Comparison of grip strength in recreational climbers and non-climbing athletes—a cross-sectional study

N/ACitations
Citations of this article
117Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In recent years, climbing sports is on the rise making its Olympic debut in 2021. Physiological traits of professional rock climbers have been intensively studied, while recreational indoor climbers are less investigated, especially regarding grip strength and upper extremity proportions. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to understand what discerns the recreational climber from disparate recreational athletes. Therefore, we analyzed 50 recreational climbing (30.3 ± 12.7 years, 1.76 ± 0.09 m and 67.0 ± 14.0 kg) and 50 non-climbing athletes (26.4 ± 9.1 years, 1.78 ± 0.09 m and 73.2 ± 12.6 kg) to detect differences in their finger grip strength of seven different pinches. In addition, the upper extremity proportions were measured. Even in recreational climbers, almost all analyzed grips were stronger compared to other athletes (p < 0.05 in all but non-dominant fist, small to moderate effect sizes). Only the grip strength of the whole non-dominant hand was not significantly different (p = 0.17). Interestingly, differences between the dominant and non-dominant hand appeared to be larger in the non-climbing (all p < 0.05, all but one with small effect size) compared to the climbing cohort (pinch I/IV and pinch I/II+III+IV not different and mostly trivial). Circumference measurements showed that 10 cm below the lateral epicondyle, climbers exhibited significantly greater perimeter compared to non-climbing athletes (p < 0.05, small effect size). Our results show that recreational climbers have higher measured grip strength, but less profound differences between the dominant and non-dominant hand.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Assmann, M., Steinmetz, G., Schilling, A. F., & Saul, D. (2021). Comparison of grip strength in recreational climbers and non-climbing athletes—a cross-sectional study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010129

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free