ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Climber's muscle excitation and force distribution at different wall angles and body positions.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeIn the domain of rock climbing research, existing biomechanical and physiological studies mostly focus on few, typically upper-body muscles and frequently do not replicate ecological conditions. This study investigates full-body muscle excitation and contact forces between climber and holds in two stationary climbing stances.
methodsSurface electromyography of 22 upper and lower-body muscles and contact forces between climber and holds were recorded in 14 climbers (6 males, 8 females; age 24 ± 6 years; height 1.71 ± 0.07 m; mass 64 ± 8 kg; IRCRA 11-23). We recorded contact forces at three vertices of a rectangle: feet on the lower vertices, right hand on the upper right vertex. The protocol involved five repetitions of two 10-s positions (UP and DOWN) at three wall angles (SLAB: + 5°; VERTICAL: 0°; OVERHANG: -5). Root-mean-square values of electromyographic signals were determined for each repetition and scenario. A two-way RM-ANOVA assessed differences by wall angle and position. RESULTS AND
conclusionSteeper wall angles cause load transfer from feet to hand, homolateral in UP and contralateral in DOWN. DOWN position involves greater excitation of finger flexors muscles and brachioradialis at all wall angles, suggesting that preference for DOWN position in OVERHANG may not be simply explained by the degree of excitation of those muscles. This study provides a comprehensive mapping of full-body superficial muscle excitation and contact forces across two ecological climbing positions at different wall angles, helping to clarify climbing kinetics, inform targeted training and rehabilitation exercises, and optimize protocols for future research.
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.