Campus Board Training: 2 vs. 4 Sessions for Elite Bouldering Performance
Effects of Two vs. Four Weekly Campus Board Training Sessions on Bouldering Performance and Climbing-Specific Tests in Advanced and Elite Climbers
Published in: Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2021)
Purpose and Rationale:
This study aimed to examine how different frequencies of campus board training (two vs. four sessions per week) impact specific climbing performance markers, including maximal strength, rate of force development (RFD), bouldering performance, and climbing endurance.
Campus board training, a climbing-specific method, lacks extensive research despite its popularity among elite climbers for building explosive strength and endurance in finger and upper-body musculature. Given its widespread usage and the potential for overuse injuries, understanding optimal training frequencies can help climbers enhance performance while minimizing injury risks.
Methodology:
Study Design
Type: Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)
Duration: 5 weeks
Groups:
TG2: Two campus board sessions per week.
TG4: Four campus board sessions per week.
Control Group (CG): Continued regular climbing without campus board training.
Intervention Volume: Training volume was matched across TG2 and TG4 to ensure the only variable was frequency.
Testing Procedures
Participants were tested on a range of climbing-specific outcomes before and after the intervention:
Bouldering Performance: Assessed by attempting two bouldering problems graded 7A, recording the total number of successful moves.
Maximal Isometric Pull-Up Strength: Measured using both a shallow rung (23 mm) and a larger jug hold, quantifying maximal force output.
Rate of Force Development (RFD): Calculated in two phases – absolute (over the entire contraction) and within the first 100 ms (RFD100), which emphasizes neuromuscular quickness.
Maximal Reach: Recorded as the highest campus board rung participants could reach and hold.
Moves to Failure: Recorded as the number of moves participants could complete on the campus board before failing.
Participant Selection
Eligibility and Demographics
Skill Level: Only climbers with a minimum red-point climbing grade of 7a+ (IRCRA 18) were included, ensuring the study focused on advanced to elite athletes.
Injury-Free: Participants needed to be free of climbing-related injuries for at least six months.
Experience: All participants had high-intensity finger training experience but had not recently used campus board training.
Demographic Overview:
Sample Size: Sixteen climbers (after one dropout), all male, averaging:
Age: ~30 years
Height: ~1.8 meters
Body Mass: ~74 kg
Experience: ~8-10 years
Limitations in Selection: The sample’s small size and exclusivity to male, high-level climbers limit the findings’ generalizability. Including a more diverse sample in terms of gender, experience, and skill level would provide broader insights.
Maximal Isometric Pull-Up Strength Measurement
Equipment Used:
The study utilized a force cell with a high resolution (200 Hz) to capture precise measurements.
The force cell was anchored to the floor with a static setup to ensure no horizontal or vertical movement. Participants wore a climbing harness that was connected to this static system to maintain stability.
Testing Setup:
Climbers performed an isometric pull-up at a 90° elbow angle on two types of holds:
A shallow rung (23 mm depth) to mimic the grip often used in climbing.
A jug hold (30 mm depth, 70 mm width) on a Beastmaker 1000 fingerboard.
Before exerting maximum force, participants maintained a stable baseline for one second, which helped avoid force fluctuations greater than 4 Newtons (N).
Measurement Process:
Once a stable baseline was established, participants were instructed to pull as hard and as quickly as possible for 3 to 4 seconds.
Real-time biofeedback on a computer screen allowed participants to monitor their force output, ensuring maximal effort.
Data Analysis for Strength:
Maximal Force Output: The highest force generated during the isometric pull-up was recorded as the maximal strength measurement.
The highest average force over 1500 ms (1.5 seconds) was used for consistency across trials.
Three acceptable attempts were averaged to calculate the maximal force.
Rate of Force Development (RFD) Measurement
RFD represents how quickly a muscle can generate force, which is critical in explosive movements like climbing. It was calculated over two-time frames:
Absolute RFD:
This measure was calculated from the onset of contraction (the point when force began to rise above the stable baseline) to the peak maximal force output.
The formula used was: Absolute RFD=Change in ForceTime to Peak Force\text{Absolute RFD} = \frac{\text{Change in Force}}{\text{Time to Peak Force}}Absolute RFD=Time to Peak ForceChange in Force
This calculation provided the rate of force change across the full contraction, indicating overall explosive strength capacity.
RFD100 (First 100 ms):
RFD in the initial 100 milliseconds (ms) of contraction was calculated separately, focusing on the earliest phase of force generation, which is often driven by neuromuscular activation rather than muscular strength alone.
This value was obtained by measuring the force produced within the first 100 ms from the onset and dividing by time, capturing the rate of force increase over this brief interval.
Formula: RFD100=Force at 100 ms−Baseline Force0.1 seconds\text{RFD100} = \frac{\text{Force at 100 ms} - \text{Baseline Force}}{0.1 \, \text{seconds}}RFD100=0.1secondsForce at 100 ms−Baseline Force
Onset of Contraction:
The exact starting point (onset) was defined as the moment when force rose by more than 4 N within a 5-millisecond interval, ensuring that minor fluctuations did not interfere with measurements.
Manual Analysis of Force Curves:
All force curves were manually analyzed by a single researcher to avoid variability in identifying contraction onset and to accurately capture both the absolute RFD and RFD100 values.
Training Intervention and Exercises
In the first session, the training groups performed specific campus board exercises under supervision, with the volume adjusted to be identical across groups. The exercises focused on various climbing moves, such as laddering and maximal reach attempts, designed to enhance strength and endurance.
1-4-7-10 Exercise: Sequential moves on the campus board with both hands pulling through each hold.
Laddering: Alternating hand-over-hand movements to reach maximal reach on each repetition.
1-2-3 Drill: Repeated maximal pulls with progressive reaches to build explosive power.
10RM Exercise: Performing ten consecutive moves near maximal reach to induce near-failure by the final repetition.
TG2 completed all exercises within each session twice per week, resulting in longer sessions (~40 minutes), while TG4 split exercises across four shorter weekly sessions (~20 minutes each).
Outcome Measures and Results
Maximal Isometric Pull-Up Strength on Rung and Jug
Rung Condition (23 mm):
Pre-Test: Participants’ mean force output was approximately 111.51 lb across groups.
Post-Test Average: No significant differences were observed in this condition, maintaining an average of 111.51 lb.
Estimated Force at 100 ms:
Pre-Test: 11.15 lb
Post-Test Average: 11.15 lb
These results suggest that maximal strength development in the rung condition was relatively unaffected by training frequency, indicating that extended time might be necessary to induce adaptation in elite athletes for this specific measure.
Jug Condition:
Pre-Test: 115.78 lb
Post-Test for TG4: Improved significantly to 119.37 lb (Effect Size, ES = 0.40, p = 0.043).
Estimated Force at 100 ms:
Pre-Test: 11.58 lb
Post-Test for TG4: 11.94 lb
The jug condition showed notable improvement for TG4, suggesting that more frequent training may better support gains in maximal force in a broader hold, which may have more direct applications to general climbing strength.
Rate of Force Development (RFD)
Absolute RFD (measured over full contraction):
Pre-Test: 966.68 lb/s
Post-Test for TG4: Improved to 1191.49 lb/s (ES = 2.92, p = 0.025).
Estimated Force at 100 ms:
Pre-Test: 96.67 lb/s
Post-Test for TG4: 119.15 lb/s
RFD100 (first 100 ms):
Pre-Test: 220.31 lb/s
Post-Test for TG4: Improved to 285.51 lb/s (ES = 0.37, p = 0.046).
Estimated Force at 100 ms:
Pre-Test: 22.03 lb/s
Post-Test for TG4: 28.55 lb/s
These increases in RFD and RFD100 for TG4 illustrate that four weekly sessions are more effective for enhancing explosive strength adaptations. This is critical in climbing for making powerful moves on challenging holds, especially in dynamic bouldering situations.
Time to Maximal Force
Pre-Test: Mean time to reach maximal force was 251 ms.
Post-Test: Across all groups, the time remained essentially unchanged, averaging 262 ms post-test. This suggests that while force output improved, the intervention did not significantly alter the speed of achieving peak force, indicating a more static nature to the adaptation.
Performance in Bouldering, Maximal Reach, and Moves to Failure
Bouldering Performance:
Pre-Test: All groups had a similar baseline performance with an average score of 10 moves.
Post-Test:
TG2 significantly improved, achieving an average of 10.8 moves (ES = 2.59, p = 0.016), outperforming the control group.
TG4 had a smaller, non-significant improvement, reaching 9.7 moves on average.
This outcome suggests that a lower frequency of campus board sessions may be more beneficial for activities requiring both power and endurance, such as bouldering.
Moves to Failure:
Pre-Test: Initial averages were 28 moves across participants.
Post-Test:
Both TG2 and TG4 improved in moves to failure, with TG2 showing a more substantial increase to 46.5 moves (ES = 1.65, p = 0.008), which may reflect greater fatigue tolerance built through fewer but longer sessions.
Maximal Reach:
Pre-Test: Climbers reached an average of 7.4 rungs.
Post-Test: Both training groups showed similar improvements to 7.8 rungs, though there was no significant difference between TG2 and TG4, indicating that reach capacity may benefit equally from either training frequency.
Statistical Considerations and Analysis
The study employed ANCOVA and non-parametric tests where appropriate, with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons.
Effect sizes were provided to better illustrate the practical impact of results, though limited sample size reduced statistical power and left some results as trends rather than definitive findings.
Suggested Outcomes and Practical Implications
Training Frequency and Specificity: The results suggest that four sessions per week are optimal for explosive strength (RFD) development, whereas two sessions per week may better support endurance and sustained strength for bouldering.
Campus Board as a Targeted Training Tool: Campus board training proved effective for enhancing climbing-specific attributes like strength and endurance. However, the authors suggest a block-periodized approach to manage fatigue, reduce injury risk, and ensure adaptations without overloading.
Future Research Recommendations: Larger, diverse samples and longer interventions would help.