By Emmett Shaul
Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)
Both max-effort repeat sets and percentage-based submaximal sets improved max-effort dead hang time over 2 weeks in untrained athletes. The percentage-based progression showed slightly greater average improvement (+34.0% vs. +28.0%), suggesting that a structured submaximal approach may be more effective for building grip endurance in novice athletes. Starting percentages at 30% may have been too low to create an optimal stimulus. Further testing with trained climbers and varied loading strategies is recommended.
Background
Grip endurance — the ability to sustain a dead hang over time — is a critical component of rock climbing performance and relevant in tactical settings that demand prolonged grip under load (e.g., rope climbs, equipment carries). Improving max-effort dead hang time can help delay grip failure and improve overall work capacity during real-world tasks.
MTI previously conducted a mini study exploring how different dead hang work intervals (4-second vs. 8-second) affected finger grip strength. That study focused on isometric contraction duration and its relationship to strength gains. Building on that foundation, this current effort shifts the focus from finger strength to grip endurance, testing whether different progression models — repeat max-effort sets or structured submaximal work — better increase maximum hang duration in untrained athletes.
While multiple training approaches exist to develop grip strength and endurance, few have been directly compared in a controlled setting. This mini-study aimed to identify which method offers greater improvements in max-effort dead hang performance.
Study Design
Objective:
Compare the effectiveness of Max Effort Repeat Sets versus Percentage-Based Submaximal Sets in improving max-effort dead hang time.
Participants:
Four untrained male athletes (no previous dead hang-specific training)
Assessment Dates:
- Initial Assessment: 3/24/25
- Final Assessment: 4/7/25
Training Duration:
2 weeks
Assessment:
Max-effort dead hang for time
- Performed on a standard pull-up bar
- Overhand grip, full dead hang position
Training Frequency:
Approximately 2–3 training sessions per week, totaling 5 sessions over the 2-week period.
Group 1 – Max Effort Repeats
Participants: Craig and Michael
Protocol:
- 6 rounds of max-effort dead hangs per session
- 60 seconds rest between rounds
- 5 total training sessions
Craig – Round Times per Session
| Date | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3/25/25 | 67s | 39s | 32s | 27s | 25s | 26s |
| 3/27/25 | 75s | 41s | 35s | 28s | 27s | 27s |
| 3/31/25 | 74s | 44s | 33s | 28s | 26s | 26s |
| 4/1/25 | 73s | 46s | 37s | 29s | 23s | 32s |
| 4/3/25 | 77s | 40s | 18s | 27s | 34s | 27s |
Michael – Round Times per Session
| Date | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3/25/25 | 82s | 31s | 30s | 28s | 34s | 53s |
| 3/27/25 | 68s | 35s | 26s | 24s | 21s | 20s |
| 3/31/25 | 53s | 31s | 33s | 25s | 29s | 26s |
| 4/1/25 | 55s | 32s | 32s | 30s | 32s | 36s |
| 4/3/25 | 99s | 33s | 29s | 31s | 30s | 35s |
Group 2 – Percentage-Based Progression
Participants: Connor and Dustin
Protocol:
- 6 rounds per session with 60 seconds rest
- 2 sessions at 30% of initial max
- 2 sessions at 35%
- 1 session at 40%
- Effort calculated as a percentage of the individual’s baseline max-effort hang
Target Times Based on Assessment
| Participant | Initial Max | 30% | 35% | 40% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connor | 97 sec | 29s | 34s | 39s |
| Dustin | 84 sec | 26s | 30s | 34s |
Results – Max-Effort Dead Hang Pre/Post-Test
| Participant | Group | Pre-Test | Post-Test | % Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Craig | Max Effort | 1:02 | 1:36 | +54.8% |
| Michael | Max Effort | 1:21 | 1:27 | +7.4% |
| Connor | % Based | 1:37 | 2:10 | +33.5% |
| Dustin | % Based | 1:24 | 1:53 | +34.5% |
| Averages | 1:21 | 1:46 | +30.3% | |
| Max Effort Avg | 1:11.5 | 1:31.5 | +28.0% | |
| % Based Avg | 1:30.5 | 2:01.5 | +34.0% |
Discussion
Both progression methods effectively improved max-effort dead hang times in untrained athletes. The percentage-based progression group slightly outperformed the max-effort group in terms of average improvement (+34.0% vs. +28.0%).
The percentage-based protocol also produced more consistent improvements between athletes, suggesting it may offer a more predictable and reliable stimulus for novice populations. In contrast, the max-effort group showed greater variability — Craig improved by 54.8%, while Michael only improved 7.4% — likely influenced by pacing, fatigue, or daily readiness. This variability may make max-effort methods more sensitive to fluctuations in performance and recovery.
It is important to note that all participants were new to max-effort dead hang training. As such, their improvements may partly reflect early neural and technique adaptation rather than purely physical changes.
Practical Takeaways:
- Percentage-based training provides structure and may better regulate fatigue.
- Max-effort rounds are simple to implement but may lead to inconsistent responses.
- Both methods improved grip endurance in just 2 weeks.
Next Steps:
- Repeat the study with trained climbers
- Test different starting percentages in the progression model — beginning at 30% may have been too easy to create an optimal stimulus
- Assess long-term adaptations and carryover to climbing performance