Rethinking Climbing Training: A Review of Leading Programs and MTI’s Upcoming Study

By Samuel Johnson

Introduction

Over the past month, I conducted an in-depth review of climbing training methodologies, comparing industry-leading programs, popular online practices, and MTI’s historical approach. The goal was twofold: first, to better understand how elite climbers and coaches structure their training, and second, to inform the design of MTI’s July climbing cycle—complete with a built-in mini-study on max hang protocols. This article outlines what I found and what we’re doing next.

Part I: What the Best Programs Do

1. Steve Bechtel (ClimbStrong)

Steve Bechtel’s programming stands out for its simplicity and sustainability. His 3-6-9 ladder system for hangboarding scales volume while maintaining intensity. Bechtel avoids fatigue-chasing in favor of measurable, long-term gains. He uses max strength movements like weighted pull-ups and structured fingerboard sessions, often organized within non-linear periodization schemes.

Progressions: Gradual increase in total sets or reps per session. Load and time-under-tension progress over multiple weeks.
Assessments: Repeated strength-based efforts—grip strength, hang time, weighted pull-ups—used to monitor adaptation.

2. Joe Kinder (TrainingBeta Level 2 Program)

Kinder takes a slightly different approach, emphasizing volume over intensity. His Level 2 program is a strength and skill block, using consistent intensity to develop technique (route memorization, resting) while scaling volume session to session. He carefully balances performance climbing with low-fatigue strength work.

Progressions: Total training volume per week increases over the block, while load/intensity remains steady.
Assessments: Route performance, memorization success, and subjective fatigue markers.

3. MTI’s Historical Programs

MTI’s legacy programs, built around the V-Sum test and campus board constant movement intervals offered unique contributions. However, they lacked dedicated grip strength work—a glaring omission considering the importance placed on max hangs across nearly every other program.

Progressions: Campus board intervals extended from 30s to 45s work periods.
Assessments: V-Sum testing and informal benchmarks; grip strength not formally tracked.

Part II: Insights from the Climbing Community

Beyond these structured programs, I explored YouTube creators, Discord channels, and climbing forums. Notable sources included:

Lattice Training – Provided high-level data and diagnostics
Magnus Mitbø & Emil Abrahamsson – Showcased diverse grip training and playful skill drills
Hooper’s Beta & HoseokClimb – Offered experimental protocols, auto-regulation strategies, and insight into community norms

Common patterns emerged:

Grip Training Is Non-Negotiable: Max hangs, repeaters, or loaded hangs appeared in every serious program.
Progression Is Everything: Whether through edge size, added weight, or interval length—adaptation only occurs when the stimulus changes.
Recovery Is Prioritized: Most systems recommend 2–3 focused sessions/week, emphasizing recovery before heavy finger sessions.

Part III: MTI’s Updated July Cycle & Built-In Study

Drawing from these lessons, MTI’s new climbing cycle is structured around three weekly sessions:

Monday: V-Sum test (climbing technique & performance benchmark)
Wednesday: Campusing and mobility
Friday: Max hang + forearm endurance (campus board constant movement)

Mini-Study: MAW vs. MED Max Hang Protocols

To address the historical gap in grip-specific training, we’re implementing a mini-study:

Group A: Maximum Added Weight (MAW) – Hang from a 20mm edge with increasing load
Group B: Minimum Edge Depth (MED) – Hang bodyweight on progressively smaller edges

Both groups will perform:

2x 5–10 second hangs
With 3 minutes rest between sets
Once per week, pre/post-tested for time to failure on a 20mm edge

Inspired by Eva López’s protocols and peer-reviewed research, this structure allows us to compare which protocol drives greater improvement in climbing performance, as reflected in V-Sum and max hang gains.

Conclusion

This review process clarified several key takeaways for MTI’s programming:

Progressive overload is the foundation, whether that means changing load, edge depth, or duration.
Dedicated grip training is essential, not an afterthought.
Dynamic latching and power work must scale in difficulty to retain value over time.
Community feedback and experimentation should inform structured programming, not replace it.

With a blend of structured programming, real-world testing, and active experimentation, MTI’s updated climbing cycle is a step forward toward more effective, evidence-informed climbing preparation.

Works Cited

STAY UPDATED

Sign-up for our BETA newsletter. Training tips, research updates, videos and articles - and we’ll never sell your info.