Three Ways to Improve Your Contact Strength | Contact Strength Pt. 3
Hooper’s Beta Ep. 99
INTRO
You should know by now that contact strength refers to the rate of force development in our fingers. You should also know that contact strength in the real world, aka functional contact strength, is far more nuanced than this, as it’s a combination of RFD, mentality, and technique. This presents us with a dilemma: do we try to train pure RFD or do we take a holistic approach and try to improve on all those aspects?
The answer to that needs to be determined on an individual basis, because the “best” way to train contact strength will largely depend on your goals as a climber and your current training routine.
There are many variables that need to be considered when making this decision, making it impossible to give one ideal routine for every climber (contrary to what the internet seems to want!). Instead, we’re going to cover a few of the primary methods of contact strength training as well as a full sample routine by pro climber/coach/ultra nice guy Dan Beall.
Just keep in mind that there are tons of variations of contact strength training, and the exact methods we show in this video may or may not be right for you.
ON THE HANGBOARD
For training pure finger RFD, the hangboard can be a great tool due to having the fewest uncontrolled variables. Things like hold size and body position remain constant while aspects of commitment and footwork are essentially removed from the equation, which is great for allowing you to focus on the task at hand.
The other key benefit of this method, especially for us nerds, is that this is the way RFD research is performed, meaning it has scientific data to back it up. Also, because it relies on objective measurements, it’s a cinch to track your training progress.
RFD training on the hangboard is typically referred to as “impact holds” or “high velocity holds.” Rather than slowly sinking into the hold, you grab the hold with one or both hands and try to generate as much force as quickly as you can. This impact will force your nervous system to respond faster to the stimulus to maintain proper position of your fingers and joints, thus increasing your RFD!
To perform impact holds:
Anchor yourself to the ground so you can reach the hold with elbows bent about 110 degrees. This can be achieved by attaching weight to you or by performing it in a sitting position with a bar or strap to prevent you from lifting up.
Hover your fingers slightly above the hold, then quickly drop into it, generating as much force as you can, as quickly as you can, for about 2-3 seconds.
If you’re less experienced, an alternate form is to start with your hands gently resting on the hold.
Just like with any hangboarding activity, make sure you maintain a good body position with your shoulders engaged. Don’t sag down and flop around.
Relax for a second, allowing your fingers to gently rest above the hold again.
Repeat, performing 3-5 reps in total.
Perform 4-5 sets of this with 3-5 minutes of rest between sets.
This can be done once or twice a week and I recommend performing it after your fingers are fully warmed up. Please don’t do this without any warm up prior.
This can be after performing some regular climbing, performing some hangs or recruitment pulls, or if you’re a real nerd: measure your strength on a crane scale and keep getting warmed up until you hit your normal bench mark!
For an alternate version that can be used to prepare for a dynamic project or moonboarding, for example:
Choose an edge size that you know you can safely load your full body weight onto.
In fact, I often recommend choosing an edge size that you know you can safely load an extra 15-25% of your body weight on in a controlled manner. This is a good sign that your fingers are strong enough to handle the forces generated at this edge.
Gentle rest your fingers on the hold and position them close to the form you will use (3 finger drag vs half crimp, for example).
Quickly load your fingers, generating as much force as you can.
This should last for only 2-3 seconds
Relax, allowing your fingers to gently rest on the hold again.
Repeat, 3-5 times.
Rest for 3-5 minutes between attempts.
Repeat 3-5 times, for a total of 3-4 sets.
Once again, you should have allowed yourself a gentle warm up before performing this movement.
Sets, Reps, & Frequency
In total, you should perform 3-4 sets of 3-5 repetitions. Rest 3-5 minutes in between sets. Perform once or twice a week, depending on your training goals.
ON THE WALL
On the opposite end of the contact strength training spectrum we have on-the-wall training, aka climbing. While hangboarding is a great way to train pure RFD, on-the-wall training is great for functional contact strength, as it also relies on climbing technique and mentality.
For example, making dynamic movements on the wall and latching holds near your limit will help you gain confidence. As you experiment with footwork, hip positioning, and other beta, you will also improve your technique. And, equally important, the intense physiological demands and long term climbing experience you gain can improve your RFD. In fact, Stien et. al note in their article that: “More climbing experience probably…produces a more efficient recruitment of the available motor units, thereby allowing for a more rapid force production across attempts.” The more climbing experience you gain, the more consistent your RFD will become.
Just about any type of dynamic, near-limit bouldering will work, but I recommend using a system board if you have access to one. The moonboard, tension board, kilter board or even a homewall are all great options because the holds stay the same, adding consistency and trackability to your training. These boards also require dynamic, precise, fast movements combined with good footwork, hip mobility, and body tension, making them ideal for training functional contact strength.
There isn’t necessarily a structured routine to follow with this kind of training, but I have a few recommendations.
If you’re struggling with a move and are not sure what the issue is, try climbing into the move to see if you can hang from the holds. This can help you determine if you have the strength to hold the final position and as well as feel the final body position.
Film yourself trying a move you’re struggling with in slow motion so you can analyze your movement more objectively.
If you make zero progress after 5 or so attempts, move on to something else. Don’t repeat a limit move dozens of times and injure your fingers.
Rest at least 3 minutes in between try-hard attempts.
Now, as great as this kind of training is for helping you improve multiple skills at once, that is also its biggest downfall. Because it’s far less specific than hangboarding, it’s probably not as effective for training pure RFD and is much harder to track. So what if we want something in between?
ON THE CAMPUS BOARD (THE GOLDEN CHILD?)
Campus board training is sort of the in-between of hangboarding and on-the-wall training for RFD, because the holds are consistent and variables like foot position are thrown out the window, making it more repeatable and trackable than on-the-wall training. However, it is also much more reliant on the strength and RFD of your entire upper body, not just your fingers, likely making it more functional than the hangboard.
These factors make campus boarding perhaps the most challenging of the three training methods. Some climbers simply will not have the upper body strength needed to train RFD on the campus board effectively, while others will actually be working against themselves in the long run by trying to campus everything rather than learn proper climbing technique.
Campus boarding is an intense activity that requires a high degree of dexterity and joint stability to perform safely, so don’t jump right into it if you don’t fit those requirements.
Now, to get a better idea of how to train contact strength on the campus board, we called up an expert. Take it away, Dan!
Campus Board Training with Dan Beall
A campus is one of the most versatile training tools for climbing, so there are an almost endless number of ways use them.
Today, we’ll be going over exercises that are common staples, and a great place to start
Laddering:
Laddering is the bread and butter of any campus routine. Hand over hand footless climbing.
Eg. 1-2-3, 1-3-5, 1-4-7, 1-5-9…
I tend to recommend starting offset if possible (1-3)-5 instead of matched (1)-3-5, as this lets you set up in an optimal position, and focus on executing the desired movement. Once you’ve mastered a particular sequence, it’s reasonable to start matched, as it adds a degree of precision and complexity and makes the whole exercise a little harder.
You can change the focus of the exercise by moving the “middle rung” closer or further away. If it’s closer, you end up pulling and generating faster, and having to catch the target rung more quickly. This is generally thought of as more “powerful” IE 1-3-7 instead of 1-4-7
If the middle rung is further away, IE 1-5-7 or 1-5-8 instead of 1-4-7, the pull is more like a one arm, and targets maximum strength over maximum speed. This makes it in some sense “less powerful” though both will contribute to rfd and climbing performance.
Double Dynos:
Double dynos are essentially footless jumps from one rung (or set of rungs) to another.
The up portion focuses on generating force through the arms, and trying to be precise to catch the target rung gently (deadpoint). The down portion (drop) focuses on rapidly recruiting force in the hands, and decelerating your body to catch the target rung.
Both components require and train good mechanics, accuracy and commitment.
Experienced climbers can play with more elaborate patterns (offsets, shifting offsets 2-1 etc) for coordination training, but these tend to be more precise and less physically maximal.
Snatches:
Snatches are when you jump off the ground and catch a rung (or set of rungs).
This can be done with or without feet, depending on the board construction), and with one or two hands, or with weight added, depending on fitness level.
Advice on Campus Board Routines:
A campus-board-only routine should generally focus on laddering. Once you feel solid laddering, it’s reasonable to add either the double dynos or snatches. You could do both, by alternating sessions, if you wanted.
If you’re doing fingerboarding for max strength during a training cycle, it can be beneficial to add low volume double dynos or snatches as a supplement. The exact prescription will vary based on the rest of your training plan, and experience level.
A “full” routine would include a, b and c portions. A minimum routine would include just a.
Difficulty can be moderated somewhat by increasing or decreasing rung spacing or by using smaller or larger rungs.
Campus exercises are fairly straightforward, but developing a good, progressive campus routine to fit your goals and training program can be pretty complex. Not a bad idea to hire a coach, or simply take notes and experiment until you find something you like. Lots and lots of variables to play with.
Always remember to circle back to your climbing and your goals. It’s easy to get distracted by all the details and possibilities of training, only to find that the things you’re working on are not the things needed to achieve your objectives.
Finally, make sure you’re using good technique while performing any of these exercises. Basically, don’t be a dead fish! No limp flopping around!
WHEN TO PERFORM THESE EXERCISES
Timing, or when you perform your training, is also vital for maximizing effectiveness and minimizing injury risk. All speed and power training should be done at the start of a session, just after warming up, when you are most fresh. Power (and technique learning) is best developed without fatigue. Therefore sets should be brief, rests should be long and you should end the workout as soon as you stop feeling snappy and well rested at the start of a set.
OUTRO
Thanks, Dan! And that’s it for training contact strength! You should now have a solid foundation to get you started, but if you still feel lost or would like a more personalized training approach, I’ve linked Dan’s info in the description. He does in-person and remote coaching for climbers of all skill levels.
Until next time: train contact strength with all this new-found knowledge, climb your way to the top of the 8A leaderboard, send me the link so I can take credit, aaaaaaand repeat! But this time, try downgrading.
Disclaimer:
As always, exercises are to be performed assuming your own risk and should not be done if you feel you are at risk for injury. See a medical professional if you have concerns before starting new exercises.
Written and Produced by Jason Hooper (PT, DPT, OCS, SCS, CAFS) and Emile Modesitt
IG: @hoopersbetaofficial
RESEARCH
Title
Upper body rate of force development and maximal strength discriminates performance levels in sport climbing.
Citation
Stien N, Vereide VA, Saeterbakken AH, Hermans E, Shaw MP, Andersen V. Upper body rate of force development and maximal strength discriminates performance levels in sport climbing. PLoS One. 2021 Mar 26;16(3):e0249353. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249353. PMID: 33770128; PMCID: PMC7997018.
Key Takeaways
Moreover, in previous studies examining climbers, the strength and rate of force development (RFD) of the finger flexors has also discriminated between climbing performance levels [8] and disciplines
RFD is defined as the rate of the rise in force during isometric contractions, and has been used to quantify the ability to generate force rapidly
When climbing harder routes, the smaller holds and more difficult moves cause a need for more force to be exerted in a shorter time window to avoid falling off the route. RFD may, therefore, be a key factor for predicting climbing performance [4,5,8], and has discriminated between skilled and international performance levels when calculated using longer time periods
In one recent study [20], RFD was measured using a hand dynamometer, which have been shown to be less valid than specific tests (e.g., using climbing-specific holds and common climbing-positions
Conversely, Fanchini et al. [16] and Michailov et al. [19] used climbing-specific holds but isolated the finger flexors, excluding the arm- and back muscles from the testing. This might reduce the validity as, when climbing, the fingers are only responsible for maintaining contact with the holds whilst the vertical propulsive force of the climber is produced mainly by other prime movers (i.e., elbow flexors and shoulder extensors).
only two studies [18,22] have assessed the RFD of the entire pulling- apparatus (finger-, arm-, shoulder- and back-muscles) in one exercise (isometric pull-ups on a climbing-specific hold).
However, the authors compared climbers of different disciplines rather than performance levels.
absolute RFD (RFD100%; calculated from the onset of force to peak force
the shorter time periods (50–250 ms) could be associated with the explosive strength required for hard and dynamic climbing moves
Finally, it has been suggested that RFD data should be normalized (RFD relative to maximal force) to highlight whether or not differences in RFD are caused by a difference in maximal strength alone
The elite climbers produced higher RFD than the intermediate group at RFD100 (p 0.032) and RFD150 (p = 0.040), and higher RFD than the advanced group at RFD50 (p = 0.032) and RFD100
The elite group produced higher peak force output than the intermediate (ES = 1.77, p < 0.001) and advanced groups
In line with the primary hypothesis, the elite climbers produced higher RFD than the intermediate and advanced climbers. Conversely, no significant differences were found between the intermediate and advanced climbers.
Based on these findings, RFD may not be a crucial component for climbing performance before reaching the more demanding grades (> 24 IRCRA).
>24 =
> V9
=/> 7C
=/> 5.13c
=/> 8a+
The higher RFD produced by the elite climbers was accompanied by a notably higher peak force output than the other groups
Importantly, the RFD in the elite group was still greater than in the intermediate and advanced groups following normalization. Hence, the higher peak force alone did not cause the differences in RFD
However, it should be noted that the ES for the differences were reduced following normalization, suggesting that a meaningful portion of the differences in RFD is caused by the higher peak force output in the elite group.
Since advanced and intermediate climbers possess less climbing-specific strength of the finger flexors than the elites, performing a maximal-effort contraction using the shallow rung might limit the RFD substantially
One potential explanation could be that maximal strength accounts for less of the difference than neurological adaptations to years of attempting hard routes that require rapid force production [28]. In contrast to the absolute measures, the relative measures produced both lower CV values and more distinct between-groups differences, especially when examining the longer durations from the onset of force. As previously speculated [8], the maximal number of muscle fibers recruited while exerting maximal force is likely more reproducible than the time taken to recruit the fibers. As large variations between individuals’ times to reach peak force were observed in this (150 to 730 ms) and previous studies (~ 400 to 1000 ms) [8,18,22], using relative time periods should be the preferred method when examining the entire pulling-apparatus of climbers. For example, if an individual uses . 500 ms to reach peak force, the longest absolute time period (250 ms) would still represent the earlier phase of the force curve. Hence, relative time periods could be more functionally applicable than the traditional division of early and late phases [28] in tasks typically requiring longer than 250 ms to reach peak force
Examining the remaining relative (RFD50%—RFD100%) and absolute measures ((RFD100—RFD250), the intermediate and advanced climbers produced notably higher CV values (16.9– 30.1%) than the elite group (8.9–19.7%). These findings are in agreement with those of Levernier and Laffaye [8] who proposed that increasing skill level could be associated with an improved ability to reproduce similar force outputs across several attempts.
More climbing experience probably also produces a more efficient recruitment of the available motor units [34], thereby allowing for a more rapid force production across attempts.
Importantly, only male climbers were included in this study and the findings might not necessarily be generalizable to female climbers at the same level.
Furthermore, no familiarization session was performed as it was expected that experienced climbers would be able to perform the test adequately.
Title
Four Weeks of Finger Grip Training Increases the Rate of Force Development and the Maximal Force in Elite and Top World-Ranking Climbers
Citation
Levernier G, Laffaye G. Four Weeks of Finger Grip Training Increases the Rate of Force Development and the Maximal Force in Elite and Top World-Ranking Climbers. J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Sep;33(9):2471-2480. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002230. PMID: 28945641.
Key Takeaways
The training program was designed in conjunction with the French national team’s coaches and was repeated 3 times a week for 4 weeks. The other 3 training sessions involved regular exercises. Finally, the protocol did not change the frequency of training for both groups
Each climber observed a 2-day resting period before each test to avoid the effect of fatigue caused by earlier climbing sessions.
Subjects stood with 1 hand on the dynamometer. The angle between the arm and the chest was 208 in the sagittal plane and the angle between the arm and the forearm was set to 908. During the test, the subjects were advised not to move. The other arm stayed still along the body. Three different holds were selected (i.e., the slope crimp, half crimp, and full F1 crimp, Figure 1). These brought into play the flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) muscle and the flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) muscle as the main muscles
The climbers were in a standing position, hanging from a personalized small hold (slats ranging from 25 mm to 6 mm off the mark 1808) (rue des dolmens, 46,220 Prayssac) and HRT (Mladost 4, 1715 Sofia, Bulgaria) with 1 hand. They had to hold on as long as possible without AU8 making contact between the foot and the ground, before falling with a 1208 angle between the arm and the forearm
The size and the grip of the hold were chosen individually in such a way that athletes could not stay in 1 hold for more than 6 seconds.
To limit the risk of injury, climbers warmed up their upper limbs with suspensions that used a large degree of prehension
In addition, if pain occurred during the exercise, they immediately had to stop.
This exercise was repeated for both hands in both conditions (slope and half crimps), with the training plane detailed in Table 1.
The training session lasted about 45 minutes.
The instructions were to “hold the device as strongly as you can and as fast as possible”
When focusing RFD in regard with expertise, results show an increase of the values of ICC with skill level.
Concerning the averaged RFD,mean coefficients of variation decrease from 17.78% for averaged conditions in non-climbers to 12.40% in international climbers. This decreasing value of CV with skill level could be explained by the ability to reproduce a stable pattern of force over time is related to training status, including the ability to recruit motor units quickly with a high level of neural drive
Indeed, the ratio of strength-to-body weight has been shown to be a determining factor of climbing ability
To the best of our knowledge, only Amca’s study with experienced climbers compared the values between these 3 grip techniques, revealing that climbers develop more force (+11%) in the full crimp (546.2 6 40.9 N) compared with the half crimp (490.1 6 37.4 N) and the slope crimp (+21%); (435.7 6 41.6 N)
Moreover, a recent study (30) has shown that using the thumb during a hold produces an increase in the force of finger flexor of 12% (442 6 42.9 N without thumb vs. 494 6 68.8 N with thumb during the full crimp
Amca et al. (2) recorded during the full crimp a tension of 254.8 N on the A2 pulley, whereas the A4 pulley received 220.9 N, for an external force of 95.6
On the contrary, in the slope crimp the tension was much lower (57.4 N for the A4 and 8.1 N for the A2 for the same external force)
According to Schweizer (32) in the full crimp position, at 25% of maximum strength, the A2 pulley received 3 times as much force applied on the fingers.
These data suggest that for 505 N, which was developed by the climber of our study in the finger grip, the pressure of pulleys A2 and A4 received an overload that could damage this passive anatomic structure. Thus, it seems more reasonable to use the half crimp and the slope crimp in training rather than the full crimp to avoid injury.
Methodological studies have suggested that focusing only on the RFD peak is not a relevant method because it only takes into account a part of the curve, which is highly sensitive to variability and sudden changes
Rather, it is more accurate to investigate the evolution of force as a function of a given time
Fanchini and White (14) showed that boulderers are able to develop more strength at a faster rate than lead climbers.
Our results show a significant increase in RFD200 ms for the training group for the 3 conditions of crimps (half, slope, and full). A 32% gain for the slope crimp, a 27.5% gain for the half crimp, and a 28% for the full crimp was recorded, whereas no change was recorded for the control group, with changes of—3% for the half crimp and +6% for the full crimp.
According to the literature on RFD changes with training, a gain in the early part of the force-time curve is due to changes in the neural control of muscular contraction.
Indeed, the activation of the muscle during a rapid and explosive contraction is mainly determined by the discharge of motor units, i.e., the neural factor (1). This discharge occurs at the start of the contraction and is decisive in the first 100–200 ms (34). The time for the experimental group to reach the maximal force in our study before training was 2.62 6 0.36 seconds. As the typical time needed during a bouldering event will always be shorter than the time needed to achieve the maximal force, increasing the RFD is, therefore, a crucial way to increase performance.
The change of RFD200 ms is due to an increase in the motor unit discharge and the contractile impulse, as suggested by Aagaard et al. (1). A gain later in the force-time curve, i.e., in the second part of the RFD, is linked closely to changes in the tendon-muscle coupling and to the contractile properties of the muscle, which increase later in the RFD curve
specific training performed by climbers is primarily impacted by the neural factor and by a probable increase in the discharge of the motor units. Therefore, a 4-week training program is sufficient to increase the force and RFD for the finger flexor for both elite and top world-ranking boulderers.
On the other hand, the training did not have an effect on the absolute RFD95%. The literature of RFD gain with training highlights that a gain on absolute RFD of the force-time curve is a combination of changes in the neural factor in the early phase and changes in the musculo-tendinous structure.
The fact that there is no effect on the RFD95% tells us that a 4-week training had probably no impact on the structural factors (i.e., the muscle architecture, cross-sectional area, and type fibers II) (3), but had an important impact on the neural factor, more particularly on the increase of the discharges of the motor units, as suggested by the gain obtained during the first 200 ms
Our study suggests that it is not necessary to work specifically on the full crimp grip to increase the force in this position; rather, working with the half crimp or the slope crimp grip can result in an increase in finger flexor force and rate of force for all grips.
Title
Rate of force development and maximal force: reliability and difference between non-climbers, skilled and international climbers
Citation
Levernier G, Laffaye G. Rate of force development and maximal force: reliability and difference between non-climbers, skilled and international climbers. Sports Biomech. 2021 Jun;20(4):495-506. doi: 10.1080/14763141.2019.1584236. Epub 2019 Apr 30. PMID: 31038051.
Key Takeaways
Fanchini et al. (2013) revealed that the peak of RFD during a task of isometric flexor of fingers is 36.73% higher in boulderers than in lead climbers
Another study reveals 16.70% higher performance obtained between elite and skilled climbers during an arm jump test, and 23.30% between skilled and novice climbers
Explosive force is of great importance in climbing and is defined as ‘the capacity to increase contractile force from a low or resting level as quickly as possible’
Elite climbers having 22.19% greater finger grip strength than skilled climbers who have 44.85% greater strength than novices
Climbers have very little time to grip strongly during these dynamic movements. This ability to develop a high level of force in a short time, that is, the rate of force development (RFD),
Fanchini et al. (2013) revealed that the peak of RFD during a task of isometric flexor of fingers is 36.73% higher in boulderers than in lead climbers
Thirty-one participants (12 international, 10 skilled and 9 non-climbers) were divided
(kind of weak still)
The aim was to analyse both RFD and maximal force (Fmax) and
Concerning the averaged RFD,mean coefficients of variation decrease from 17.78% for averaged conditions in non-climbers to 12.40% in international climbers. This decreasing value of CV with skill level could be explained by the ability to reproduce a stable pattern of force over time is related to training status, including the ability to recruit motor units quickly with a high level of neural drive
Moreover, this observation has a great impact especially when considering the functional importance of explosive force production in a wide variety of situations, such as to stabilise joints quickly to prevent falling or to maintain or adjust incorrect posture or balance.
Indeed, postural regulation in a short time is a key moment in climbing and involves neural processes such as sensory feedback and reflex, and is a highly adaptive strategy in preventing falls.
RFD100ms reveals a difference of 11.61% between international and skilled, 37.11% between skilled and non-climbers, and 44.41% between international and non-climbers. This part of the curve during the isometric task is influenced by neural drive
Furthermore, differences were observed in RFD200ms for all conditions: 24.51% between international and skilled, 34.04% between non-climbers and skilled, and 50.21% between international and non-climbers. Andersen & Aagaard
RFD between 150 and 250 ms is highly dependent on either the contractile properties of the muscle-tendon unit, such as cross-section area and neural drive, or a combination of both.
For RFD95%, a 45.18% difference between international and skilled, and 57.05% difference between international and non-climbers has been observed, meaning that international climbers would be able to reach 95% of Fmax more quickly than the others.
This two-times greater value found in international climbers compared to skilled climbers and non-climbers reveals their high level of adaptation in a wide variety of motions (fast and strong such as the ‘dyno’ movement or explosive movement, including postural or reflex adaptation and slower movements) compared to skilled climbers.
To conclude, RFD of the finger flexor in isometric contraction is a reliable and discriminating variable for climbing at 200 ms and at 95% of maximal force, and could be used in monitoring training.
Moreover, this parameter is able to discriminate skill level, as shown by the difference recorded between international and skilled, and skilled and non-climbers.
This implies for trainer that (i) designing workout for climbers based on holding as quick and as strong as possible is a good way to increase their finger rate of force development and consequently their climbing efficiency, especially in movement, such as the dyno or dynamic movements
recording the rate of force development at 200 ms is a good way to monitor a climber during training session, to assess the effect of a specific workout procedure on the way he produces the force or to compare values between different climbers.
The results reveal a high reliability for international climbers for the RFD, especially for the RFD200ms, suggesting that this variable could be used with a good accuracy for intra or inter subject comparison for training purpose. Moreover, this parameter is able to discriminate skill level, as shown by the difference recorded between international and skilled, and skilled and non-climbers.
