Trial reportJournal of sports science & medicine2021
Effects of Two vs. Four Weekly Campus Board Training Sessions on Bouldering Performance and Climbing-Specific Tests in Advanced and Elite Climbers.
Trial report in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effects of Plyometric Training on Selected Neuromuscular Outcomes in Trained-to-Highly Trained Male Boulder Climbers: A Preliminary Exploratory Trial.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- The Connection Between Resistance Training, Climbing Performance, and Injury Prevention.Sports medicine - open · 2024Review
- Pull-Up Performance Is Affected Differently by the Muscle Contraction Regimens Practiced during Training among Climbers.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Five weeks of dynamic finger flexor strength training on bouldering performance and climbing-specific strength tests. A randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Article
- Top of the podium, at what cost? injuries in female international elite climbers.Frontiers in sports and active living · 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
- Assessing climbers' pull-up capabilities by differentiating the parameters involved in power production.PeerJ · 2023Article
- Optimization of an Intermittent Finger Endurance Test for Climbers Regarding Gender and Deviation in Force and Pulling Time.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
- The Effects of 10 Weeks Hangboard Training on Climbing Specific Maximal Strength, Explosive Strength, and Finger Endurance.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
- The Estimation of Critical Angle in Climbing as a Measure of Maximal Metabolic Steady State.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined the effects of two or four weekly campus board training sessions among highly accomplished lead climbers. Sixteen advanced-to-elite climbers were randomly allocated to two (TG2), or four weekly campus board training sessions (TG4), or a control group (CG). All groups continued their normal climbing routines. Pre- and post-intervention measures included bouldering performance, maximal isometric pull-up strength using a shallow rung and a large hold (jug), and maximal reach and moves to failure. Rate of force development (RFD; absolute and 100ms) was calculated in the rung condition. TG4 improved maximal force in the jug condition (effect size (ES) = 0.40, p = 0.043), and absolute RFD more than CG (ES = 2.92, p = 0.025), whereas TG2 improved bouldering performance (ES = 2.59, p = 0.016) and maximal moves to failure on the campus board more than CG (ES = 1.65, p = 0.008). No differences between the training groups were found (p = 0.107-1.000). When merging the training groups, the training improved strength in the rung condition (ES = 0.87, p = 0.002), bouldering performance (ES = 2.37, p = 0.006), maximal reach (ES = 1.66, p = 0.006) and moves to failure (ES = 1.43, p = 0.040) more than CG. In conclusion, a five-week campus board training-block is sufficient for improving climbing-specific attributes among advanced-to-elite climbers. Sessions should be divided over four days to improve RFD or divided over two days to improve bouldering performance, compared to regular climbing training.
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.