ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2015
Effect of Two Types of Active Recovery on Fatigue and Climbing Performance.
Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hangboard training in advanced climbers: A randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Acute motor-cognitive responses to a bouldering fatigue protocol in indoor recreational climbers.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Psychophysiological Response Differences Between Advanced and Beginner Climbers and Fatigue Management.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- Recovery markers in elite climbers after the national boulder climbing championship.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Article
- Optimizing active recovery strategies for finger flexor fatigue.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Article
- Physical performance testing in climbing-A systematic review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2023Review
- The Load Structure in International Competitive Climbing.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
- Determinants for success in climbing: A systematic review.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2019Review
- The Effect of Physical and Mental Stress on the Heart Rate, Cortisol and Lactate Concentrations in Rock Climbers.Journal of human kinetics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Performing intra-session recovery is important in rock climbing due to the multiple efforts that climbers are required to make in competitions, as well as repeated climbing trials that they carry out during training sessions. Active recovery has been shown to be a better option than passive recovery. However, the type of active recovery that should be done and the influence of the type and quantity of muscle mass activated are not clear. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of recovering with easy climbing (CR) or walking (WR) on markers of fatigue and climbing performance. For this purpose, 14 subjects participated in this randomly assigned crossover protocol completing three two-minute climbing trials separated by two minutes of active recovery with the assigned method. Seven days later participants carried out the same protocol with the other recovery method. Blood lactate (La(-)), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and heart rate (HR) were analyzed as markers of fatigue and recovery, while meters climbed (MC) and handgrip force (HF) were analyzed for performance. La- values before the last climbing trial (p < 0.05; d = 0.69) and Peak La- values (p < 0.05; d = 0.77) were lower for CR than for WR. Climbers were able to ascend more meters in the set time when following the CR protocol (p < 0.01; d = 0.6), which shows the important role of the active recovery method carried out on climbing performance. There were no differences in HR, HF or RPE between protocols. A more sport-specific recovery protocol, in addition to moving great muscle mass (e.g. lower limbs), seems to enhance recovery and to facilitate lactate removal. For this reason, CR appears to be a more effective active recovery method than WR in sport rock climbing. Key pointsClimbing recovery improved lactate removal in comparison with walking recovery.Subjects were able to climb more meters in a determined time when easy climbing instead of walking during recoveries.Activating both great muscle mass like that of the lower limbs as well as the main fatigue producing muscles (forearms in climbing) seems more effective for recovering than activating just great muscle mass.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26664273PMC4657419What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.