Research Review: Energy System Training Applications for Climbing

By Sam Johnson

Introduction

Energy system training is a well-established concept in endurance and performance sports. As climbing continues to evolve as a performance sport, with increasingly distinct sub-disciplines (e.g., bouldering, sport climbing, speed climbing, traditional/multi-pitch climbing), there is a growing need to understand the energy system demands of each style and how targeted conditioning could enhance performance. This review synthesizes current research on the energy demands of climbing and explores how structured energy system training—drawing on the work of energy systems expert Joel Jamieson—can be adapted to the climbing context.

Energy Systems and Their Role in Climbing

The three primary energy systems—ATP-PCr (alactic), glycolytic (anaerobic lactic), and oxidative (aerobic)—each contribute to climbing performance depending on the duration, intensity, and structure of the effort:

• Bouldering features short, maximal efforts (typically <10–20 seconds), relying heavily on the ATP-PCr system with some glycolytic contribution.
• Sport climbing (routes lasting 2–10 minutes) engages all three systems. The aerobic system plays a key role in recovery between high-intensity sequences.
• Speed climbing (~5–10 seconds of all-out effort) is dominated by the ATP-PCr system.
• Traditional and multi-pitch climbing demand lower-intensity efforts over extended durations, primarily taxing the aerobic system.

Physiological Research in Climbing

A series of finger flexor tests has helped map the energetic profile of climbing efforts:

• All-out 30 s max contractions: ~62% anaerobic alactic, ~18% anaerobic lactic, ~19% aerobic
• Continuous 60% MVC holds: ~54% alactic, ~18% lactic, ~28% aerobic
• Intermittent 60% MVC (e.g., 7s on/3s off): ~27% alactic, ~13% lactic, ~60% aerobic

These results confirm that the energetic demands of climbing are effort-dependent, with intermittent formats drawing heavily on aerobic metabolism, even during relatively high-intensity work. Additional research in indoor sport climbing shows a roughly even split between alactic and aerobic contributions, with a smaller lactic component.

Adapting Energy System Training to Climbing

The structured energy system training frameworks used in other sports provide a useful model for climbing. Jamieson’s approach, which emphasizes system-specific intervals, aerobic base development, and recovery capacity, can be tailored to climbing’s unique muscular and positional demands.

It’s important to note that while the foundational qualities of each energy system—such as aerobic base, alactic power, or anaerobic threshold—can be developed using general modalities outside the sport, meaningful transfer requires that these qualities be expressed through climbing-specific skills. Especially as an event or performance peak approaches, the majority of energy system training should occur within the discipline itself. This is necessary not only to maximize the relevance of the physiological adaptations but also to allow the athlete sufficient time and repetitions to translate capacity into technical and tactical performance.

Examples include:

• Bouldering (ATP-PCr): 6–8 sets of 6–10s max hang or campus moves with 3–4 minutes rest
• Sport Climbing (Anaerobic Lactic): 5–8 sets of 30s hard / 15s light fingerboard intervals with 3 minutes rest
• Aerobic Capacity Work: 4–6 minute moderate climbing efforts (e.g., foot-on campus or traverses) with HR targeting 70–80% max, repeated 3–4 times with full recovery
• Hybrid Power-Endurance: 8–12 minute EMOM-style circuits with variable intensity climbing or grip work
• Long-Duration Aerobic Base: 30–45 minutes of sustained low-intensity aerobic work (step-ups, airbike, or easy movement drills) to improve mitochondrial density and blood flow

Conclusion

The physiological demands of different climbing disciplines clearly align with distinct energy system profiles. Structured conditioning protocols—especially those adapted from broader energy system training models—may offer a valuable addition to traditional climbing training, improving repeat effort capacity, recovery, and endurance. However, to translate this improved engine into climbing performance, athletes must incorporate skill-specific applications of energy system work within their training. Further empirical testing will be needed to validate these adaptations and identify their impact on climbing-specific performance.

Works Cited

• Baláš, J., Michailov, M., Giles, D., Kodejška, J., Panáčková, M., & Fryer, S. (2021). Active recovery of the finger flexors enhances intermittent handgrip performance in rock climbers. European Journal of Sport Science, 21(4), 541–548.
• Giles, L. V., Rhodes, E. C., & Taunton, J. E. (2006). The physiology of rock climbing. Sports Medicine, 36(6), 529–545.
• MacLeod, D., Sutherland, D. L., Buntin, L., Whitaker, A., Aitchison, T., Watt, I., & Bradley, J. (2007). Physiological determinants of climbing-specific finger endurance and sport rock climbing performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(12), 1433–1443.
• Michailov, M. L., Baláš, J., Tanev, S. K., & Brown, L. (2018). Energy system contributions during finger flexor tests in rock climbers. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 118(2), 457–466.
• Jamieson, J. (2009). Ultimate MMA Conditioning. 8WeeksOut Publishing.
• Philippe, M., Wegst, D., Müller, T., Raschner, C., & Burtscher, M. (2012). Climbing-specific finger flexor performance and forearm muscle oxygenation in elite male and female sport climbers. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(8), 2839–2847.
• Watts, P. B. (2004). Physiology of difficult rock climbing. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 91(4), 361–372.