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: th-cam.com/video/8hXfvFuA_6E/w-d-xo.htmlsi=53Q8ZKdHWSryPicn 5. Original video "Hangboard Training 2 Times Per Day For 30 Days": th-cam.com/video/sBTI9qiH4UE/w-d-xo.html 6. Follow up two years later "Hangboard Training 2 times per day for 2 years": th-cam.com/video/0rAkLqk3UXM/w-d-xo.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.
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 :(
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!
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
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).
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!
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!
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.
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 TH-cam.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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
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!
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. ❤
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.
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
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).
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
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!
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.
Google Louis Reichardt a neuroscientist who is best know for summiting Everest and K2. Get guy and it was a pleasure to have met him when I was the lead data manager on a study that was shut down when Covid started.
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 :)
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).
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!
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!
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)
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
Mike Boyd punching the air right now after he made that hit piece video with a lukewarm conclusion despite seeing massive results with the no hang protocol. He's even double downed in the comment section of a Dave M video blasting the protocol.
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.
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.
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.
So in this video you say the load should be ~40% of Max Strength, but in a previous video you said 70-80% of "force to get off of ground" which to me just sounds like 70-80% BW. If that's the case, for trained individuals who have a high MS that could be equivalent to 80% BW but for climbers where those don't line up which should I prioritize? 40% MS or 80% BW? Or am I reading too much into "force to get off of ground" comment?
I think you are reading too much into the force to get BW off the ground. You should be doing these at around 40% of your 1 rep max, whatever that is. Or, if you want to approximate, about a 3-4 out of 10 perceived rate of exertion.
In your 30 day training, you went from 0 seconds to 14 seconds on the one-arm hang and to 8 seconds on the 6mm edge. This would count as hundreds of percent of increase. Yet in the video the benefit from doing both "no-hangs" + max hangs comes to about 6%. I wish you explained that aspect a bit more, because honestly, 6% doesn't feel like much after 30 days of x2 training every day.
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).
One question I have is whether the Abrahangs are basically giving the same benefits as ARCing? Lattice Training had some stuff about what they tongue-in-cheek call 'CARCing' IIRC based on some guy who started pulling on edges in his car while driving to his project to replace boring time consuming endurance training. A couple of months ago they had a video about it where Josh Hadley from Lattice did CARCing on one arm for a bit and while they were mostly interested in endurance, his strength actually went up in the arm he was CARCing with as well, which he couldn't really explain. Maybe if you are a boulderer and you basically never get aerobic stimulus for your forearm, 10 minutes twice a day of aerobic intensity for your forearms helps with recovery or work capacity or something and that has some indirect effect on your max strength?
Really cool that you are taking the scientific approach to finding out what the two hangs per day protocol does! Small question aside from that though... Have you tried the local Bouldering Gym in Maastricht when you were there? :D
Would be curious to see how different styles of climbing affected the results. “Just Climbing” could mean a wide range of loads on the fingers. I would imagine that somebody who climbs exclusively on board would see more significant finger strength gains than someone doing max hangs and climbing on gym sets. Awesome to see more science going into finger training but I worry that the takeaway from this video will be to climb less and do more off the wall finger training to be a stronger climber. You can do both on a board :)
Could you elaborate on what the protocal for the no hangs + max hangs is? For example was it 2 no hang sessions one day then the next one or 2 sessions of max hangs etc. maybe I missed it but was curious
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??
The exclusion criteria on the study say that if answer yes to any of the questions, then you can participate. Is this true? For example, Q4 is "Are you currently climbing/training less than once per week on average for a reason other than a climbing-related injury to the finger/hand/wrist region?" I would answer "no" bc I have not limited my climbing for any injury, but answering no means I do not participate. Is the intended exclusion criteria or is it the opposite (i.e. individuals who have limited climbing from a non-climbing injury should not participate)?
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.
Hi Emil, would just like to point out the questionaire is a bit confusing. Rating pain on a scale of 0-10, 0 means severe pain and 10 means no pain. Is this really the intended way to fill it out?
So maybe some of you can help me out with this. I've been climbing for about 10 months now and although I always liked the idea of finger training, I never really did any of that because after each session my hands, forearms and fingers were completely drained for at least 2 days. So my logic was: why spend my energy on a hangboard when I could use that energy for another climbing session? Was that the correct decision to make, or not? However, these days I notice that I have to stop climbing at a certain point because my skin is gone and my forearms are depleted. So at the moment I wonder if this might be the right time to start finger strength training. Do you agree, or should I wait a few more months before starting with that? And if I should start now, how many times a week would you suggest I train my fingers?
Go for it! I find finger lifts from the ground nicer as it's more practical to warm up. Go slowly though!! I got super excited with it at the start and ended up injuring myself - try once a week for a few months maybe and see how that goes. And patience is key - the slow gains will compound over time 💪🏼
Is it also possible to perform the Abrahangs with a tindeq and Portable hangboard, while pulling on the ground 40% of my Max or are there differences ? Both isometric so should work right ?
It's kind of funny. I have been doing no hangs for warmup purposes for about a month and I have definitely gotten stronger, so much stronger that I couldn't believe it. I jumped from doing 6c comfortably to doing 7a very comfortably. Boulders I had to project, I can flash or finish with just a couple of tries. I'm not doing any strength training and I do Kilter sessions maybe twice per month.
Have you considered the bias that people who do all three programs (climb,max and no hang) just climb more, and obviously to a certain point that would results in gain. I imagine it is hard to ask climbers not to climb for a whole month, For “research purpose”.
Let me get this straight, only the "climbing only" group did any climbing at all? That *is* surprising then, that climbing didn't show the same effect as light load only. The only explanation we had before is that climbing isn't *enough* of a load to progress.
@@tribesnr42 I went to the paper and it says "Climbers were grouped by the number of training sessions into: “Climbing Only”, “Abrahangs Only”, “Max Hangs Only” and “Both” Max Hangs and Abrahangs.", but since it's only based on data from Crimpd, it's save to assume (most) people were climbing alongside, yea.
@@ayuminor While it is worded in a confusing way, I honestly can't believe the rest of groups wouldn't climb. I mean its a paper where climbers basically did the testing.
Mike Isratael holds a PhD and people in the scientific and academic research community cannot be misled by such poorly conducted studies. I had hoped this research would offer something new to the field of climbing studies, but unfortunately, it contributes little beyond numerous methodological errors :(
I find it hard to believe that 'just climbing' sees no increase in finger strength long term. Especially when considering board climbing and or focusing on crimpy projects. I would imagine that people who regularly board climb would see similar gains to people completing max hangs if they added abrahangs(tm) into their routines.
Funny you say that, I’m sure there’s minor gains for people who just climb, but Lattice training talks about how due to a lot of factors the FDP muscle doesn’t get loaded enough when you climb a lot. The FDP is the main muscle that controls your finger strength along with the pulleys themselves.
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:
th-cam.com/video/8hXfvFuA_6E/w-d-xo.htmlsi=53Q8ZKdHWSryPicn
5. Original video "Hangboard Training 2 Times Per Day For 30 Days":
th-cam.com/video/sBTI9qiH4UE/w-d-xo.html
6. Follow up two years later "Hangboard Training 2 times per day for 2 years":
th-cam.com/video/0rAkLqk3UXM/w-d-xo.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.
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 :(
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!
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!
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
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).
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!
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!
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.
Great and humble way to present the findings and setup of this research! Well done.
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 TH-cam.
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.
Thank you for being so dedicated. This helps the entire community ❤
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!
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 🥲
huge respect for the justice you do for the scientific process and conclusion making
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.
Yippie! Another upload from Emil!
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
Super fantastic and informative video, Emil!
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
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!
Amazing. Now we need a study about pulley injuries!
These amazing study results drop on the same day that Magnus drops his video with Alex? What a great day
Super interesting, Emil! (The abrahangs vs max hangs)
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. ❤
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.
That's so cool that you are part of an official scientific paper
You gotta go climbing with Dr. Baar and his PhD student who climbs! Would be a fun video.
Amazing! Thanks for pushing at this front!
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
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! 🔥
A nice step in a good direction
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
Aaaaand .... there is the video! Psyched to watch it after listening to the podcast. Psyched to watch any Emil video, tbh 🤗
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).
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
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!
Emil looking really sharp in that labcoat.
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.
Loooove this content, thank you very much 😊
WHO WE ARE?
CLIMBERS!!!
WHAT WE WANT?
SCIENCE RESEARCH!!!
Google Louis Reichardt a neuroscientist who is best know for summiting Everest and K2. Get guy and it was a pleasure to have met him when I was the lead data manager on a study that was shut down when Covid started.
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 :)
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.
Emil, the science-based climber
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!
I will give it a try
Awesome findings! What was the frequency for the mixed group?
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!
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)
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
Mike Boyd punching the air right now after he made that hit piece video with a lukewarm conclusion despite seeing massive results with the no hang protocol. He's even double downed in the comment section of a Dave M video blasting the protocol.
They're also figuring out more and more that the muscle extension helps more towards hyperthropy (muscle growth) than the flexion of the muscle.
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 going to get BIG
The questionnaire is a bit confusing - is 10 the maximum for pain or 0 the maximum for pain?
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.
Buena hermanito saludos de Chile, gracias por la información!
This explains perfectly how Saitama could become One Punch man by just doing his low load workout consistently for a long time.
I would highly recommend watching Dave macleoud's video on this, he brings up so many interesting caveats and difficulties in measuring/using this
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.
So in this video you say the load should be ~40% of Max Strength, but in a previous video you said 70-80% of "force to get off of ground" which to me just sounds like 70-80% BW. If that's the case, for trained individuals who have a high MS that could be equivalent to 80% BW but for climbers where those don't line up which should I prioritize? 40% MS or 80% BW? Or am I reading too much into "force to get off of ground" comment?
I think you are reading too much into the force to get BW off the ground. You should be doing these at around 40% of your 1 rep max, whatever that is. Or, if you want to approximate, about a 3-4 out of 10 perceived rate of exertion.
Emil, this was fucking awesome
Ok you sold me… I’m buying a hang board tonight
In your 30 day training, you went from 0 seconds to 14 seconds on the one-arm hang and to 8 seconds on the 6mm edge. This would count as hundreds of percent of increase. Yet in the video the benefit from doing both "no-hangs" + max hangs comes to about 6%. I wish you explained that aspect a bit more, because honestly, 6% doesn't feel like much after 30 days of x2 training every day.
6% a month is huge! Do that for a few years in a row and you'd be a total beast
@olliewelsh123 It is, but it's still not the gains that Eric showed in his 30 day training
I love that you got Dragonball Books in this video 😂
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).
One question I have is whether the Abrahangs are basically giving the same benefits as ARCing? Lattice Training had some stuff about what they tongue-in-cheek call 'CARCing' IIRC based on some guy who started pulling on edges in his car while driving to his project to replace boring time consuming endurance training. A couple of months ago they had a video about it where Josh Hadley from Lattice did CARCing on one arm for a bit and while they were mostly interested in endurance, his strength actually went up in the arm he was CARCing with as well, which he couldn't really explain. Maybe if you are a boulderer and you basically never get aerobic stimulus for your forearm, 10 minutes twice a day of aerobic intensity for your forearms helps with recovery or work capacity or something and that has some indirect effect on your max strength?
"Abrahangs" does have a nice ring to it
Really cool that you are taking the scientific approach to finding out what the two hangs per day protocol does! Small question aside from that though... Have you tried the local Bouldering Gym in Maastricht when you were there? :D
Would be curious to see how different styles of climbing affected the results. “Just Climbing” could mean a wide range of loads on the fingers. I would imagine that somebody who climbs exclusively on board would see more significant finger strength gains than someone doing max hangs and climbing on gym sets. Awesome to see more science going into finger training but I worry that the takeaway from this video will be to climb less and do more off the wall finger training to be a stronger climber. You can do both on a board :)
Could you elaborate on what the protocal for the no hangs + max hangs is? For example was it 2 no hang sessions one day then the next one or 2 sessions of max hangs etc. maybe I missed it but was curious
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??
Did you also do any tests on the thumb?
The exclusion criteria on the study say that if answer yes to any of the questions, then you can participate. Is this true? For example, Q4 is "Are you currently climbing/training less than once per week on average for a reason other than a climbing-related injury to the finger/hand/wrist region?" I would answer "no" bc I have not limited my climbing for any injury, but answering no means I do not participate. Is the intended exclusion criteria or is it the opposite (i.e. individuals who have limited climbing from a non-climbing injury should not participate)?
4:00 Is this just an overlay or an app I can use? :o
zone 2 is hitting climbing
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.
Hi Emil, would just like to point out the questionaire is a bit confusing. Rating pain on a scale of 0-10, 0 means severe pain and 10 means no pain. Is this really the intended way to fill it out?
So maybe some of you can help me out with this. I've been climbing for about 10 months now and although I always liked the idea of finger training, I never really did any of that because after each session my hands, forearms and fingers were completely drained for at least 2 days. So my logic was: why spend my energy on a hangboard when I could use that energy for another climbing session? Was that the correct decision to make, or not?
However, these days I notice that I have to stop climbing at a certain point because my skin is gone and my forearms are depleted. So at the moment I wonder if this might be the right time to start finger strength training. Do you agree, or should I wait a few more months before starting with that? And if I should start now, how many times a week would you suggest I train my fingers?
Go for it! I find finger lifts from the ground nicer as it's more practical to warm up. Go slowly though!! I got super excited with it at the start and ended up injuring myself - try once a week for a few months maybe and see how that goes. And patience is key - the slow gains will compound over time 💪🏼
Is it also possible to perform the Abrahangs with a tindeq and Portable hangboard, while pulling on the ground 40% of my Max or are there differences ? Both isometric so should work right ?
Yes, it makes no difference, as long as the tendons get the load
@TH-camCommenter1 thanks man :)
Is it possible that people who choose no hangs are usually people who find max hangs difficult, so for them no hangs are pretty close to max hangs
It's kind of funny. I have been doing no hangs for warmup purposes for about a month and I have definitely gotten stronger, so much stronger that I couldn't believe it. I jumped from doing 6c comfortably to doing 7a very comfortably. Boulders I had to project, I can flash or finish with just a couple of tries. I'm not doing any strength training and I do Kilter sessions maybe twice per month.
Have you considered the bias that people who do all three programs (climb,max and no hang) just climb more, and obviously to a certain point that would results in gain. I imagine it is hard to ask climbers not to climb for a whole month, For “research purpose”.
Damn, I was gonna write my bachelors thesis on this exact topic next year lol, I guess it's kinda redundant now
Any chance there will be research in an older population - including older women?
finger planks till failure any safe?
4:25 When did this happen? 👀
Tremendo
2-3% is in the margin of error it’s basically unnoticeable
I mean look at Toby Roberts he trains like crazy. It works.
Let me get this straight, only the "climbing only" group did any climbing at all?
That *is* surprising then, that climbing didn't show the same effect as light load only. The only explanation we had before is that climbing isn't *enough* of a load to progress.
lol no, only climbing was the group that only climbed to get stronger. The rest of the groups climbed aswell.
@@tribesnr42 I went to the paper and it says "Climbers were grouped by the number of training sessions into: “Climbing Only”, “Abrahangs Only”, “Max Hangs Only” and “Both” Max Hangs and Abrahangs.", but since it's only based on data from Crimpd, it's save to assume (most) people were climbing alongside, yea.
@@ayuminor While it is worded in a confusing way, I honestly can't believe the rest of groups wouldn't climb. I mean its a paper where climbers basically did the testing.
Jeff Nippard and Mike Isratael will be interested in this for the purpose of injury risk and fatigue recovery in weightlifting.
Mike Isratael holds a PhD and people in the scientific and academic research community cannot be misled by such poorly conducted studies. I had hoped this research would offer something new to the field of climbing studies, but unfortunately, it contributes little beyond numerous methodological errors :(
Sort of sounds like the rock climbing community is discovering the rough equivalent of the Bulgarian method (sans doping).
Not really, bulgarian method is high intensity, this is low intensity. It is more like "Grease the Groove", high frequency- low intensity
I find it hard to believe that 'just climbing' sees no increase in finger strength long term. Especially when considering board climbing and or focusing on crimpy projects. I would imagine that people who regularly board climb would see similar gains to people completing max hangs if they added abrahangs(tm) into their routines.
I think it might be because it wasn’t long term. He mentioned the study wasn’t done over a long period of time. Just a thought
But you're talking about beginner climbers who aren't going to be on any crimpy projects
Funny you say that, I’m sure there’s minor gains for people who just climb, but Lattice training talks about how due to a lot of factors the FDP muscle doesn’t get loaded enough when you climb a lot. The FDP is the main muscle that controls your finger strength along with the pulleys themselves.
Change. That would be my guess for getting those gains, simplified to world. Changing grip type, protocol, climbing style, ...
Looks like Devon Larratt training method in armwrestling