UKC

/ Load distribution between hands and feet 2

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
David Coley - on 15 Feb 2018
Greasy Prusiks on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to David Coley:

That's really interesting. What angle of wall is this for? 

David Coley - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

15

 

Greasy Prusiks on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to David Coley:

Thanks David. I'd never have thought the difference could be so big on a static test. I'd be interested if you do any more tests especially on a range of angles. 

AlanLittle - on 15 Feb 2018
In reply to David Coley:

Don't understand what you mean by "15".

15 degrees off vertical? 15 degrees overhanging?

 

Deadeye - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to David Coley:

Are you sure you have the y axis labelled correctly? Easiest route only 20% on feet?

David Coley - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to AlanLittle:

15 deg overhanging, i.e. a little off vertical.

Some points for others who might take this forward (I think it would make a great sports science dissertation) and because I'm likely to forget if I don't write it down.

1. I asked people "what is the highest grade you have led onsite indoors in the last 12 months?". There were several issues with this. Some down the bottom of the grade range didn't lead. Others were boulders. It was clear that climbers at the top knew exactly what grade they led and that there was a clear difference between 7b and 7b+ to them. Grade 6 climbers were more likely to be wooly. This I think has made the data noisy in the 6th grade and below.

2. I was in Exeter so it was harder to find the same number of 7s as 6s. Hence the R2 is poor as most of data is spread over very little of the x-axis, and as stated above is noisy in the grade dimension. 

3. The story line they were given was "hold those two green holds and stand and imagine you are about up to reach for the other green hold over there". For better climbers this led to confusion as some wanted to just to hang low, as they would have done the move dynamically as the target hold was a jug. I tried to tell them to imagine they were on an E5, the gear was shit and the hold of unknown form. But they were sports climbers.

4. A better story would have been, stand up an hover your hand over the target hold. However the grade 5/6a climbers would not have been able to hold the position. This would have been far more accurate in the load dimension of the graph however.

5. Some grade 7 climbers clearly thought the holds so big and the angle of the wall so slight that they saw no reason to bother minimising energy use by using their feet. This was very true of boulderers. One boulderer was removed from the data because of this, as he didn't weight the machine at all. However using smaller holds would have been impossible for the 5/6a camp.

6. Some suggested a better idea was to do a best of three attempts with the very clear story of "put as much weight as possible on your foot"

7. There was friction in the machine. This might make the numbers not equivalent for very light and very heavy climbers.

8. I didn't measure the height of the climbers. Or change the position of the holds depending on the height of the climbers. A very tall climber had the holds near shoulder height, a very short climber was stretched out. This would need controlling for in any repeat test. But would be easy by grouping the climbers in a few bins based on height (this would need a larger sample though)

9. People enjoyed it and engaged well. I believe if the spring balance was replaced with a load cell that was communicating with a mobile phone app (see link to the Norwegian(?) gadget in my previous thread), that a powerful training device would have been created that any wall/coach could use to very clearly demonstrate some truths. For example, how much weight is each member of the youth squad putting on their feet on a 45deg wall. By hanging the phone from the wall infront of the climber's face her/she would be able to play with body position to minimise load on hands and max it on feet. I think naturally good climbers (i.e. those that progress steadily through the grades to say 7b with little physical training) have enough body awareness to natural feel when more weight is on their feet. Others might well not have. I haven't a clue what my feet are doing most of the time, if anything.

I hope someone takes this forward. If they do, I'm happy to help with the rig design, the experimental design, or the stats.

David Coley - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to Deadeye:

Sorry, this was not well explained for those not in the previous discussion. The x-axis is not the grade of the route or move - all data is for the same move - but the self declared maximum indoor lead grade of the climber. Each data point is a different person.

 

Deadeye - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to David Coley:

Ah.  Sorry - my mistake; you had referenced an earlier thread.

So beginners don't use their feet is the message.

Deadeye - on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to David Coley:

Big up for science by the way

alx on 16 Feb 2018
In reply to Deadeye:

> So beginners don't use their feet is the message.

That is one particular story.  It would be good to get more higher grade climbers on the rig to see if the trend remained, potentially you could have a subtler narrative that strong people on big holds tend not to maximise weighting the feet.  You could then discuss if this was psychological as the exercise felt so easy or the individual weighing up whether what was the easiest option, sacrificing arm/finger strength over core strength to maximise recovery.

 

Had you considered a pre and post workout comparison so see the effects of fatigue on loading the feet?

David Coley - on 17 Feb 2018
In reply to alx:

It was very much a pilot study, so no. 

Jonas Wiklund - on 18 Feb 2018
In reply to David Coley:

I seem to vaguely remember that Marius Morstad did a similar study with a convenience sample of some of Norway's better sport climbers at the time (late 80s or early 90s perhaps?). If my memory is anything to go by (it probably isn't) he had set a hard move on a steeply overhanging wall, and had load measuring devices on the holds and found that the best climbers managed to get more force on the footholds, and also learned the move faster (total force needed to do the move dropped the fastest for the strongest during consecutive tries).

This is all hearsay, and I doubt anything got published (I should have it in that case). However, Morstad is still involved with the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, so it may be worth it to contact him. 


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.