnastics, where flexibility is a key performance component [63]. Paradoxically, although male gymnasts can achieve high levels of flexibility, their overall performance is often lower than that of female gymnasts [63], reinforcing the notion that structural and functional sex differences must be considered in both training planning and injury prevention in climbing.

4.2. Differences by Level

Regarding climbing level, significant differences were only observed in the number of pull-ups and in handgrip strength relative to body weight and fat-free mass, which is consistent with their direct association with performance [35]. These variables also showed positive correlations with climbing level, as well as with experience and lower body fat percentage, in line with previous studies [7,11,40]. In particular, the pull-up test showed significant correlations both at the general level and among men and more experienced climbers, supporting its value as a functional indicator of upper body endurance [64]. Our results reinforce these previous findings and highlight that arm endurance is a fundamental parameter for climbing performance. This attribute is especially relevant in the execution of prolonged and technically demanding moves, where the ability to maintain consistent and efficient upper-body force can be the difference between completing or failing a climb. Finally, the limited difference between groups may be due to the absence of more climbing-specific tests, such as isometric finger flexor endurance [8,9]. Their inclusion could have allowed for more precise identification of performance-determining capacities.

4.3. Practical Applications

Although the results of this study did not show significant associations between lower limb strength and flexibility variables and climbing level in recreational climbers, this does not imply that these capacities lack relevance. Climbing performance is highly influenced by upper body strength and endurance, particularly in disciplines such as sport climbing or bouldering. However, the role of the lower limbs in technical execution, postural control, and especially in injury prevention, should not be overlooked.
The lower limbs play an active role in unilateral supports, pushes, dynamic movements, and jump landings, particularly in modern indoor settings where movements are increasingly acrobatic [13,17]. Although no direct relationships with performance were observed in this study, lower limb training may help reduce the risk of musculoskeletal injuries, improve functional symmetry, and broaden the climber’s technical repertoire—especially relevant for climbers progressing to higher levels or more explosive styles such as bouldering or speed climbing. Furthermore, the used tests (such as the Hop Test or the Grant Test) may have added value as functional assessment and monitoring tools—not only to detect mobility deficits or asymmetries but also to guide individualized prevention programs. Therefore, it is recommended not to exclude lower limb strength and mobility training from physical preparation programs for recreational climbers, even if its direct impact on performance was not evident in this sample. In different profiles (youth, elite, injured, or female climbers), its contribution could be even more relevant.

4.4. Limitations

This study presents a number of limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, we did not include specific tests to evaluate forearm flexor strength endurance. This omission limits our ability to provide a more complete picture of essential physical capacities in climbing. Additionally, one of the main limitations lies in the sample size and the diversity of participant levels, which may limit the generalizability of the results to other recreational climbing groups. The gender distribution was also unbalanced (17 males and 7 females), which reflects the actual demographic profile of climbers but further restricts the robustness of comparisons between sexes. Although the selected tests for evaluating strength and flexibility have demonstrated high reliability and validity in various sports disciplines, as generic tests, they may not fully reflect the specific demands of sport climbing. Lastly, since this study focused on recreational climbers with an intermediate level (6b+), the findings may not be generalizable to elite climbers, who typically exhibit different physical and physiological characteristics. Future research should include larger samples, longitudinal analyses, and more specific evaluations of the functional and biomechanical demands of sport climbing. Given these limitations, this exploratory study should be understood as a preliminary contribution aimed at identifying trends and generating hypotheses to be confirmed in future research with larger and more representative samples.

5. Conclusions

This study provides original evidence on lower-body strength and flexibility in recreational climbers—an area that has received little attention until now. Although no significant associations were found between these variables and climbing performance, the results reinforce the importance of adopting a comprehensive view of the climber, where the lower body should not be overlooked. The observed sex differences in strength and mobility, as well as the influence of experience level on certain upper-body capacities, highlight the need for individualized approaches in physical preparation. Furthermore, the use of specific tests such as the Grant Test or the Hop Test can provide valuable information for injury prevention and technical development, especially in contexts where climbing demands greater involvement of the lower limbs. Future studies should increase the sample, include specific tests, and explore how these capacities may influence other climber profiles, such as youth, women, or elite athletes. Including lower-body training in preparation programs could not only offer health and injury prevention benefits but also contribute indirectly to the climber’s overall performance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.G.-H., O.M. and A.S.; methodology, M.D.-M., J.G.-A., A.S. and F.G.-H.; analysis and interpretation of the data D.G.-M., O.M. and F.G.-H.; draft, critical revision and approval of the final version of the article submitted for publication: F.G.-H., O.M., M.D.-M., J.G.-A., A.S. and D.G.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because the procedures involved were non-invasive, submaximal, and posed no foreseeable risk of injury or adverse effects. All physical tests were preceded by a specific warm-up and conducted under the supervision of at least two qualified exercise professionals. Participants were already familiar with the nature of the tests as part of their regular training routines. All participants were fully informed about the study procedures and voluntarily provided written informed consent, in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all the climbers who participated in this study for their commitment and dedication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Saeterbakken, A.H.; Schöffl, V.R.; Schweizer, A.; Grønhaug, G. Editorial: Injuries, Injury Prevention and Training in Climbing. Front. Sports Act. Living 2024, 6, 10–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Baláš, J.; PanáIková, M.; Strejcová, B.; Martin, A.J.; Cochrane, D.J.; Kaláb, M.; Kodejška, J.; Draper, N. The Relationship between Climbing Ability and Physiological Responses to Rock Climbing. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 678387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Giles, D.; Barnes, K.; Taylor, N.; Chidley, C.; Chidley, J.; Mitchell, J.; Torr, O.; Gibson-Smith, E.; España-Romero, V. Anthropometry and Performance Characteristics of Recreational Advanced to Elite Female Rock Climbers. J. Sports Sci. 2021, 39, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. International Olympic Committee. IOC Annual Report: Credibility, Sustainability, Youth; IOC: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  5. Lutter, C.; El-Sheikh, Y.; Schöffl, I.; Schöffl, V. Sport Climbing: Medical Considerations for This New Olympic Discipline. Br. J. Sports Med. 2017, 51, 2–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lutter, C.; Schöffl, V. Future Aspects: Climbing in the Olympics. In Climbing Medicine; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 325–329. ISBN 9783030721848. [Google Scholar]
  7. Saul, D.; Steinmetz, G.; Lehmann, W.; Schilling, A.F. Determinants for Success in Climbing: A Systematic Review. J. Exerc. Sci. Fit. 2019, 17, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bergua-Gómez, P.; Gomez-Bruton, A.; Casajús, J.A.; Montero-Marin, J. A New Performance Threshold in Sport Climbing: Change in How Climbing Trainers Work? Sci. Sports 2022, 37, 656–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Deyhle, M.R.; Hsu, H.-S.; Fairfield, T.J.; Cadez-Schmidt, T.L.; Gurney, B.A.; Mermier, C.M. Relative Importance of Four Muscle Groups for Indoor Rock Climbing Performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 2006–2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Saeterbakken, A.H.; Stien, N.; Pedersen, H.; Langer, K.; Scott, S.; Michailov, M.L.; Gronhaug, G.; Baláš, J.; Solstad, T.E.J.; Andersen, V. The Connection Between Resistance Training, Climbing Performance, and Injury Prevention. Sports Med.-Open 2024, 10, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ginszt, M.; Saito, M.; Ziȩba, E.; Majcher, P.; Kikuchi, N. Body Composition, Anthropometric Parameters, and Strength-Endurance Characteristics of Sport Climbers: A Systematic Review. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2023, 37, 1339–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Laffaye, G.; Collin, J.-M.; Levernier, G.; Padulo, J. Upper-Limb Power Test in Rock-Climbing. Int. J. Sports Med. 2014, 35, 670–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Eichler, M.; Lutter, C.; Morris, P.D.; Schöffl, V. Run-and-Jump Failure: New Injury Patterns in Indoor Bouldering. Sport. Sportschaden 2024, 38, 27–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. de la Cruz, V.M.; Carranza, V.R.; Ravé, J.M.G. Road to Paris 2024: Force-Velocity Profile in Different Speed Climbers’ Abilities. Biol. Sport 2024, 42, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Müller, M.; Heck, J.; Pflüger, P.; Greve, F.; Biberthaler, P.; Crönlein, M. Characteristics of Bouldering Injuries Based on 430 Patients Presented to an Urban Emergency Department. Injury 2022, 53, 1394–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Lutter, C.; Tischer, T.; Cooper, C.; Frank, L.; Hotfiel, T.; Lenz, R.; Schöffl, V. Mechanisms of Acute Knee Injuries in Bouldering and Rock Climbing Athletes. Am. J. Sports Med. 2020, 48, 730–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lutter, C.; Popp, D.; Schöffl, V. Knee Injuries in Rock Climbing and Bouldering—An Update. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2018, 6, 2325967118s00019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Schöffl, V.; Lutter, C.; Popp, D. The ‘Heel Hook’—A Climbing-Specific Technique to Injure the Leg. Wilderness Environ. Med. 2016, 27, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Jones, G.; Schöffl, V.; Johnson, M.I. Incidence, Diagnosis, and Management of Injury in Sport Climbing and Bouldering: A Critical Review. Curr. Sports Med. Rep. 2018, 17, 396–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schöffl, V.; Simon, M.; Lutter, C. Finger- und Schulterverletzungen im Klettersport. Orthopade 2019, 48, 1005–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Buzzacott, P.; Schöffl, I.; Chimiak, J.; Schöffl, V. Rock Climbing Injuries Treated in US Emergency Departments, 2008–2016. Wilderness Environ. Med. 2019, 30, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Draper, N.; Brent, S.; Hodgson, C.; Blackwell, G. Flexibility Assessment and the Role of Flexibility as a Determinant of Performance in Rock Climbing. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport 2009, 9, 67–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Langer, K.; Simon, C.; Wiemeyer, J. Strength Training in Climbing: A Systematic Review. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2023, 37, 751–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Langer, K.; Simon, C.; Wiemeyer, J. Physical Performance Testing in Climbing—A Systematic Review. Front. Sports Act. Living 2023, 5, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Čular, D.; Dhahbi, W.; Kolak, I.; Dello Iacono, A.; Bešlija, T.; Laffaye, G.; Padulo, J. Reliability, Sensitivity, and Minimal Detectable Change of a New Specific Climbing Test for Assessing Asymmetry in Reach Technique. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. JAMA 2013, 310, 2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Draper, N.; Giles, D.; Schöffl, V.; Konstantin Fuss, F.; Watts, P.; Wolf, P.; Baláš, J.; Espana-Romero, V.; Blunt Gonzalez, G.; Fryer, S.; et al. Comparative Grading Scales, Statistical Analyses, Climber Descriptors and Ability Grouping: International Rock Climbing Research Association Position Statement. Sports Technol. 2016, 8, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Alvero-Cruz, J.R.; Correas-Gómez, L.; Ronconi, M.; Fernández-Vázquez, R.; Porta i Manzañido, J. Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis as a Method of Body Composition Estimation: A Practical Approach. Rev. Andal. Med. Del. Deport. 2011, 4, 167–174. [Google Scholar]
  29. Draga, P.; Ozimek, M.; Krawczyk, M.; Rokowski, R.; Nowakowska, M.; Ochwat, P.; Jurczak, A.; Stanula, A. Importance and Diagnosis of Flexibility Preparation of Male Sport Climbers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wells, K.F.; Dillon, E.K. The Sit and Reach—A Test of Back and Leg Flexibility. Res. Q. Am. Assoc. Health Phys. Educ. Recreat. 1952, 23, 115–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Balsalobre-Fernández, C.; Romero-Franco, N.; Jiménez-Reyes, P. Concurrent Validity and Reliability of an IPhone App for the Measurement of Ankle Dorsiflexion and Inter-Limb Asymmetries. J. Sports Sci. 2019, 37, 249–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bosco, C.; Luhtanen, P.; Komi, P. A Simple Method for Measurement of Mechanical Power in Jumping. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 1983, 50, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Noyes, F.R.; Barber, S.D.; Mangine, R.E. Abnormal Lower Limb Symmetry Determined by Function Hop Tests after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture. Am. J. Sports Med. 1991, 19, 513–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sharath, U.; Prakruthi, B.; Pradeep, K.; Shridhar, S. A Study on Effect of Wobble Board Balance Training Program on Static Balance, Dynamic Balance, Triple Hop Distance and Vertical Jump Height in Basketball Athletes. Int. J. Phys. Educ. Sports Health 2020, 7, 163–169. [Google Scholar]
  35. Devise, M.; Quaine, F.; Vigouroux, L. Assessing Climbers’ Pull-up Capabilities by Differentiating the Parameters Involved in Power Production. PeerJ 2023, 11, e15886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Sánchez-Moreno, M.; Pareja-Blanco, F.; Diaz-Cueli, D.; González-Badillo, J.J. Determinant Factors of Pull up Performance in Trained Athletes. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2016, 56, 825–833. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gutiérrez-Arroyo, J.; García-Heras, F.; Carballo-Leyenda, B.; Villa-Vicente, J.G.; Rodríguez-Medina, J.; Rodríguez-Marroyo, J.A. Effect of a High-Intensity Circuit Training Program on the Physical Fitness of Wildland Firefighters. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Auer, J.; Schöffl, V.R.; Achenbach, L.; Meffert, R.H.; Fehske, K. Indoor Bouldering—A Prospective Injury Evaluation. Wilderness Environ. Med. 2021, 32, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Haugen, T.A.; Breitschädel, F.; Wiig, H.; Seiler, S. Countermovement Jump Height in National-Team Athletes of Various Sports: A Framework for Practitioners and Scientists. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2021, 16, 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. España-Romero, V.; Ortega Porcel, F.B.; Artero, E.G.; Jiménez-Pavón, D.; Gutiérrez Sainz, Á.; Castillo Garzón, M.J.; Ruiz, J.R. Climbing Time to Exhaustion Is a Determinant of Climbing Performance in High-Level Sport Climbers. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2009, 107, 517–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Krawczyk, M.; Pociecha, M.; Ozimek, M.; Draga, P. The Force, Velocity, and Power of the Lower Limbs as Determinants of Speed Climbing Efficiency. Trends Sports Sci. 2020, 27, 219–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Judd, A.; Sharp, T. The Single Hop for Distance Test: Reviewing the Methodology to Measure Maximum and Repeated Performance. J. Sports Rehabil. 2022, 31, 657–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ebert, J.R.; Du Preez, L.; Furzer, B.; Edwards, P.; Joss, B. Which Hop Tests Can Best Identify Functional Limb Asymmetry in Patients 9-12 Months after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Employing a Hamstrings Tendon Autograft? Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 2021, 16, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Thomeé, R.; Kaplan, Y.; Kvist, J.; Myklebust, G.; Risberg, M.A.; Theisen, D.; Tsepis, E.; Werner, S.; Wondrasch, B.; Witvrouw, E. Muscle Strength and Hop Performance Criteria Prior to Return to Sports after ACL Reconstruction. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2011, 19, 1798–1805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Grant, S.; Hynes, V.; Whittaker, A.; Aitchison, T. Anthropometric, Strength, Endurance and Flexibility Characteristics of Elite and Recreational Climbers. J. Sports Sci. 1996, 14, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ozimek, M.; Staszkiewicz, R.; Rokowski, R.; Stanula, A. Analysis of Tests Evaluating Sport Climbers’ Strength and Isometric Endurance. J. Hum. Kinet. 2016, 53, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Wu, Y.; Wang, W.; Liu, T.; Zhang, D. Association of Grip Strength with Risk of All-Cause Mortality, Cardiovascular Diseases, and Cancer in Community-Dwelling Populations: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2017, 18, 551.E17–551.E35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Stien, N.; Saeterbakken, A.H.; Andersen, V. Tests and Procedures for Measuring Endurance, Strength, and Power in Climbing—A Mini-Review. Front. Sports Act. Living 2022, 4, 847447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Marcolin, G.; Faggian, S.; Muschietti, M.; Matteraglia, L.; Paoli, A. Determinants of Climbing Performance: When Finger Flexor Strength and Endurance Count. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2022, 36, 1099–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. McKay, G.D.; Goldie, P.A.; Payne, W.R.; Oakes, B.W. Ankle Injuries in Basketball: Injury Rate and Risk Factors. Br. J. Sports Med. 2001, 35, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Baumbach, S.F.; Braunstein, M.; Seeliger, F.; Borgmann, L.; Böcker, W.; Polzer, H. Ankle Dorsiflexion: What Is Normal? Development of a Decision Pathway for Diagnosing Impaired Ankle Dorsiflexion and M. Gastrocnemius Tightness. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2016, 136, 1203–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. López-Miñarro, P.A.; Rodríguez-García, P.L. Hamstring Muscle Extensibility Influences the Criterion-Related Validity of Sit-and-Reach and Toe-Touch Tests. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2010, 24, 1013–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. American College of Sports Science. ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 10th ed.; Lippincott Williams and Wilkins: Ambler, PA, USA, 2017; ISBN 9781496339072. [Google Scholar]
  54. Erkula, G.; Demirkan, F.; Alper Kılıç, B.; Kıter, E. Hamstring Shortening in Healthy Adults. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 2002, 16, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Epstein, Y.; Yanovich, R.; Moran, D.S.; Heled, Y. Physiological Employment Standards IV: Integration of Women in Combat Units Physiological and Medical Considerations. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2013, 113, 2673–2690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Roberts, D.; Gebhardt, D.L.; Gaskill, S.E.; Roy, T.C.; Sharp, M.A. Current Considerations Related to Physiological Differences between the Sexes and Physical Employment Standards. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2016, 41, S108–S120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Montalvo, A.M.; Schneider, D.K.; Yut, L.; Webster, K.E.; Beynnon, B.; Kocher, M.S.; Myer, G.D. “What’s My Risk of Sustaining an ACL Injury While Playing Sports?” A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019, 53, 1003–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sutton, K.M.; Bullock, J.M. Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture: Differences Between Males and Females. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2013, 21, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dragoo, J.L.; Castillo, T.N.; Braun, H.J.; Ridley, B.A.; Kennedy, A.C.; Golish, S.R. Prospective Correlation Between Serum Relaxin Concentration and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears Among Elite Collegiate Female Athletes. Am. J. Sports Med. 2011, 39, 2175–2180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kjær, M.; Magnusson, P.; Krogsgaard, M.; Møller, J.B.; Olesen, J.; Heinemeier, K.; Hansen, M.; Haraldsson, B.; Koskinen, S.; Esmarck, B.; et al. Extracellular Matrix Adaptation of Tendon and Skeletal Muscle to Exercise. J. Anat. 2006, 208, 445–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yu, S.; Lin, L.; Liang, H.; Lin, M.; Deng, W.; Zhan, X.; Fu, X.; Liu, C. Gender Difference in Effects of Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Stretching on Flexibility and Stiffness of Hamstring Muscle. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13, 918176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zazulak, B.T.; Paterno, M.; Myer, G.D.; Romani, W.A.; Hewett, T.E. The Effects of the Menstrual Cycle on Anterior Knee Laxity. Sports Med. 2006, 36, 847–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Höög, S.; Andersson, E.P. Sex and Age-Group Differences in Strength, Jump, Speed, Flexibility, and Endurance Performances of Swedish Elite Gymnasts Competing in TeamGym. Front. Sports Act. Living 2021, 3, 653503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Draper, N.; Dickson, T.; Blackwell, G.; Priestley, S.; Fryer, S.; Marshall, H.; Shearman, J.; Hamlin, M.; Winter, D.; Ellis, G. Sport-Specific Power Assessment for Rock Climbing. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2011, 51, 417–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 08797 g001
Figure 1. Methodological flowchart.
Figure 1. Methodological flowchart.
Applsci 15 08797 g001
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics.
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics.
All (n = 24)Female (n = 7)Male (n = 17)%
Body mass (kg)66.5 ± 9.956.0 ± 4.770.9 ± 8.021.02 *
Height (cm)172.0 ± 9.0161.8 ± 5.9176.2 ± 6.28.17 *
APE index (cm)3.6 ± 3.92.1 ± 3.14.3 ± 4.151.16 *
BMI (Kg·m−2)22.3 ± 6.621.4 ± 1.322.6 ± 1.75.31 *
Fat mass (%)14.4 ± 4.218.1 ± 2.112.9 ± 3.8−40.31 *
Age (years)33.5 ± 9.328.7 ± 5.135.5 ± 10.019.15 *
Experience (years)6.6 ± 6.83.5 ± 3.27.8 ± 7.555.13 *
Climbing grade (IRCRA)6c+ (16.1)6b+ (14.6)7a (18.8)13.1 *
Source: values expressed as medium ± standard deviation; APE index (wingspan/height); BMI, Body Mass Index; * significant statistics (p < 0.05).
Table 2. Comparison of performance variables between males and females.
Table 2. Comparison of performance variables between males and females.
TestAll (n = 24)Female (n = 7)Male (n = 17)Difference (%)p-Value
SJ (cm)28.5 ± 5.623.9 ± 3.130.4 ± 5.321.30.003
CMJ (cm)31.9 ± 5.626.2 ± 2.534.2 ± 4.823.5<0.001
DJ (cm)30.7 ± 5.825.3 ± 3.133.0 ± 5.223.3<0.001
Power (W)2902.7 ± 638.22093.4 ± 257.73236.0 ± 394.935.3<0.001
Power (W/kg)43.3 ± 5.137.3 ± 2.545.7 ± 3.618.4<0.001
Power (W/FFM)50.5 ± 5.145.6 ± 3.052.6 ± 4.313.3<0.001
DS left (°)45.8 ± 7.542.4 ± 7.747.2 ± 7.210.20.081
DS right (°)46.2 ± 6.543.8 ± 7.447.3 ± 6.17.40.121
Sit and Reach (cm)9.4 ± 9.012.6 ± 6.68.1 ± 9.7−57.20.133
LFM (cm)73.5 ± 4.079.4 ± 8.575.2 ± 5.4−5.50.083
RFM (cm)74.1 ± 3.879.0 ± 10.477.1 ± 5.5−2.40.283
Hop Test Left (m)1.6 ± 0.21.4 ± 0.11.7 ± 0.215.90.003
Hop Test Right (m)1.6 ± 0.21.4 ± 0.11.7 ± 0.216.80.002
H3JL (m)5.4 ± 0.84.6 ± 0.55.7 ± 0.718.5<0.001
H3JR (m)5.4 ± 0.74.7 ± 0.35.7 ± 0.716.7<0.001
Pull-ups (rep.)11.0 ± 5.47.4 ± 3.912.5 ± 5.440.80.018
Handgrip strength (kgf)44.4 ± 9.132.8 ± 2.349.1 ± 5.833.2<0.001
Relative handgrip strength (kgf/body mass)0.66 ± 0.090.60 ± 0.080.69 ± 0.0913.00.015
Relative handgrip strength (kgf/fat-free mass)0.78 ± 0.790.72 ± 0.770.80 ± 0.709.90.012
Source: values expressed as mean ± standard deviation; SJ, squat jump; CMJ, counter movement jump; DJ, drop jump; FFM, fat-free mass; DS, dorsiflexion; LFM, left foot mobility; RFM, right foot mobility; H3JL, triple Hop Test left; H3JR, triple Hop Test right. Kgf, force in kilograms.
Table 3. Comparison of performance variables between climbing level.
Table 3. Comparison of performance variables between climbing level.
TestIntermediate (n = 11)Advanced (n = 13)Difference (%)p-Value
SJ (cm)27.0 ± 4.029.8 ± 6.5−10.50.227
CMJ (cm)30.7 ± 4.232.9 ± 6.6−7.30.341
DJ (cm)28.9 ± 4.232.3 ± 6.6−11.50.166
Power (W)2912.8 ± 641.22894.2 ± 661.70.60.945
Power (W/kg)42.5 ± 4.144.0 ± 5.9−3.50.495
Power (W/FFM)50.2 ± 3.850.9 ± 6.1−1.40.737
DS left (°)45.9 ± 6.245.8 ± 8.80.30.968
DS right (°)47.2 ± 3.545.4 ± 8.43.90.509
Sit and Reach (cm)9.7 ± 11.69.2 ± 6.74.90.901
LFM (cm)77.2 ± 6.775.8 ± 6.61.80.619
RFM (cm)78.5 ± 7.676.9 ± 6.82.10.588
Hop Test Left (m)1.7 ± 0.21.6 ± 0.36.70.248
Hop Test Right (m)1.7 ± 0.21.6 ± 0.34.50.445
H3JL (m)5.5 ± 0.65.3 ± 0.93.50.572
H3JR (m)5.4 ± 0.75.4 ± 0.80.10.989
Pull-ups (rep.)8.6 ± 4.113.0 ± 5.8−50.50.047
Handgrip strength (kgf)42.9 ± 9.845.6 ± 8.7−6.30.482
Relative handgrip strength (kgf/body mass)0.6 ± 0.10.7 ± 0.1−11.60.036
Relative handgrip strength (kgf/fat-free mass)0.7 ± 0.10.8 ± 0.1−9.30.033
Source: values expressed as mean ± standard deviation; SJ, squat jump; CMJ, counter movement jump; DJ, drop jump; FFM, fat-free mass; DS, dorsiflexion; LFM, left foot mobility; RFM, right foot mobility; H3JL, triple Hop Test left; H3JR, triple Hop Test right. Kgf, force in kilograms.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

García-Heras, F.; Diez-Martín, M.; González-Martínez, D.; Gutiérrez-Arroyo, J.; Molinero, O.; Salguero, A. Analysis of Lower Limb Performance Determinants in Sport Climbing. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 8797. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15168797

AMA Style

García-Heras F, Diez-Martín M, González-Martínez D, Gutiérrez-Arroyo J, Molinero O, Salguero A. Analysis of Lower Limb Performance Determinants in Sport Climbing. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(16):8797. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15168797

Chicago/Turabian Style

García-Heras, Fabio, María Diez-Martín, Diego González-Martínez, Jorge Gutiérrez-Arroyo, Olga Molinero, and Alfonso Salguero. 2025. "Analysis of Lower Limb Performance Determinants in Sport Climbing" Applied Sciences 15, no. 16: 8797. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15168797

APA Style

García-Heras, F., Diez-Martín, M., González-Martínez, D., Gutiérrez-Arroyo, J., Molinero, O., & Salguero, A. (2025). Analysis of Lower Limb Performance Determinants in Sport Climbing. Applied Sciences, 15(16), 8797. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15168797

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop