Entralpi
EN FR
Talk at the first Canadian Climbing Medicine Symposium in 2017

Climbing Research Roundup 2023–2026

Plan your training • • Félix Bourassa-Moreau • Updated

Eight studies from 2023 to 2026 matter most for finger training. They found that finger strength is the biggest physical factor in climbing grade, that light daily hangs look promising for strength, and that finger strength tests are reliable if you standardize them.

Climbing research has grown fast. A few years ago most training advice came from coaches’ experience; today there are randomized trials, large datasets and systematic reviews. Here is what each study found, and what to take from it.

1. Is finger strength the biggest factor in your grade?

Berta et al., 2025, Journal of Sports Sciences. In 307 climbers (185 men, 122 women), maximal finger strength was the dominant factor: it accounted for about two thirds of the variance in climbing ability that the tests explained (68% in men, 64% in women), and intermittent endurance for most of the rest (28% and 34%). A finger hang test also correlated strongly with grade, but mostly because it reflects strength. When normalized to body mass, men and women did not differ in finger strength or endurance.

Take-away: finger strength deserves a central place in training, and percentage of bodyweight is a fair way to compare yourself with others.

2. Can low-intensity daily hangs build strength?

Gilmore et al., 2024, Sports Medicine – Open. Using data from 526 climbers in the Crimpd app, the study compared “Abrahangs” (a 10-minute daily routine of low-intensity hangs with the feet on the floor), max hangs, both, or climbing only. Max hangs improved strength-to-weight by 3.2%, Abrahangs by 2.5%, and the combination by 5.8%, while climbing alone did not change it. The study was retrospective, and the protocol’s creator is a co-author.

Take-away: frequent light loading is a promising, low-risk addition to heavier work, pending a randomized trial. More in our no-hangs article.

3. Are finger strength tests reliable?

Pérez-Cordero et al., 2025, Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. This systematic review of 15 studies and 747 participants found maximal isometric finger strength tests highly reliable, with typical intraclass correlations between 0.85 and 0.99. Studies used edges from 6 to 60 mm; the authors recommend standardizing on about 20 to 23 mm.

Take-away: test on a 20 to 23 mm edge, same grip and same device every time. Our testing guide walks through it.

4. How good is the critical force test?

Boklaschuk, MacDougall and MacInnis, 2026, European Journal of Applied Physiology. In 26 climbers, the 4-minute all-out test gave a critical force of 122 N on average, against 98 N from the slower method of constant-force tests to exhaustion. The all-out test was extremely repeatable (ICC 0.97), but the authors concluded it is likely unsuitable for setting exercise intensities.

Take-away: use the all-out test to see whether your endurance improves; set endurance training loads a bit below its result.

5. Is the all-out test repeatable for peak force?

McClean et al., 2023, International Journal of Exercise Science. In 13 climbers tested twice, peak force from the all-out test was highly reliable (ICC 0.94, 5.6% variation) and end-test force was good (ICC 0.85) but varied more day to day (21%).

Take-away: peak force is a stable number to track; treat single end-test force results with some caution and look at trends.

6. Do weighted one-arm finger pulls build strength?

Saeterbakken et al., 2024, Frontiers in Physiology. Thirty-one advanced and elite boulderers either added 5 weeks of one-arm dynamic finger pulls with weights three times a week, or kept bouldering as usual. The training group improved dynamic finger strength by 11.5% against 5.3%, but isometric strength, rate of force development and bouldering performance did not differ between groups.

Take-away: strength training raises strength; turning it into harder climbing still takes climbing.

7. Was the Entralpi force plate validated?

MacDougall et al., 2023, Sports Biomechanics. Disclosure: this study evaluated our product. Researchers at the University of Calgary compared the Entralpi plate with a laboratory force platform in a static test and in 30 all-out finger tests by 15 climbers, and found excellent agreement, ICC 0.991 and a mean relative error of 0.41%.

Take-away: low-cost force plates can deliver lab-grade numbers for peak force and impulse.

8. Do climbers recruit force faster when startled?

Colomer-Poveda et al., 2023, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. Comparing 16 elite climbers with 15 untrained people, a loud startling sound sped up reaction time and rate of force development in both groups, but climbers’ advantage in early force development appeared only after the startle.

Take-away: part of fast force production is neural, which fits the rapid rate-of-force-development gains seen after short, intense training blocks.

What ties these together

Strength matters most, testing is reliable when it is standardized, and there is more than one way to load the fingers. The newest work is less about finding one best protocol and more about measuring well, so you know what your training is actually doing.

More in plan your training: does hangboarding work?, how often to hangboard and daily low-intensity hangs.

Do this in Entralpi

Several of these studies set loads as a share of maximum or of critical force. In the app, the tests (Take a test) measure peak force, critical force and the speed of a pull, and What each test measures explains how each is counted. Then pick a workout from the Train tab or build your own.

Sources