ArticlePloS one2021
Upper body rate of force development and maximal strength discriminates performance levels in sport climbing.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reliability of finger strength assessment methods in climbing: a systematic review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of Upper-Body Plyometric Training on Physical Fitness in Healthy Youth and Young Adult Participants: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Sports medicine - open · 2023Pooled it
- Assessing the Impact of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation-Based Fingerboard Training versus Conventional Fingerboard Training on Finger Flexor Endurance in Intermediate to Advanced Sports Climbers: A Randomized Controlled Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Trial
- Comparison of finger flexor resistance training, with and without blood flow restriction, on perceptional and physiological responses in advanced climbers.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Climber's muscle excitation and force distribution at different wall angles and body positions.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of low load blood flow restriction and high load resistance training of the finger flexors in advanced level climbers: a pilot study.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Psychophysiological Response Differences Between Advanced and Beginner Climbers and Fatigue Management.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- Thermographic assessment of upper body muscles in climbers as a methodology for comparing different skill levels.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- Intra and Inter-Session Reliability of Movement Velocity During Pull-Ups Performed at Small Climbing Holds.Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions · 2024Article
- Force Production Measurements During a Supine Medicine Ball Throw: a Reliability and Correlation Study.Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions · 2024Article
- The Connection Between Resistance Training, Climbing Performance, and Injury Prevention.Sports medicine - open · 2024Review
- Can handgrip strength measurements predict postural balance performance in older women?Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions · 2023Article
- Effects of climbing- and resistance-training on climbing-specific performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Biology of sport · 2023Article
- Physical performance testing in climbing-A systematic review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2023Review
- Design of a sensor network for the quantitative analysis of sport climbing.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2023Article
- The Effects of 10 Weeks Hangboard Training on Climbing Specific Maximal Strength, Explosive Strength, and Finger Endurance.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
- Differences in Upper-Body Peak Force and Rate of Force Development in Male Intermediate, Advanced, and Elite Sport Climbers.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
- Tests and Procedures for Measuring Endurance, Strength, and Power in Climbing-A Mini-Review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess and compare the maximal force and rate of force development (RFD) between intermediate, advanced and elite climbers using several different methods for calculating RFD. Fifty-seven male climbers (17 intermediate, 25 advanced, and 15 elite) performed isometric pull-ups on a climbing-specific hold while the RFD was calculated using several absolute (50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 ms from onset of force) and relative time periods (25, 50, 75, 95, and 100% of time to peak force). The maximal force was higher among elite climbers compared to advanced (ES = 1.78, p < 0.001) and intermediate climbers (ES = 1.77, p < 0.001), while no difference was observed between intermediate and advanced climbers (P = 0.898). The elite group also showed higher RFD than the other two groups at all relative time periods (ES = 1.02-1.58, p < 0.001-0.002), whereas the absolute time periods only revealed differences between the elite vs. the other groups at 50, 100 and 150 ms from the onset of force (ES = 0.72-0.84, p = 0.032-0.040). No differences in RFD were observed between the intermediate and advanced groups at any time period (p = 0.942-1.000). Maximal force and RFD, especially calculated using the longer periods of the force curve, may be used to distinguish elite climbers from advanced and intermediate climbers. The authors suggest using relative rather than absolute time periods when analyzing the RFD of climbers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.