Mini-Study: Climbing Gains Despite Constraints — MTI Tests Adapted July Climbing Program

By Sam Johnson

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

Over four weeks in July, four MTI Lab Rats followed a climbing-focused training cycle aimed at improving performance on the vSUM climbing assessment. The original program included structured campus board work and a finger strength progression via Maximum Added Weight (MAW) Hangboard protocols.

However, due to gym maintenance and rising cases of elbow tendinitis, the team had to significantly adapt. Fingerboard work was abandoned, and board-based exercises were replaced with creative, route-based substitutes.

Despite these changes, all four athletes improved or maintained their vSUM scores — particularly between Weeks 1 and 3. The results suggest that even an improvised climbing plan, when executed consistently and with appropriate load management, can yield measurable gains in performance over a short cycle.

Key Outcomes: vSUM Scores by Week

*Samuel exited early in Week 4 due to tendonitis in elbows and fingers.

Background

This mini-study was originally designed to test the effectiveness of MTI’s climbing cycle combined with MAW fingerboard progressions, while using weekly vSUM testing to measure performance. vSUM is a competition-style assessment in which climbers attempt as many problems as possible in 50 minutes, with their top 8 climbs averaged to produce a final score.

The cycle aimed to develop strength, power, and endurance through structured indoor protocols. However, due to unforeseen gym closures and athlete overuse injuries, the plan was significantly modified mid-cycle.

Study Design

Participants:

• Samuel – Intermediate climber, strong upper body

• Jackson – New climber, rapid adaptation

• Song (Seung) – Experienced climber, coordinated mover

• Emmett – General athlete, developing climbing skill

All had only one month of prior climbing experience, and this cycle served as an acclimation and progression phase.

Assessment:

• Weekly vSUM test (every Monday)

• 50-minute bouldering session

• Top 8 problems (by grade) were averaged to determine weekly score

Concurrent Training Load:
In addition to climbing, all participants completed other MTI training during the Geek Cycle:

• 60-lb ruck (1x/week)

• Swimming (1x/week)

• Sandbag get-ups and mobility circuits (3x/week)

• Lower-body strength work, including back squats

Planned vs. Actual Training

Monday – vSUM + Technique (as planned):

• Weekly 50-minute bouldering test

• Informal technique focus after testing

Wednesday – Planned: Campus Board Work & Mobility

• Original Plan:

  • 3×5–5×5 plyometric latching

  • 3x controlled campus board ladders

  • Interspersed mobility

• Actual Adjustments:

  • Gym training wall was closed

  • All work moved to regular bouldering routes

  • Campusing volume reduced to 3×3 due to tendinitis

  • Latching performed dynamically on holds

Friday – Planned: MAW Hangs + 4x4x4 Endurance

• Original Plan:

  • MAW hangboard protocol (2–3 sets of 5–10s max hangs)

  • Progressive loading weekly

  • 4x4x4 route-based endurance

• Actual Adjustments:

  • Hangboard work skipped entirely due to access

  • Focus shifted fully to 4x4s on bouldering routes

Results Summary

Despite disruptions and high concurrent training stress, vSUM scores showed clear improvement or consistency for all participants:

• Jackson made the largest single-week gain (Week 1 to Week 2) and maintained it.

• Song dipped slightly in Week 2, but rebounded strongly in Week 3.

• Emmett showed a slight early improvement and held steady.

• Samuel improved early, but elbow/finger tendinitis cut his Week 4 short.

Discussion

This cycle began as a test of MTI’s finger strength and power-endurance protocols — but evolved into a case study in adaptive programming. With the removal of MAW hangs and campus board access, the team improvised using available route-based substitutes.

Key takeaways:

• Consistent climbing drives gains. All athletes were new to climbing and benefited simply from increased exposure and frequency.

• Route improvisation still works. Substituting campus board drills with dynamic movement on steep walls still produced strength and control gains.

• vSUM is a valuable test. It captured subtle performance changes, maintained urgency, and gave athletes a sense of weekly progression.

• Overuse must be managed. Elbow and finger injuries emerged mid-cycle, particularly in athletes with strong pulling backgrounds.

• 4x4s proved more valuable than expected. Originally a secondary tool, they became the main endurance and movement-efficiency driver.

Limitations

• Loss of campus board and fingerboard access

• Inconsistent movement difficulty due to route substitutions

• Tendonitis and overuse injuries altered participation

• High concurrent training load

• Small sample size (n=4)

Next Steps

Building on lessons from this study, MTI’s future climbing cycles should:

• Secure consistent access to climbing-specific equipment (campus boards, hangboards) prior to prescribing progression-based protocols.

• Test a climbing-only protocol to isolate performance adaptations without interference from rucking, swimming, or lower-body strength work.

• Evaluate the standalone effectiveness of 4×4 intervals on movement economy and endurance — potentially formalizing them into MTI climbing cycles.

• Experiment with a progressive tendon-prep phase (e.g., isometric holds, gradual max hangs) to mitigate injury risks in beginner climbers.

• Track RPE, finger/elbow soreness, and readiness throughout the cycle to better understand overuse patterns.

• Explore the value of low-volume, high-frequency climbing (e.g., 4–5 short sessions/week) for beginners, instead of longer 2–3x/week sessions.

• Continue using vSUM as a weekly benchmark — it’s scalable, motivating, and provides consistent performance feedback.