Research Review: Dynamic and Isometric Core Training Produce Similar Improvements in Body-Lift and Body Lock-Off Test Performance Among Elite Climbers

By Rob Shaul, Founder

BLUF

A 2018 PLOS ONE study compared ten weeks of dynamic versus isometric core training among advanced and elite climbers. Both groups completed the same four exercises—foot-lift, arm lock-off, prone bridge, and side bridge—twice per week. The only difference was movement: the dynamic group performed repetitions through a range of motion, while the isometric group held each position statically for several seconds.

Both training methods improved results in the Body-Lift and Body Lock-Off tests, which simulate climbing demands, but neither approach proved superior. The dynamic group gained more in rotational and general trunk strength; the isometric group improved slightly more in the Body-Lift test, which emphasizes static control under tension.

Context

Core control is essential in climbing, where athletes often maintain body tension between an arm and the opposite foot while moving dynamically across holds. Yet few studies have measured how specific types of core training influence performance. This research was the first to directly compare dynamic and isometric training modes and their effect on climbing-modeled strength and endurance tests rather than subjective climbing grades.

Study Overview

Nineteen elite climbers (14 men, 5 women; average of seven years’ experience) were randomly assigned to either a dynamic or isometric core training group. Both groups maintained their normal climbing routines.

The training lasted ten weeks, with two sessions per week. Each 30–40-minute session consisted of the same four exercises—foot-lift, arm lock-off, prone bridge, and side bridge—performed for three to four sets with two minutes rest between sets. Volume, frequency, and total workload were identical across groups.

Exercise Execution and Progression

The distinction between groups lay only in muscle contraction type. The dynamic group lifted, reached, or flexed through controlled ranges of motion, completing five to ten repetitions per set. The isometric group held the final position under maximal tension for three to five seconds per repetition before resting briefly.

Progression over ten weeks was standardized: both groups increased difficulty by steepening wall angle, extending reach distance between contact points, reducing base of support, elevating limbs, or increasing repetitions or hold duration.

The exercises were designed to mirror real climbing demands:

• Foot-Lift: Hanging from two handholds, lifting one leg toward a foothold (dynamic) or holding it raised (isometric).
• Arm Lock-Off: One-arm and opposite-foot support while reaching laterally for a hold (dynamic) or holding the reach position (isometric).
• Prone Bridge: Plank position with arm slides forward and back (dynamic) or static hold (isometric).
• Side Bridge: Side plank with dynamic hip movement or static side tension.

Testing

Pre- and post-training evaluations included:

• Body-Lift Test: Assessed dynamic trunk and hip control—placing feet onto a foothold while hanging.
• Body Lock-Off Test: Assessed isometric trunk and shoulder endurance while holding a horizontal position.
• Superman, Trunk Flexion, and Rotation Tests: General measures of dynamic and isometric core strength.
• Finger Hang Test: Measured isometric finger endurance, a key climbing determinant.

Results

Both groups improved in nearly every measure. The isometric group recorded a significant 29.6% gain in the Body-Lift test; the dynamic group improved by 33.8%, but not significantly due to variation within the group. Neither group showed notable changes in the Body Lock-Off test. Dynamic training improved rotational and dynamic strength by 8–15%, while isometric training increased flexion endurance slightly more. Both groups improved similarly in overall core strength, and neither affected finger hang times.

Discussion

Both contraction modes improved performance on climbing-modeled tests. Dynamic training produced stronger rotational and general trunk adaptations; isometric training better supported static tension and endurance under load.

The findings also challenge the traditional notion of training specificity. Dynamic training improved static tests, and static holds improved dynamic performance, suggesting that elite climbers’ cores already operate near a ceiling where both contraction types can cross-transfer.

The lack of change in finger hang times underscores that grip endurance, not core strength, remains the most direct limiter of climbing performance. In MTI’s own research, we’ve found that finger strength and finger strength endurance are the most important fitness markers for rock climbers.

Source

Saeterbakken, A. H., Loken, E., Scott, S., Hermans, E., Vereide, V. A., & Andersen, V. (2018). Effects of ten weeks dynamic or isometric core training on climbing performance among highly trained climbers. PLOS ONE, 13(10): e0203766.