Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)
This extensive systematic review analyzed 156 studies and identified 429 unique performance, strength, endurance, and flexibility tests used in climbing. The authors found a lack of consistency in testing protocols and a widespread absence of quality metrics (validity and reliability), making it difficult to recommend standardized tests. However, several tests stood out as both reliable and valid, particularly for finger strength and climbing-specific endurance.
Purpose of the Study
As climbing continues to grow in popularity and professionalization, the need for reliable and valid diagnostic tools has become more urgent. This systematic review aimed to:
Catalog physical performance tests used in climbing.
Evaluate the quality (validity and reliability) of those tests.
Identify gaps and propose directions for more standardized and meaningful diagnostics.
Methods
A total of 1,128 studies were screened, with 156 ultimately included.
Studies were required to assess performance variables (strength, endurance, flexibility) with human climbers or boulderers and include sample characteristics and test descriptions.
Tests were grouped based on the body part assessed and type of performance (e.g., strength, endurance).
Key Findings by Test Category
Climbing Performance Tests
Best Practices: Repeated ascent of a single boulder, circuit bouldering, treadwall endurance tests.
Reliability: High inter-session reliability reported for repeated boulder tests and treadwall climbs.
Validity: Strong correlations (r > 0.8) with climbing ability for some tests.
Limitations: Lack of standardization in route setting and wall inclination limits comparability across studies.
Finger and Upper Limb Strength
Best Practices:
Dead Hang: Assesses finger isometric endurance and strength. Very high reliability (ICC > .9).
Pinch Dynamometer: Moderate to strong correlation with climbing ability.
Apply Force on Hold: High correlation with climbing ability (up to r = .87).
Variety in Setup: Grip types, edge depth, and hang duration varied across studies, limiting comparability.
Core Strength
Common Tests: Superman test, plank, leg raise, momentum absorption, and body lock-off.
Reliability: Body lock-off and superman test showed high inter-session reliability.
Validity: Generally low-to-moderate correlations with climbing performance.
Lower Limb Strength & Flexibility
Tests Used: CMJ (Countermovement Jump), vertical jump, one-legged squat, and Grant foot raise.
Validity: Generally low, but the climbing-specific foot raise had moderate-to-high correlations (r = .53–.95).
Application: More relevant for speed climbing and modern bouldering techniques.
Endurance
Upper Limb: Arm crank and rowing ergometry were occasionally used, with mixed validity.
Lower Limb: Treadmill and cycle ergometry showed poor correlation to climbing performance.
Finger Endurance: Intermittent hang protocols were validated as reliable measures of muscular endurance.
Recommendations for Coaches and Researchers
Use Validated Tests: The dead hang, bent arm hang, pull-ups, and repeated bouldering laps are among the most validated.
Consider Specificity: Treadwall tests and climbing-specific foot raises offer more climbing-relevant results than general strength or VO₂ max tests.
Avoid Overreliance on Traditional Fitness Tests: Treadmill or cycling VO₂ max tests are poor predictors of climbing performance.
- Below is MTI’s more recent work on Big Wall Climbing with an athlete preparing for a Yosemite climbing trip
Gaps and Future Research
Most studies lack test reliability and validity data.
Discipline-specific tests (e.g., bouldering vs. lead climbing) are underdeveloped.
Standardized test batteries, like those proposed by the International Rock Climbing Research Association, need wider adoption.
Future studies should focus on biomechanical analysis and energy system profiling across climbing disciplines.
Source
Langer, K., Simon, C., & Wiemeyer, J. (2023). Physical performance testing in climbing—A systematic review. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2023.1130812