Hey everyone! I hope you enjoyed this follow up to the two hangs per day videos. I will add all relevant information in this pinned comment and in the description as we learn more about this topic! 1. sportsmedicine-open.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40798-024-00793-7 2. If you wish to help with the prospective study you can answer the VISA-C (injury questionaire) here: tinyurl.com/ucdavisclimbingstudy 3. You can download Crimpd here and search for "Emil" to try the workout yourself: www.crimpd.com/ 4. Link to Ryan Devlin's podcast with me and Keith Baar: ua-cam.com/video/8hXfvFuA_6E/v-deo.htmlsi=53Q8ZKdHWSryPicn 5. Original video "Hangboard Training 2 Times Per Day For 30 Days": ua-cam.com/video/sBTI9qiH4UE/v-deo.html 6. Follow up two years later "Hangboard Training 2 times per day for 2 years": ua-cam.com/video/0rAkLqk3UXM/v-deo.html Massive thank you to Keith Baar, Natalie Gilmore and Peter Klimek for making this knowledge available to us all.
quick question regarding the VISA-C survey - is it intentional that "severe pain" is at 0 and "no pain" at 10 on the scale? Sounds like there might be something mixed up
@@lu-tze8099 Hi! I am another exercise physiologist, but not involved in this study in any way. I can say that these scales are often made a little funny to get better quality data. If it is a standard 1-10, people actually are less likely to really give you a proper response. It's a little mental trick to mix them up or make them like 4-14.
This is so cool. To be so passionate about climbing and then also getting to revolutionize how we look at finger health and strength. Thank you for taking an interest in these studies, It's almost certainly helped my training and avoidance of injury. Especially as a climber who can only make it to the gym once a week.
From a scientific and academic perspective this is unfortunately a very poorly conducted study… I really wish it were different. This research methodology sets climbing research back by years :(
He mentioned it at the end but it's still a good start for upcoming better conducted studies even though I agree that this study is pretty much meaningless considering the protocol
Science oriented videos definitely your best work!! whats even more awesome that other channels pick up upon your content and develop discussion about new methods even more, good job.
@8:51 I think there's an important caveat here. I'm coming at this from other perspectives - I don't climb, I'm just generally interested in the tendon development and rehabilitation field as it relates to my own/other sports. Dr Baar mentions that you shouldn't need to perform similar movements in the gym as your sport. My retort would be that it is often true in sport that you are not working the underlying qualia sufficiently in your sport to gain an adaption. Specifically - a quarterback throws many times per game/practice. However, those throws are modulated by context. It is rare that you see a maximal effort throw, as the throw speed is dependant on target, positioning of other players on the field, counter-productive body mechanics from trying to avoid defensive players who are seeking to tackle you, etc. So a quarterback does still need to perform max effort throwing exercises or movements that transfer to it (long toss, med balls, jerks, etc.) in order to improve max throwing distance. Similarly, in volleyball, I jump a lot. But that jump is always to a non-maximal target, and is modulated by the speed of play, my own positioning, etc. So if I don't train full approach jumps, standing jumps, and other exercises that transfer to them (power cleans, jump squats, depth jumps or other plyos) then I will not see a positive adaptation in vertical. What we DON'T have to do is do the low intensity versions of these movements that are ordinarily present in a training program in order to ensure we have sufficient capacity to handle the high intensity movements. I don't need to do a bunch of drop landings to prep my body for max effort jumps. I do those tons in practice and play. It's handled. When it comes to the GPP component, I DO need to do what Dr Barr is suggesting - provide supplementary training in a different direction from my sport, e.g. long hold leg extensions, to offset injury risk and support tissue development. Tl;dr - DO continue high intensity, overloading versions of your sport specific movements. DO add counter-acting GPP work. DON'T add lots of low-relative-intensity volume that mimics your sport.
Based on what you are saying, you agree with his statement. You don't do full strength jumps enough in volleyball or full strength throws enough as a qb so you should do max effort exercises to supplement. That is what he says to do.
Thank you! I’m a physical therapist in the USA and started bouldering about 8 months ago. Even with my knowledge of anatomy and physiology I was struggling with how to train finger strength but not over train. This type of research is fantastic! I subscribed, down loaded crimd, and plan to try to be in your prospective study!
@@Anan-qq7fg I think if you are really dedicated you could increase your finger length. A lot of elite climbers seem to have insanely long fingers relative to their hand size. You would want to do a lot of stretching and finger extension work though so they don't get too stiff as they get stronger.
@@Anan-qq7fg Depends where you are at at your piano playing journey. I've been playing piano all my life and learnt classical technique, so for me bouldering and finger strength has helped retain the ease and strength that I usually would lose when not practicing enough later in life. The biggest issues is if your are more of a beginner/intermediate player making sure your not just using fingers to play , having strong fingers will make this issue worse. For advanced players I can also see it affecting agility unless you keep working on it. As long as you can still play relaxed and good technique if you play for fun as a hobby it should be fine.
This research protocol seems to have some serious methodological issues, not least of which are the inclusion criteria for the different groups. To be in the "Max Hangs" group, people had to do "Abrahangs" less than 3 times per week, and max hangs more than 0.5 times per week (= once every two weeks). Abrahangs only was the opposite. Both was > 3 and > 0.5. This create a huge variability in training regimen for people included in the different groups. In particular, the cutoff for maxhangs is quite ridiculous seeing as the typical prescription for maximum strength training is two sessions per week of > 80% 1 RM intensity with a total time under tension between 30 and 90 seconds per session. What motivated this choice of cutoff? This is not explained in the study. I don’t think this study says what you think it does considering this important flaw (and others).
Agree. I need to sit down with it, but the way the data is filtered is really important here, especially since it's clear the research group is looking for conclusions that reinforce their in vitro study. I am certain you could easily choose to filter the data to get either a positive or negative result.
I haven't read it yet, but the filters are probably based on how big the repective groups had to be. And they are probably a lot less "problematic" than they seem. But, yes, a good RCT would be nice. They're already recruiting climbers as far as I know, but research like that can be ridiclously slow, so some evidence is definitely better than no evidence at all. Concerning the volume of the Max Hangs: when I had a lattice plan I mostly had one session per week.
@@flip_lange There may be a reason for this choice of grouping, but it is not explained in the study. Nor is the influence of the choice of grouping on the outcome of the ANOVA statistical analysis. I disagree that some evidence is better than no evidence at all, or to be more specific, a certain standard is required to call something evidence. If you look up false discovery rates, you will see that it is possible to have false positives at rates much higher than what the significance level would suggest depending on the quality of the design, the prior, as well as other metrics. The way I see it, poor quality research can set back the general public understanding of a topic. Re: max hangs -- I don't know about the lattice plan, but strength training literature converges towards the kind of volume and intensity I described in my initial message.
you know exactly what motivated the cutoff. The criteria is decided ahead of time in order to increase the likelihood of having results that can be forcefully presented/interpreted to be meaningful to publish. Such a terrible study.
I'm so into this just to get more knowledge on how to train my fingers to be stronger. I followed you're protocol to nurse my fingers back to health. I incurred an A2 pulley injury sending my first V6. Pushed myself a little too hard there. Anyway, just two months of following the Abrahangs protocol and I'm climbing hard again! Emil your video about the nohangs and the reference to the research paper really helped me get back on the wall. That is something I am extremely thankful for.
I would be really interested in a workout protocol based on these findings with both no hangs and max hangs. And it would probably do good numbers on UA-cam.
One possible limitation of the conclusion that I did not hear already is the fact that the Abrahangs are a relatively new concept. And it was very new in the crimpd app. So it could be that the people doing max hangs already did them for years, but just started to incorporate the no hangs. So this would not propose that they are equally effective. I could imagine that the benefits on strength gains don't sustain as long as max hangs do. On the other side, consistently doing max hangs for years might contribute to fingers finally breaking down, the Abrahangs seem to do the opposite. Great work, no matter what. Thanks a lot!
The way they filtered the data here is really important for these kinds of reasons. I need to study the paper. Honestly I expect to find that it's severely flawed. I just can't imagine random people's crimpd uploads being filtered in any kind of consistent way.
@@geometerfpv2804 but that's with most of the studies. Either they are useless because way too short or adherence, interpretation and reporting has a lot of spread. Nobody can do a long study and properly control the reporting...
My hypothesis is that the max hangs are in fact more effective for strength gains but are more damaging to the tissue leading to a limit in the frequency a person can perform them. The abrahangs stimulate and increase recovery allowing climbers to increase load faster or perform max hangs at a higher frequency over time which leads to accelerated strength gains.
I think it's rather intensity than frequency. Very unlikely that all those people benefitting from both increased the number of max hang workouts per week...
Did you know that there’s a tendon in the wrist that not all of us have, which according to wikipedia: ”The lack of palmaris longus muscle does result in decreased pinch strength in fourth and fifth fingers.”. Kind of weird and interesting in regards to climbing and grip strength
what is more important is how and where the climbers tendon is attached to the finger bones thusly some get pulley tendon injuries more easily and need more rest time like three days off and risk injury on day three on better two days on three off etc a physical therapist did a paper on it
@@JLB0880The palmaris longus muscle can be observed by touching the pads of the fourth finger and thumb and flexing the wrist. The tendon, if present, will be visible in the midline of the anterior wrist. (From Wikipedia) Google "Palmaris longus muscle", there are photos and videos
It's so exciting to see proper research in the climbing space! Hopefully in the future we continue to get a large body of literature on climbing training. Good on your for contributing to the advancement of climbing science!
Emil i cant thank you enough for this video! i'm about a year out of completing my degree in exercise physiology, and have taken up climbing as a sport/hobby about 6 months ago and have been trying to structure a training plan for myself to increase my contact/finger strength, and this is SUCH an interesting topic. gonna have to send this video to my professors to show the class!
Perfect timing for this video, as I've ruptured my A2 2 weeks ago :(. I'm doing submax hangs as my main rehab exercise with additional finger exercises.
This is great. I'm a research scientist and really appreciate that your protocol is evidence based. It's a nice rebuke to certain naysayers who (without any evidence whatsoever) have, for example, posted popular videos that knock the protocol and insist that it just can't work. I'm looking forward to reading the full study when time permits. The synergy between maximal-effort training and very low-impact "maintenance" training makes sense. The world's premier powerlifting gym, Westside Barbel, has used this philosophy for decades. Their approach to max-effort training gets all of the fanfare (because it's so damn impressive), but their athletes also do loads of assistance-only workouts throughout their training cycles. These workouts activate targeted muscle groups without adding too much (or really any) new strain, which is akin to an Abrahang. Great work, excellent video, and CONGRATS on being a published researcher!
Hey Emil, I love this! So good that you're engaging with the research and actively participating in it, as well as making the effort to share it all with us. The results were really surprising and I'll definitely be using abrahangs going forward :)
This whole story makes me so happy! I've been thinking about doing some research on different inger strength protocpls myself, but nothing ever materialised (since I should REALLY finish my PhD and NOT watch unrelated UA-cam videos). Participated in the VISA-C as well :)
It's funny how one of the C4HP "coaches" coined "Abrahangs" a long time ago as a means to insult the protocol. I'm glad Emil is owning the term for his own!
@@ludvigericson6930 They're basically grifters in the world of climbing training. They thrive on being contrarian and being loud on the internet -- while trying to sell you training fads.
0:58 for later me Great video mate. Trying to figure out how to train tendons strength best/ fastest 1:23 method 40% intensity 10 seconds 50 sec pause twice a day 2:07 6 hours prior/after any other exercise/training
Emil thanks man!! I really enjoy these series and it motivates me to go for my own program as well. Had serious hand injuries but now can start improving again, this gives me the confidence to slowly start and still see the progression again hopefully
Makes sense. Max-hangs or Abrahangs depends on what stimulus each climber gets on their climbing days. So it's about complimenting one's existing climbing style & intensity so as to not undertrain or overtrain. Hence there is no one "best" way to train fingers. A lot depends on individuals themselves with their unique climbing styles, genetic make-up & age. I personally tried Abrahangs only once a day & noticed increased inflammation as my body wasn't able to recover from my regular training sessions with this added protocol. Might work if I am still in my 30's & early 40's when my recovery was way faster. Still, an awesome video that brings forth more scientifically in-depth analysis of our sport, which is so hard to understand due to its varied physiological demands. ❤
Emil, will be very great to have a video about the other sutff, that will help a lot in sport sciance and spread of information, thanks for such great content always
Great video. I appreciate you explaining the limitations to the research. I look forward to reading the prospective study! The idea training the type of load you DON'T get in your regular climbing routine is super interesting to me. I mostly do non-dynamic outside climbing, with some 90-95% of max hangboarding. I don't really train anything max or dynamic, out of fears of injury. On the rare occasion I go to the climbing gym, where I end up doing more dynamic, I often end up with a minor injury the next day. I'm now wondering if that's because my body is not accustomed to these dynamic forces.
This is so interesting! I can’t wait to see the results from the prospective study! Forever sad that grad school keeps me too busy to climb once a week😭
Really interesting research 👍 Some anecdotal evidence from my own experience of trying the protocol last year. I tried it but once per day and not on days when I climbed intensely. I also did an extra two-finger hang on back-two. After a few months I picked up an overuse injury in my right hand (the strong one) which felt was caused by the protocol. It improved when I stopped but still niggles. I put it down to never having a full rest day - usually I take about 3 rest days a week. I'm late forties and have always taken a long time to recover compared to others, even when I was younger.
I'm a few years younger but did (and almost experienced) the same. It feels that more than improving tendons strength, it improved my confidence in them, making me pull harder than what I was really able to. I mean, it's good, I saw amazing improvements and helped me solve some old pain issues in the fingers and hands but this does not do everything alone. It was in august, I'm still recovering (although mostly healed now, I may start this protocol again). And as terraflow said, sleep & diet (protein) play a big role here too.
There are thousands of videos where someone rediscoveres greesing the groove. My theory is, that it works for some time for a very well prepared body. But not limitless, because it mainly focuses on increasing neuronal activity. It could be that the regular training improves tendon adaption, but I seriously doubt, that this would come in a month. He trained hard for decades and was only lacking the proper focus. If your whole day revolves around training, of course you gonna improve more, then if you do it on the side.
this is exactly what i have concluded from my gathered information about the tissues involved in finger strength and how i have trained for the last years with varied consistency. and i have world records in gripstrength as some may know.
Thank you so much!! I didn't know about low stress for 10 minutes, def gonna use it for my ankles too. Easy subscribe and can't wait to see how your future research goes
As a coach, there’s one thing that bothers me - from what I understand, the study had a control-based design. That is, tests were conducted initially, followed by the implementation of the prescribed protocol and then retests were performed. I think it’s very easy to fall into the trap of extrapolation here, because no additional tests were conducted to check whether the training effects were maintained after discontinuing the training stimulus. From my own experience and observations of my trainees, I’ve noticed that while Abrahangs work great for short-term maximization of finger strength, the test results quickly return to baseline levels once the protocol is discontinued. On the other hand, at the other end of the spectrum we have strength training (max hangs, pick-ups), which not only has a much greater potential for continuously increasing strength (up to one’s genetic potential) but also induces lasting adaptive changes in the nervous system. In other words, after stopping the training stimulus, our finger strength will drop, of course, but not back to where we started. Personally, I believe that Emil’s protocol is excellent and I see no contraindications to using it. However, when compared to proper heavy strength training, it has minimal potential for progression and its effects disappear just as quickly as they appear. Anyway, kudos for spreading knowledge - you’re making a fantastic contribution to the training and climbing community. Best regards!
Out of interest, if you do this routine, make the gains, then the gains go away even if you consistently climb, wouldn't that imply that the finger strength isn't being used as much as we think?
You misunderstand: there were no tests at all. This is a retroactive study of data people posted to an online site, so very uncontrolled. It's better than nothing, but we should remember what it is. I do all sorts of things that I don't end up posting to the crimpd app, and would guess most people are the same.
I believe comparative to the Max hang the Abrahang is more of a finger health inducer. Meaning that naturally if someone stops doing them their fingers will be less healthy or as you mentioned return back to their baseline strength. I would think this is because finger health is almost in direct correlation to the strength of the tendon and the force that can be output through the connective tissue.
I think I would disagree with you on the effects you describe: the changes in the nervous system are not lasting afaik and I've noticed a performace drop in a lot of exercises almost back to baseline after discontinuing them most notoably in overcoming isometrics. I think we just lose the coordination for the test (or exercise) when we're not doing the exercise. For me, it comes back within 3-4 weeks.
In weight lifting muscle atrophy happens within days and is exponential thereafter. The motor unit recruitment adaptations last much longer. The protocol of every 6 hours for 10 minutes is from ligament and tendon research.
I don't know why but this reminds me of zone 2 training and the whole "learn to run slow in order to run faster" idea. Zone 2 is also not enough to be a running athlete: it works best when you couple it with hill running and sprints. There looks to be a common denominator which could be summarised as "in order to get stronger you should definitely push your limits but you should also teach your body how to efficiently handle all the low effort and stress that leads to those radical peaks" (it's probably an oversimplification but it feels like a natural thing to do)
Hey Emil, superb content as always. Lattice would be a great collaboration to further this research. They must have the largest dataset on climbers on the planet
Such a video really some interesting insights about climbing to a somewhat "large" audience despite (/thanks to) its nerdiness, and I am not sure if there is any other videos like that on the platform !? You can be proud of you :)
Hi, this is a wonderfull video! Thank you very much for the science. Do you mind if I ask, what the TIMEFRAME of the training was / in what time did you get those gains? Thank you very much :) Best regards, Lorenz
Really cool topic and interesting analysis! I'm very surprised by the result, specifically that only climbing does not lead to any statistically significant gains in strength. This would also to some degree contradict your conclusion, that max hangs should be combined with light climbing and no hangs with bouldering, as these cannot complement the respective exercise if they do not increase gains by themselves. Curious to see what future studies might reveal!
Regarding your survey, it may be beneficial to change the scaling for pain to be: 0 = No pain and 10 = severe pain. Currently you have it set as 0 = severe pain and 10 = no pain, which is confusing when taking everyday speech and how we think about pain into consideration. I mean, if you ask someone; "please rate your pain on a scale from 0 - 10" and they answered "0! Lots of pain", I would look them up and down a few times and wonder if they're ok :D
Such a cool study, really interesting results! I particularly appreciate your disclaimer of the limitations of within study design, it demonstrates that you actually understood the research before sharing it with the public. The mainstream media should take a page out of your book before sharing garbage they don't understand and creating distrust of science (speaking from a North American perspective).
Watching the vidéo, I thought that this additive increase from people doing both abrahangs and max hangs was just some sort of "healthy user bias": people that do both hangs are probably the most dedicated /involved climbers in the pool, and so maybe if they were doing only max hangs, they would achieve the same effect (~5%). But the fact that this additive effect almost exactly adds up to 3.2+2.5%, and the fact that this effect is probably collected over the whole pool, involving climbers of all sorts of levels... Makes me think that there really is something at the physiological level, as suggested by Keith Baar. Great work :) As a researcher myself, I can't imagine how thrilled I would be to discover that someone outside academia actually used my work. You even gave work to Keith!
you really think this is good research? I’m asking seriously, researcher to researcher. For me there are too many research red flags here, rather indicating a poorly conducted study
@@jakob_levi I think it's probably the best they could to with the available self-reported workout log data without objective testing. I don't mind the analysis methods so much. The main weak point is the huge variability in the protocols (both control and treatment) due to insufficient instruction with many confounding variables. But based on these findings it would certainly be possible to design a higher quality study with instructed and matched test subjects.
@@jakob_levi as mentioned above, that's probably the best you can ask for. Of course no, we all know how difficult studies are to conduct in those kind of field. But what can you do, you expected to have multiple groups, all being their own controls with one arm doing the abrahangs, the other the max hangs? It's a step in the right direction after the N=2 experiments of Emil and its brother, but surely there is a long way to go.
I believe what gets overlooked is that in strenght disciplines they dont only do max effort lifts but also submax practice lifts. They are not just for technique work but also to get a better neural activation for a certain bodypart and configuration. The nohangs could very well be a form of submaximal training that improves neural activation. Because max hangs have the disadvantage of little volume to practice (because doing a lot of volume on max has a lot of downsides in fatigue, time cost and injury risk/physical toll).
Very interesting! As a beginner I struggle alot with finger strength, I get pumped out really quickly on 6a-b+. It is for sure a technical issue too but this might help me to figure out a way to get stronger more efficiently! Great video
There are certainly a lot of confounding factors with all of this (some of them addressed by other comments), but I'm really fascinated by the fact that there didn't appear to be a significant difference between abrahangs and max hangs. I'd be curious to know if this can be explained by tendon fibroblast mechanotransduction in response to the tissue stretching (irrespective of weight added). I'm currently doing my PhD studying fibroblasts and ever since your first video on this protocol I've been curious what the mechanism is. Theoretically, a large stimulus (weighted max hangs) wouldn't be needed to activate integrin/focal adhesions and subsequent collagen production. My bet is that the stimulus for collagen production in finger connective tissue is far lower than we think it needs to be!
Very cool. I bet Magnus and the other UA-cam climbing channels would be happy to promote future research. Design more follow-up studies and reach out to the audience for volunteers.
Great study. I know it was focused on finger strength and health but was curious if there was any data regarding the health of the tendons at the elbow side. Is there is possibility for rehabbing tendinitis or is that more muscle related than tendon?
That's what interests me also. I right now I need to get more flexible and strengthen my core. I don't need more finger strength. But would love some finger health.
Great video, I love the science and data based approach to try to answer this question! It seems a little puzzling that the "only climbing" group experiences zero gains in finger strength. The conclusion suggests that more dynamic oriented climbers might benefit from abrahangs more and static climbers might benefit from max hangs more. This seems to imply that dynamic and static climbers already practice moves that engage the fingers similarly to max hangs or abrahangs respectively through only climbing. I'm wondering why this doesn't show up in the data as an increase in finger strength, even a small magnitude compared to abrahangs or max hangs only. Maybe the effect size of that increase from only climbing is insignificant compared to dedicated finger training?
I've started doing Abrahangs with a farmer crimp setup, instead of actually hanging. I call them AbraCrimps. That way I can track loads, instead of just, "Until I feel a stretch." I think your 40% load recommendation is a great starting point, but I've been adjusting load based on what I can recover from. Basically, if I feel no tiredness or stiffness the next day, I'll add a little weight. I'm approaching 50% of max in each grip type after 3 weeks, and still not feeling fatigue buildup, other than the day after I climb AND do Abracrimps. So far I haven't been backing down on that day after training, but we'll see how it does longer term.
I wonder if any of the abrahams 10 min low load training could help with avoiding injury or recovering after an injury for people that work with a keyboard or play PC games for long periods of time.
As someone who suffers from wrist pain, this info is GOLD. One of the best done videos I've seen on youtube. Going above and beyond to get answers. Thank to the scientists for their incredible work, and to you for putting it all together. Again, GOLD.
The conclusion is very similar to the best exercise routine. Don’t do a few things a lot, do a lot of things a little bit. Basically switching up what exercise you are doing helps to keep everything strong and lowers the chance of over working specific parts of the body which can lead to injury.
Hi! Thank you for the video, it is always an interesting topic to learn about finger strength (or tendon strength in general). Also I have some questions: Were there any time constrains (time windows, like within 10 hours, or the same day) for those who did the combined (max hangs + sub-max hangs) protocol? Or that both types of the training should be involved? (Or was it self-reported, like "yes I did both, before I could do hangs with only +xx kg and now +yy kg"?) And when they did the combined version, did it matter if they did the sub-max hangs once or twice a day?
one thing i do wonder: the people doing both types of training are training more intensely and are more focused on gains. it is also possible that their higher gains come from more intense or higher volume of training rather than the type of training. will be great to see the second study when it comes out which addresses this
very nice, it would be good to incorprate as study about board climbing and if one can get the same finger strength result from board climbing as in just commercial climbing + a finger protocol
Im a 15 year old climber and my coach is always telling me that there are immense risks for injurys. but i feel like not training fingers its holding me back and that that would be the key to perform better at comps
I was unable to climb for 3 months and now trying to get my finger strength back. I been doing the routine almost every day for this month and I'm almost back at my old grade (6C+) after 20 days. The only days that I skipped were when my muscles were really sore from climbing. I really would be interested to take part in a finger strength experiment.
This is anecdotal but the strongest my back ever got was during the lockdown as I would do 10-20 chinups whenever I got up from my computer to do anything. At no point did I push it to the limit like I do at the gym, where I do weighted pullups, nor did I get inflamed. The problem with this approach for me is that it takes time and I can't really follow it since I'm working from the office again, so now I mostly do heavier sets at the gym and be done in 40 minutes. It's the same reason why I do like 2 tabatas on an assault bike instead of spending like 30-40 minutes on a treadmill.
Really looking forward to the prospective study, I'm also interested to see if this is unique to finger strength or if this could work for other muclegroups as well? I don't see why fingers should be unique, but maybe finger strength is more reliant on tendons than other muscle groups are??
So a potential problem with the study is that the questions are scaled backward. Which means giving a 0 means you are experiencing the most pain. Usually on pain rating scales, 10 means the most pain (at leat in the US). Edit: some of the quesations then ask what your intensity is which follows the logical 0-10 scale. The flipped scales will defintely cause issues unless respondants carefully read the question.
Well, that is unfortunate that the Visa-C questionnaire is age discriminatory! I can see with minors under 18. Although I don't entirely know why. But the cap off is 50. I am 57, and can climb as well as any one younger at my climbing experience level and opportunity to climb. And have been doing a lot of grip and hand strength and general body improvements for climbing. I mean, I could just lie and say I was younger and met the criteria, but just that they decided that after 50 is not relevant. Inclusion Criteria: For this study we are recruiting rock climbers between the ages of 18-50 years old who are EITHER a) healthy, uninjured individuals who regularly climb at least once a week on average, or b) individuals who normally climb regularly but currently have an injury to the finger/hand/wrist region due to overuse or acute strain from a climbing move and have limited the intensity and/or frequency of climbing or training as a result of that injury.
Congratulations on the publication. I think any work like this that generates discussion and works to broaden the evidence base for training in climbing is a huge positive. However, i think that given the described limitations - particularly the wide variation in time windows for training and testing, the variability of the protocols likely used within groups (i.e. unsupervised regimes), the lack of information about how much training was done prior (i.e. 15 years of climbing with regular max hang training v new climber) and why a climber chose a particular protocol should temper our enthusiasm about the results. I agree that a randomised controlled trial is necessary to draw firmer conclusions. Having said all that, i don't want to seem too negative; i can see a lot of thought, time and effort has gone into the study, and the hypothesis generation is extremely worthwhile. Congratulations again!
Very cool. Sadly, no randomization, so you can't extrapolate any causal effects. But that would be very difficult to do anyway. The study is a very nice indicator.
Would like to see Lattice training opinion on this again. Previously they figured that the stimulus was not good enough to improve any material of either muscle or tendons.
Seems like whatever competitive sport you're training for, training the same muscles groups in the opposite style of whatever field time you're getting results in compound growth. As long as you stay under your fatigue to recovery ratio. I know this is more a ligament/tendon video but I'd say it translates the same.
It would be interesting to look into specialization, and how all rounder athletes train or what they have in common to perform at high level in multiple disciplines, is purely based on program and persistence with meticulous work on weaknesses and strengths, or is it largely or very much dependent on individual genetics, but also would the specialization will determine young athletes structural development being that adapted with inclination towards skill and requirements of one discipline
I think real lesson is frequency. More frequency equals more quality gainz. Then backfilling make sure you get all your programming. But don't sacrifice frequency. So don't over do it in your sessions. Get quality work. Balanced programming. High frequency (as close to every 6 hours as feasible).
I think the “Just climbing’ group has to be defined a bit better. I’ve personally experienced big finger strength gains by board climbing on the Moon&Kilter. It’d be interesting to see how that compares to the other training methods.
Hey everyone! I hope you enjoyed this follow up to the two hangs per day videos.
I will add all relevant information in this pinned comment and in the description as we learn more about this topic!
1. sportsmedicine-open.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40798-024-00793-7
2. If you wish to help with the prospective study you can answer the VISA-C (injury questionaire) here:
tinyurl.com/ucdavisclimbingstudy
3. You can download Crimpd here and search for "Emil" to try the workout yourself:
www.crimpd.com/
4. Link to Ryan Devlin's podcast with me and Keith Baar:
ua-cam.com/video/8hXfvFuA_6E/v-deo.htmlsi=53Q8ZKdHWSryPicn
5. Original video "Hangboard Training 2 Times Per Day For 30 Days":
ua-cam.com/video/sBTI9qiH4UE/v-deo.html
6. Follow up two years later "Hangboard Training 2 times per day for 2 years":
ua-cam.com/video/0rAkLqk3UXM/v-deo.html
Massive thank you to Keith Baar, Natalie Gilmore and Peter Klimek for making this knowledge available to us all.
quick question regarding the VISA-C survey - is it intentional that "severe pain" is at 0 and "no pain" at 10 on the scale?
Sounds like there might be something mixed up
We should still have a six hour break between now and-hangs and any kind of training right?
How long will the study be?
@@lu-tze8099 Hi! I am another exercise physiologist, but not involved in this study in any way. I can say that these scales are often made a little funny to get better quality data. If it is a standard 1-10, people actually are less likely to really give you a proper response. It's a little mental trick to mix them up or make them like 4-14.
This is so cool. To be so passionate about climbing and then also getting to revolutionize how we look at finger health and strength. Thank you for taking an interest in these studies, It's almost certainly helped my training and avoidance of injury. Especially as a climber who can only make it to the gym once a week.
Having science backed data like this is a huge step for the climbing community! Keep up the good work, I can't wait to see how far this research goes!
From a scientific and academic perspective this is unfortunately a very poorly conducted study… I really wish it were different. This research methodology sets climbing research back by years :(
He mentioned it at the end but it's still a good start for upcoming better conducted studies even though I agree that this study is pretty much meaningless considering the protocol
@@jakob_levi thank you for saying what I wanted to say in a much more polite way.
Absolutely LOVE that the most intense research in our sport comes because a guy likes making videos it's awesome
Congratulations on the publication. This is really a great step towards more research in climbing specifically!
Science oriented videos definitely your best work!! whats even more awesome that other channels pick up upon your content and develop discussion about new methods even more, good job.
@8:51 I think there's an important caveat here.
I'm coming at this from other perspectives - I don't climb, I'm just generally interested in the tendon development and rehabilitation field as it relates to my own/other sports.
Dr Baar mentions that you shouldn't need to perform similar movements in the gym as your sport. My retort would be that it is often true in sport that you are not working the underlying qualia sufficiently in your sport to gain an adaption.
Specifically - a quarterback throws many times per game/practice. However, those throws are modulated by context. It is rare that you see a maximal effort throw, as the throw speed is dependant on target, positioning of other players on the field, counter-productive body mechanics from trying to avoid defensive players who are seeking to tackle you, etc. So a quarterback does still need to perform max effort throwing exercises or movements that transfer to it (long toss, med balls, jerks, etc.) in order to improve max throwing distance.
Similarly, in volleyball, I jump a lot. But that jump is always to a non-maximal target, and is modulated by the speed of play, my own positioning, etc. So if I don't train full approach jumps, standing jumps, and other exercises that transfer to them (power cleans, jump squats, depth jumps or other plyos) then I will not see a positive adaptation in vertical.
What we DON'T have to do is do the low intensity versions of these movements that are ordinarily present in a training program in order to ensure we have sufficient capacity to handle the high intensity movements. I don't need to do a bunch of drop landings to prep my body for max effort jumps. I do those tons in practice and play. It's handled. When it comes to the GPP component, I DO need to do what Dr Barr is suggesting - provide supplementary training in a different direction from my sport, e.g. long hold leg extensions, to offset injury risk and support tissue development.
Tl;dr - DO continue high intensity, overloading versions of your sport specific movements. DO add counter-acting GPP work. DON'T add lots of low-relative-intensity volume that mimics your sport.
Based on what you are saying, you agree with his statement. You don't do full strength jumps enough in volleyball or full strength throws enough as a qb so you should do max effort exercises to supplement. That is what he says to do.
This is freakishly great. Thanks a lot to all of you ! Favorite video of the year for me.
Keep the great work Emil.
Thank you! I’m a physical therapist in the USA and started bouldering about 8 months ago. Even with my knowledge of anatomy and physiology I was struggling with how to train finger strength but not over train. This type of research is fantastic! I subscribed, down loaded crimd, and plan to try to be in your prospective study!
Can this help with piano playimg?
@@Anan-qq7fgno, if anything, it’ll probably get in the way of piano playing
@@Anan-qq7fg I think if you are really dedicated you could increase your finger length. A lot of elite climbers seem to have insanely long fingers relative to their hand size. You would want to do a lot of stretching and finger extension work though so they don't get too stiff as they get stronger.
@@Anan-qq7fg Depends where you are at at your piano playing journey. I've been playing piano all my life and learnt classical technique, so for me bouldering and finger strength has helped retain the ease and strength that I usually would lose when not practicing enough later in life. The biggest issues is if your are more of a beginner/intermediate player making sure your not just using fingers to play , having strong fingers will make this issue worse. For advanced players I can also see it affecting agility unless you keep working on it. As long as you can still play relaxed and good technique if you play for fun as a hobby it should be fine.
Wow, one of the biggest science studies in rock climbing explained in a nonchalant way. Make history, Emil!
This research protocol seems to have some serious methodological issues, not least of which are the inclusion criteria for the different groups. To be in the "Max Hangs" group, people had to do "Abrahangs" less than 3 times per week, and max hangs more than 0.5 times per week (= once every two weeks). Abrahangs only was the opposite. Both was > 3 and > 0.5. This create a huge variability in training regimen for people included in the different groups. In particular, the cutoff for maxhangs is quite ridiculous seeing as the typical prescription for maximum strength training is two sessions per week of > 80% 1 RM intensity with a total time under tension between 30 and 90 seconds per session. What motivated this choice of cutoff? This is not explained in the study. I don’t think this study says what you think it does considering this important flaw (and others).
Agree. I need to sit down with it, but the way the data is filtered is really important here, especially since it's clear the research group is looking for conclusions that reinforce their in vitro study. I am certain you could easily choose to filter the data to get either a positive or negative result.
I haven't read it yet, but the filters are probably based on how big the repective groups had to be. And they are probably a lot less "problematic" than they seem. But, yes, a good RCT would be nice. They're already recruiting climbers as far as I know, but research like that can be ridiclously slow, so some evidence is definitely better than no evidence at all. Concerning the volume of the Max Hangs: when I had a lattice plan I mostly had one session per week.
@@flip_lange There may be a reason for this choice of grouping, but it is not explained in the study. Nor is the influence of the choice of grouping on the outcome of the ANOVA statistical analysis. I disagree that some evidence is better than no evidence at all, or to be more specific, a certain standard is required to call something evidence. If you look up false discovery rates, you will see that it is possible to have false positives at rates much higher than what the significance level would suggest depending on the quality of the design, the prior, as well as other metrics. The way I see it, poor quality research can set back the general public understanding of a topic. Re: max hangs -- I don't know about the lattice plan, but strength training literature converges towards the kind of volume and intensity I described in my initial message.
you know exactly what motivated the cutoff. The criteria is decided ahead of time in order to increase the likelihood of having results that can be forcefully presented/interpreted to be meaningful to publish. Such a terrible study.
I'm so into this just to get more knowledge on how to train my fingers to be stronger. I followed you're protocol to nurse my fingers back to health. I incurred an A2 pulley injury sending my first V6. Pushed myself a little too hard there. Anyway, just two months of following the Abrahangs protocol and I'm climbing hard again! Emil your video about the nohangs and the reference to the research paper really helped me get back on the wall. That is something I am extremely thankful for.
Congrats on the paper!!! More power to you Emil, hope you do more
I would be really interested in a workout protocol based on these findings with both no hangs and max hangs.
And it would probably do good numbers on UA-cam.
Same
Great and humble way to present the findings and setup of this research! Well done.
One possible limitation of the conclusion that I did not hear already is the fact that the Abrahangs are a relatively new concept. And it was very new in the crimpd app. So it could be that the people doing max hangs already did them for years, but just started to incorporate the no hangs. So this would not propose that they are equally effective. I could imagine that the benefits on strength gains don't sustain as long as max hangs do. On the other side, consistently doing max hangs for years might contribute to fingers finally breaking down, the Abrahangs seem to do the opposite.
Great work, no matter what. Thanks a lot!
The way they filtered the data here is really important for these kinds of reasons. I need to study the paper. Honestly I expect to find that it's severely flawed. I just can't imagine random people's crimpd uploads being filtered in any kind of consistent way.
@@geometerfpv2804 but that's with most of the studies. Either they are useless because way too short or adherence, interpretation and reporting has a lot of spread. Nobody can do a long study and properly control the reporting...
My hypothesis is that the max hangs are in fact more effective for strength gains but are more damaging to the tissue leading to a limit in the frequency a person can perform them. The abrahangs stimulate and increase recovery allowing climbers to increase load faster or perform max hangs at a higher frequency over time which leads to accelerated strength gains.
I think it's rather intensity than frequency. Very unlikely that all those people benefitting from both increased the number of max hang workouts per week...
Did you know that there’s a tendon in the wrist that not all of us have, which according to wikipedia: ”The lack of palmaris longus muscle does result in decreased pinch strength in fourth and fifth fingers.”. Kind of weird and interesting in regards to climbing and grip strength
I have it on the left side and it leads to carpal tunnel pain
what is more important is how and where the climbers tendon is attached to the finger bones
thusly some get pulley tendon injuries more easily and need more rest time like three days off and risk injury on day three on better two days on three off etc
a physical therapist did a paper on it
How does one know if they have this tendon?
@@JLB0880 touch your pinky to your thumb and it will "pop up" on your forearm if it's there
@@JLB0880The palmaris longus muscle can be observed by touching the pads of the fourth finger and thumb and flexing the wrist. The tendon, if present, will be visible in the midline of the anterior wrist.
(From Wikipedia)
Google "Palmaris longus muscle", there are photos and videos
As a total science nerd, I absolutely loved this video. Can't wait to see the full video! Really interesting , must finally start finger boarding 😂😂
It's so exciting to see proper research in the climbing space! Hopefully in the future we continue to get a large body of literature on climbing training. Good on your for contributing to the advancement of climbing science!
Thank you for being so dedicated. This helps the entire community ❤
Emil i cant thank you enough for this video! i'm about a year out of completing my degree in exercise physiology, and have taken up climbing as a sport/hobby about 6 months ago and have been trying to structure a training plan for myself to increase my contact/finger strength, and this is SUCH an interesting topic. gonna have to send this video to my professors to show the class!
Perfect timing for this video, as I've ruptured my A2 2 weeks ago :(. I'm doing submax hangs as my main rehab exercise with additional finger exercises.
And I broke my pip joint on my left middle finger. Fuuun times brother
@@dannes22sucks going to the gym to only train and do no climbing 🥲
This is great. I'm a research scientist and really appreciate that your protocol is evidence based. It's a nice rebuke to certain naysayers who (without any evidence whatsoever) have, for example, posted popular videos that knock the protocol and insist that it just can't work. I'm looking forward to reading the full study when time permits.
The synergy between maximal-effort training and very low-impact "maintenance" training makes sense. The world's premier powerlifting gym, Westside Barbel, has used this philosophy for decades. Their approach to max-effort training gets all of the fanfare (because it's so damn impressive), but their athletes also do loads of assistance-only workouts throughout their training cycles. These workouts activate targeted muscle groups without adding too much (or really any) new strain, which is akin to an Abrahang.
Great work, excellent video, and CONGRATS on being a published researcher!
Hey Emil, I love this! So good that you're engaging with the research and actively participating in it, as well as making the effort to share it all with us. The results were really surprising and I'll definitely be using abrahangs going forward :)
This whole story makes me so happy! I've been thinking about doing some research on different inger strength protocpls myself, but nothing ever materialised (since I should REALLY finish my PhD and NOT watch unrelated UA-cam videos). Participated in the VISA-C as well :)
You gotta go climbing with Dr. Baar and his PhD student who climbs! Would be a fun video.
It's funny how one of the C4HP "coaches" coined "Abrahangs" a long time ago as a means to insult the protocol. I'm glad Emil is owning the term for his own!
What is C4HP?
@@ludvigericson6930 They're basically grifters in the world of climbing training. They thrive on being contrarian and being loud on the internet -- while trying to sell you training fads.
@@eurekaflows How are they grifters? everything they say seems pretty straightforward and reasonable.
If by straightforward you mean convoluted and going in every possible direction then yes
@@TheRubenDK I'm not sure any of it is convoluted. I find it pretty straight forward most of the time.
0:58 for later me
Great video mate. Trying to figure out how to train tendons strength best/ fastest
1:23 method 40% intensity 10 seconds 50 sec pause twice a day
2:07 6 hours prior/after any other exercise/training
Emil thanks man!! I really enjoy these series and it motivates me to go for my own program as well. Had serious hand injuries but now can start improving again, this gives me the confidence to slowly start and still see the progression again hopefully
huge respect for the justice you do for the scientific process and conclusion making
Very informative. Always appreciate new tactics to achieve similar if not better results.
Makes sense. Max-hangs or Abrahangs depends on what stimulus each climber gets on their climbing days. So it's about complimenting one's existing climbing style & intensity so as to not undertrain or overtrain. Hence there is no one "best" way to train fingers. A lot depends on individuals themselves with their unique climbing styles, genetic make-up & age. I personally tried Abrahangs only once a day & noticed increased inflammation as my body wasn't able to recover from my regular training sessions with this added protocol. Might work if I am still in my 30's & early 40's when my recovery was way faster. Still, an awesome video that brings forth more scientifically in-depth analysis of our sport, which is so hard to understand due to its varied physiological demands. ❤
Emil, will be very great to have a video about the other sutff, that will help a lot in sport sciance and spread of information, thanks for such great content always
Great video. I appreciate you explaining the limitations to the research. I look forward to reading the prospective study! The idea training the type of load you DON'T get in your regular climbing routine is super interesting to me. I mostly do non-dynamic outside climbing, with some 90-95% of max hangboarding. I don't really train anything max or dynamic, out of fears of injury. On the rare occasion I go to the climbing gym, where I end up doing more dynamic, I often end up with a minor injury the next day. I'm now wondering if that's because my body is not accustomed to these dynamic forces.
This is so interesting! I can’t wait to see the results from the prospective study! Forever sad that grad school keeps me too busy to climb once a week😭
Really interesting research 👍
Some anecdotal evidence from my own experience of trying the protocol last year. I tried it but once per day and not on days when I climbed intensely. I also did an extra two-finger hang on back-two.
After a few months I picked up an overuse injury in my right hand (the strong one) which felt was caused by the protocol. It improved when I stopped but still niggles. I put it down to never having a full rest day - usually I take about 3 rest days a week. I'm late forties and have always taken a long time to recover compared to others, even when I was younger.
Rest days are crucial, especially in our later years. Proper sleep and diet factor heavily as well.
I'm a few years younger but did (and almost experienced) the same. It feels that more than improving tendons strength, it improved my confidence in them, making me pull harder than what I was really able to. I mean, it's good, I saw amazing improvements and helped me solve some old pain issues in the fingers and hands but this does not do everything alone. It was in august, I'm still recovering (although mostly healed now, I may start this protocol again).
And as terraflow said, sleep & diet (protein) play a big role here too.
There are thousands of videos where someone rediscoveres greesing the groove. My theory is, that it works for some time for a very well prepared body. But not limitless, because it mainly focuses on increasing neuronal activity. It could be that the regular training improves tendon adaption, but I seriously doubt, that this would come in a month. He trained hard for decades and was only lacking the proper focus. If your whole day revolves around training, of course you gonna improve more, then if you do it on the side.
Super fantastic and informative video, Emil!
this is exactly what i have concluded from my gathered information about the tissues involved in finger strength and how i have trained for the last years with varied consistency. and i have world records in gripstrength as some may know.
These amazing study results drop on the same day that Magnus drops his video with Alex? What a great day
Thank you so much!! I didn't know about low stress for 10 minutes, def gonna use it for my ankles too. Easy subscribe and can't wait to see how your future research goes
Nice! I’d love it if you also would do research into the optimal diet for getting stronger in climbing and made a similar video on the subject.
Yippie! Another upload from Emil!
As a coach, there’s one thing that bothers me - from what I understand, the study had a control-based design. That is, tests were conducted initially, followed by the implementation of the prescribed protocol and then retests were performed.
I think it’s very easy to fall into the trap of extrapolation here, because no additional tests were conducted to check whether the training effects were maintained after discontinuing the training stimulus.
From my own experience and observations of my trainees, I’ve noticed that while Abrahangs work great for short-term maximization of finger strength, the test results quickly return to baseline levels once the protocol is discontinued.
On the other hand, at the other end of the spectrum we have strength training (max hangs, pick-ups), which not only has a much greater potential for continuously increasing strength (up to one’s genetic potential) but also induces lasting adaptive changes in the nervous system. In other words, after stopping the training stimulus, our finger strength will drop, of course, but not back to where we started.
Personally, I believe that Emil’s protocol is excellent and I see no contraindications to using it. However, when compared to proper heavy strength training, it has minimal potential for progression and its effects disappear just as quickly as they appear.
Anyway, kudos for spreading knowledge - you’re making a fantastic contribution to the training and climbing community. Best regards!
Out of interest, if you do this routine, make the gains, then the gains go away even if you consistently climb, wouldn't that imply that the finger strength isn't being used as much as we think?
You misunderstand: there were no tests at all. This is a retroactive study of data people posted to an online site, so very uncontrolled. It's better than nothing, but we should remember what it is. I do all sorts of things that I don't end up posting to the crimpd app, and would guess most people are the same.
I believe comparative to the Max hang the Abrahang is more of a finger health inducer. Meaning that naturally if someone stops doing them their fingers will be less healthy or as you mentioned return back to their baseline strength. I would think this is because finger health is almost in direct correlation to the strength of the tendon and the force that can be output through the connective tissue.
I think I would disagree with you on the effects you describe: the changes in the nervous system are not lasting afaik and I've noticed a performace drop in a lot of exercises almost back to baseline after discontinuing them most notoably in overcoming isometrics. I think we just lose the coordination for the test (or exercise) when we're not doing the exercise. For me, it comes back within 3-4 weeks.
In weight lifting muscle atrophy happens within days and is exponential thereafter. The motor unit recruitment adaptations last much longer.
The protocol of every 6 hours for 10 minutes is from ligament and tendon research.
Super interesting, Emil! (The abrahangs vs max hangs)
Aaaaand .... there is the video! Psyched to watch it after listening to the podcast. Psyched to watch any Emil video, tbh 🤗
Amazing. Now we need a study about pulley injuries!
I don't know why but this reminds me of zone 2 training and the whole "learn to run slow in order to run faster" idea. Zone 2 is also not enough to be a running athlete: it works best when you couple it with hill running and sprints. There looks to be a common denominator which could be summarised as "in order to get stronger you should definitely push your limits but you should also teach your body how to efficiently handle all the low effort and stress that leads to those radical peaks" (it's probably an oversimplification but it feels like a natural thing to do)
Awesome findings! What was the frequency for the mixed group?
Hey Emil, superb content as always. Lattice would be a great collaboration to further this research. They must have the largest dataset on climbers on the planet
Such a video really some interesting insights about climbing to a somewhat "large" audience despite (/thanks to) its nerdiness, and I am not sure if there is any other videos like that on the platform !?
You can be proud of you :)
Hi, this is a wonderfull video!
Thank you very much for the science. Do you mind if I ask, what the TIMEFRAME of the training was / in what time did you get those gains? Thank you very much :)
Best regards, Lorenz
Oh, I found it myself in the paper - brilliant!!!
Really cool topic and interesting analysis!
I'm very surprised by the result, specifically that only climbing does not lead to any statistically significant gains in strength. This would also to some degree contradict your conclusion, that max hangs should be combined with light climbing and no hangs with bouldering, as these cannot complement the respective exercise if they do not increase gains by themselves. Curious to see what future studies might reveal!
Amazing! Thanks for pushing at this front!
Regarding your survey, it may be beneficial to change the scaling for pain to be: 0 = No pain and 10 = severe pain. Currently you have it set as 0 = severe pain and 10 = no pain, which is confusing when taking everyday speech and how we think about pain into consideration.
I mean, if you ask someone; "please rate your pain on a scale from 0 - 10" and they answered "0! Lots of pain", I would look them up and down a few times and wonder if they're ok :D
Thanks a lot for this amazing video! It’s so interesting and helpful and really cool to have those kinds of videos on UA-cam!
Such a cool study, really interesting results! I particularly appreciate your disclaimer of the limitations of within study design, it demonstrates that you actually understood the research before sharing it with the public. The mainstream media should take a page out of your book before sharing garbage they don't understand and creating distrust of science (speaking from a North American perspective).
Watching the vidéo, I thought that this additive increase from people doing both abrahangs and max hangs was just some sort of "healthy user bias": people that do both hangs are probably the most dedicated /involved climbers in the pool, and so maybe if they were doing only max hangs, they would achieve the same effect (~5%). But the fact that this additive effect almost exactly adds up to 3.2+2.5%, and the fact that this effect is probably collected over the whole pool, involving climbers of all sorts of levels... Makes me think that there really is something at the physiological level, as suggested by Keith Baar. Great work :) As a researcher myself, I can't imagine how thrilled I would be to discover that someone outside academia actually used my work. You even gave work to Keith!
It is a cohort study, meaning the groups are not matched. Once the paper is published we should check whether they try to control for these factors
you really think this is good research? I’m asking seriously, researcher to researcher. For me there are too many research red flags here, rather indicating a poorly conducted study
@@jakob_levi I think it's probably the best they could to with the available self-reported workout log data without objective testing. I don't mind the analysis methods so much. The main weak point is the huge variability in the protocols (both control and treatment) due to insufficient instruction with many confounding variables. But based on these findings it would certainly be possible to design a higher quality study with instructed and matched test subjects.
@@jakob_levi as mentioned above, that's probably the best you can ask for. Of course no, we all know how difficult studies are to conduct in those kind of field. But what can you do, you expected to have multiple groups, all being their own controls with one arm doing the abrahangs, the other the max hangs? It's a step in the right direction after the N=2 experiments of Emil and its brother, but surely there is a long way to go.
@@lenzwe7775 preach!!!
That's so cool that you are part of an official scientific paper
I believe what gets overlooked is that in strenght disciplines they dont only do max effort lifts but also submax practice lifts. They are not just for technique work but also to get a better neural activation for a certain bodypart and configuration.
The nohangs could very well be a form of submaximal training that improves neural activation. Because max hangs have the disadvantage of little volume to practice (because doing a lot of volume on max has a lot of downsides in fatigue, time cost and injury risk/physical toll).
Just sleep enough, and eat well. Was always my mantra.
The weak link is skin.
The hole in the shirt at 1:37 🤣 It's good to know that even at 225k subs Emil is still a dirtbag like the rest of us.
Great video Emil! 🔥
Emil looking really sharp in that labcoat.
Very interesting! As a beginner I struggle alot with finger strength, I get pumped out really quickly on 6a-b+. It is for sure a technical issue too but this might help me to figure out a way to get stronger more efficiently! Great video
There are certainly a lot of confounding factors with all of this (some of them addressed by other comments), but I'm really fascinated by the fact that there didn't appear to be a significant difference between abrahangs and max hangs. I'd be curious to know if this can be explained by tendon fibroblast mechanotransduction in response to the tissue stretching (irrespective of weight added). I'm currently doing my PhD studying fibroblasts and ever since your first video on this protocol I've been curious what the mechanism is. Theoretically, a large stimulus (weighted max hangs) wouldn't be needed to activate integrin/focal adhesions and subsequent collagen production. My bet is that the stimulus for collagen production in finger connective tissue is far lower than we think it needs to be!
Very cool. I bet Magnus and the other UA-cam climbing channels would be happy to promote future research. Design more follow-up studies and reach out to the audience for volunteers.
Great study. I know it was focused on finger strength and health but was curious if there was any data regarding the health of the tendons at the elbow side. Is there is possibility for rehabbing tendinitis or is that more muscle related than tendon?
That's what interests me also. I right now I need to get more flexible and strengthen my core. I don't need more finger strength. But would love some finger health.
A nice step in a good direction
Great video, I love the science and data based approach to try to answer this question! It seems a little puzzling that the "only climbing" group experiences zero gains in finger strength. The conclusion suggests that more dynamic oriented climbers might benefit from abrahangs more and static climbers might benefit from max hangs more. This seems to imply that dynamic and static climbers already practice moves that engage the fingers similarly to max hangs or abrahangs respectively through only climbing.
I'm wondering why this doesn't show up in the data as an increase in finger strength, even a small magnitude compared to abrahangs or max hangs only. Maybe the effect size of that increase from only climbing is insignificant compared to dedicated finger training?
I've started doing Abrahangs with a farmer crimp setup, instead of actually hanging. I call them AbraCrimps. That way I can track loads, instead of just, "Until I feel a stretch." I think your 40% load recommendation is a great starting point, but I've been adjusting load based on what I can recover from. Basically, if I feel no tiredness or stiffness the next day, I'll add a little weight. I'm approaching 50% of max in each grip type after 3 weeks, and still not feeling fatigue buildup, other than the day after I climb AND do Abracrimps. So far I haven't been backing down on that day after training, but we'll see how it does longer term.
Emil, the science-based climber
I wonder if any of the abrahams 10 min low load training could help with avoiding injury or recovering after an injury for people that work with a keyboard or play PC games for long periods of time.
As someone who suffers from wrist pain, this info is GOLD. One of the best done videos I've seen on youtube. Going above and beyond to get answers. Thank to the scientists for their incredible work, and to you for putting it all together. Again, GOLD.
The conclusion is very similar to the best exercise routine. Don’t do a few things a lot, do a lot of things a little bit. Basically switching up what exercise you are doing helps to keep everything strong and lowers the chance of over working specific parts of the body which can lead to injury.
This is some good content I can bring on my channel and see how much strength I gain :) thanks
Hi!
Thank you for the video, it is always an interesting topic to learn about finger strength (or tendon strength in general).
Also I have some questions:
Were there any time constrains (time windows, like within 10 hours, or the same day) for those who did the combined (max hangs + sub-max hangs) protocol? Or that both types of the training should be involved? (Or was it self-reported, like "yes I did both, before I could do hangs with only +xx kg and now +yy kg"?)
And when they did the combined version, did it matter if they did the sub-max hangs once or twice a day?
They're also figuring out more and more that the muscle extension helps more towards hyperthropy (muscle growth) than the flexion of the muscle.
one thing i do wonder: the people doing both types of training are training more intensely and are more focused on gains. it is also possible that their higher gains come from more intense or higher volume of training rather than the type of training. will be great to see the second study when it comes out which addresses this
very nice, it would be good to incorprate as study about board climbing and if one can get the same finger strength result from board climbing as in just commercial climbing + a finger protocol
I will give it a try
Im a 15 year old climber and my coach is always telling me that there are immense risks for injurys. but i feel like not training fingers its holding me back and that that would be the key to perform better at comps
galet bra video kingen!
I was unable to climb for 3 months and now trying to get my finger strength back. I been doing the routine almost every day for this month and I'm almost back at my old grade (6C+) after 20 days. The only days that I skipped were when my muscles were really sore from climbing. I really would be interested to take part in a finger strength experiment.
This is anecdotal but the strongest my back ever got was during the lockdown as I would do 10-20 chinups whenever I got up from my computer to do anything.
At no point did I push it to the limit like I do at the gym, where I do weighted pullups, nor did I get inflamed.
The problem with this approach for me is that it takes time and I can't really follow it since I'm working from the office again, so now I mostly do heavier sets at the gym and be done in 40 minutes.
It's the same reason why I do like 2 tabatas on an assault bike instead of spending like 30-40 minutes on a treadmill.
this is going to get BIG
Really looking forward to the prospective study, I'm also interested to see if this is unique to finger strength or if this could work for other muclegroups as well? I don't see why fingers should be unique, but maybe finger strength is more reliant on tendons than other muscle groups are??
So a potential problem with the study is that the questions are scaled backward. Which means giving a 0 means you are experiencing the most pain. Usually on pain rating scales, 10 means the most pain (at leat in the US).
Edit: some of the quesations then ask what your intensity is which follows the logical 0-10 scale. The flipped scales will defintely cause issues unless respondants carefully read the question.
Well, that is unfortunate that the Visa-C questionnaire is age discriminatory!
I can see with minors under 18.
Although I don't entirely know why.
But the cap off is 50. I am 57, and can climb as well as any one younger at my climbing experience level and opportunity to climb.
And have been doing a lot of grip and hand strength and general body improvements for climbing.
I mean, I could just lie and say I was younger and met the criteria, but just that they decided that after 50 is not relevant.
Inclusion Criteria:
For this study we are recruiting rock climbers between the ages of 18-50 years old who are EITHER
a) healthy, uninjured individuals who regularly climb at least once a week on average, or
b) individuals who normally climb regularly but currently have an injury to the finger/hand/wrist region due to overuse or acute strain from a climbing move and have limited the intensity and/or frequency of climbing or training as a result of that injury.
Loooove this content, thank you very much 😊
Congratulations on the publication. I think any work like this that generates discussion and works to broaden the evidence base for training in climbing is a huge positive. However, i think that given the described limitations - particularly the wide variation in time windows for training and testing, the variability of the protocols likely used within groups (i.e. unsupervised regimes), the lack of information about how much training was done prior (i.e. 15 years of climbing with regular max hang training v new climber) and why a climber chose a particular protocol should temper our enthusiasm about the results. I agree that a randomised controlled trial is necessary to draw firmer conclusions. Having said all that, i don't want to seem too negative; i can see a lot of thought, time and effort has gone into the study, and the hypothesis generation is extremely worthwhile. Congratulations again!
Very cool. Sadly, no randomization, so you can't extrapolate any causal effects. But that would be very difficult to do anyway. The study is a very nice indicator.
Incredible!
Would like to see Lattice training opinion on this again. Previously they figured that the stimulus was not good enough to improve any material of either muscle or tendons.
Reject "no hang" embrace "abrahang"
I would highly recommend watching Dave macleoud's video on this, he brings up so many interesting caveats and difficulties in measuring/using this
Buena hermanito saludos de Chile, gracias por la información!
Seems like whatever competitive sport you're training for, training the same muscles groups in the opposite style of whatever field time you're getting results in compound growth. As long as you stay under your fatigue to recovery ratio. I know this is more a ligament/tendon video but I'd say it translates the same.
It would be interesting to look into specialization, and how all rounder athletes train or what they have in common to perform at high level in multiple disciplines, is purely based on program and persistence with meticulous work on weaknesses and strengths, or is it largely or very much dependent on individual genetics, but also would the specialization will determine young athletes structural development being that adapted with inclination towards skill and requirements of one discipline
I think real lesson is frequency. More frequency equals more quality gainz. Then backfilling make sure you get all your programming. But don't sacrifice frequency. So don't over do it in your sessions. Get quality work. Balanced programming. High frequency (as close to every 6 hours as feasible).
I think the “Just climbing’ group has to be defined a bit better. I’ve personally experienced big finger strength gains by board climbing on the Moon&Kilter.
It’d be interesting to see how that compares to the other training methods.
"Abrahangs" does have a nice ring to it
This explains perfectly how Saitama could become One Punch man by just doing his low load workout consistently for a long time.