Can Light Loading Build Finger Strength? What Climbers Should Know About the Abrahangs Study

Can Light Loading Build Finger Strength? A Closer Look at the “Abrahangs” Study

A recent retrospective study has gained traction in the climbing community by claiming that low-load, long-duration finger training—like the now-popular “Abrahangs” protocol—can increase finger strength as much as more traditional 10-second max hangs. Even more, combining the two supposedly produces additive effects. But before rewriting your training plan, it’s worth looking at what this study measured—and what didn’t.

The Setup

Using self-reported data from the Crimpd app, the researchers compared finger strength changes across four groups of climbers over a 4–16 week training period:

  • Climbers who just climbed (no finger training)

  • Climbers who did only Abrahangs (a 10-minute, low-intensity routine)

  • Climbers who did only Max Hangs (85–95% of 1RM, standard hangboarding)

  • Climbers who did both protocols concurrently

  • Strength was measured using a maximum load-style test: how much load a climber could hang from a 20mm edge for 7 seconds in a half-crimp. The primary outcome was a change in strength-to-weight ratio.

What They Report

  • The climbing-only group had no change in finger strength. No surprise.

  • The Abrahangs and Max Hang groups saw modest increases (~2.5–3.2%).

  • The group that did both protocols improved more (~5.8%), and this difference was statistically significant.

What This Study Doesn’t Tell Us

Despite the interesting headline, several major caveats limit how we interpret these results:

  • No control over load in the Abrahangs group.
    The loading was entirely self-selected. “~40% of max” was the guidance, but no load was measured or verified. There’s no way to know if the improved people simply loaded heavier than others. In addition, the Abrahangs group included five different grip positions (4-finger open, front-3 open, front-2 open, middle-2 open, front-2 half, middle-2 half), whereas the max weighted hang only used the half-crimp.

  • Self-selection bias.
    Users weren’t randomized, so we don’t know why a climber chose one protocol over another. It’s possible injured climbers were more likely to choose Abrahangs or that stronger climbers preferred Max Hangs. These factors could skew results.

  • No tracking of total climbing volume or training history. 
    How much climbing were these users doing? Were they new to hangboarding or experienced? Did some ramp up other types of training during the study window? None of that was controlled.

  • No physiological measurements. 
    The authors speculate that Abrahangs improved force transmission via adaptations in connective tissue (tendons, pulleys, fascia), but there is no imaging, stiffness measurement, or tissue biopsy to support that. It’s entirely speculative, so don’t start abrahanging daily to heal your sore fingers.

  • Small effect sizes.  
    The effect sizes were modest for each protocol individually (Cohen’s d = 0.29 for Abrahangs; 0.45 for Max Hangs). Even the combined group, which showed the most significant gains (d = 0.79), didn’t blow the doors off regarding real-world magnitude.

So What Can We Take Away?

The biggest takeaway might be the lack of difference between the high-load and low-load groups. If the results hold up in more controlled studies, they suggest finger strength can improve with lower-load training, assuming it’s done frequently and consistently. That’s an important point—particularly for athletes dealing with injury or looking to train connective tissue with less systemic fatigue.

But this doesn’t mean we should abandon high-intensity protocols. The neural adaptations from heavy loading—motor unit recruitment, rate coding, and central drive—are well-documented and likely remain essential for top-end performance.

The additive benefit of combining light and heavy loading is also reasonable. Still, again, the results don’t rule out the possibility that it’s just a volume effect—i.e., the people who did more work got stronger.

Final Thoughts

This study raises good questions but doesn’t settle them. It adds to the growing conversation about tendon and connective tissue adaptation and gives climbers a potential low-fatigue option for supplemental finger training.

But for now, the idea that light loading is “just as effective” as heavy loading should be viewed skeptically. The mechanisms remain untested, and the methodology limits how far we can generalize the findings.

A more rigorous prospective study—with load verification, participant randomization, and direct tissue adaptation measures—would better test the hypothesis. Until then, high-intensity loading is still the most physiologically grounded way to build finger strength. Abrahangs might be a helpful adjunct, but the current data don’t warrant replacing heavier training either way.

 

Research:

Gilmore, N. K., Klimek, P., Abrahamsson, E., & Baar, K. (2024). Effects of different loading programs on finger strength in rock climbers. Sports Medicine - Open, 10(125).



Tyler Nelson