Introduction
Research analyzing sport climbing consistently shows that training and physical abilities are the biggest factors influencing performance (Baláš et al., 2012; Fryer et al., 2018; Laffaye et al., 2016; MacKenzie et al., 2020; Magiera et al., 2013; Mermier et al., 2000; Winkler et al., 2023). Higher performing climbers therefore tend to have stronger fingers, better endurance, more shoulder and upper body power, and higher anaerobic fitness (For reviews see Langer et al., 2023a; Saul et al., 2019; Stien et al., 2022)
Incorporating strength training within training for climbing has been shown to enhance climbing performance and climbing-specific strength outcomes (For reviews see Langer et al., 2023b; Stien et al., 2023). While not all effect sizes/interaction effects were significant, the training groups improved their climbing performance and strength test outcomes in all of the studies, whereas, for the control/climbing-only groups, this was mostly not the case.
Deloading is a strategy commonly applied in strength and physique sports, although there’s little empirical evidence analyzing its effects in subsequent training cycles. In the review by Rogerson et al. (2024), 65% of athletes felt they could progress further without deloading.
This study therefore aims to analyze whether including a one-week deload in the middle of a nine-week high-volume resistance training program influences muscle growth, strength, endurance, and power, compared to a continuous training approach.
Study details
Who participated in the study?
Size and demographics
- 39 individuals (29 men and 10 women) from a university population.
- Participants had at least one year of consistent lower-body resistance training experience and lifted weights at least three times per week.
How was the study conducted?
- Participants were randomly divided into two groups: a deload group, which took a one-week training break after the fourth week of the nine-week program, and a traditional training group that trained continuously for the full nine weeks.
- The study used several measurements to assess the effects deload vs. no deload
- Power: Lower-body power was assessed using the countermovement jump (CMJ) test.
- Strength: Dynamic strength was assessed using the one-repetition maximum (1RM) test on the Smith squat. Isometric strength was measured through a maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) test on a leg extension machine.
- Endurance: Muscular endurance was evaluated by assessing the number of repetitions completed at 60% of each participant’s 1RM on the Smith squat.
- Hypertrophy: The cross-sectional area was measured using ultrasound imaging of the rectus femoris and vastus lateralis muscles in the thigh.
- Training motivation and readiness to train: The readiness-to-train questionnaire was used, which is designed to evaluate aspects such as fatigue, muscle soreness, and general motivation levels
What did the training program look like?
- The deload group took a complete break from lower-body training during the fifth week, while the traditional training group continued without interruption.
- Both groups followed an upper/lower body split, with each body region trained twice per week. Only the lower body training was supervised and used for measurement purposes.
- All exercises were performed doing 5 sets in the 8-12 repetition range with 2 minutes of rest between sets. Exercises included the Smith squat, leg extension, toe press, and calf raises.
- The training was designed to reach volitional failure in each set, with a progressively adjusted load to maintain the target repetition range throughout the study.
Conclusion and practical application
Central conclusion
- The group that trained without the deload week exhibited slightly superior gains in dynamic and isometric maximal strngth and had higher readiness-to-train scores. No differences were found between the two groups for muscular power, endurance, and hypertrophy.
- It can be concluded that deload should not be applied as a planned strategy, but rather as an adaptive response to training progress and fatigue.
- While there is a huge body of evidence, that upper body power, strength, and endurance are among the highest predictors of climbing performance (Baláš et al., 2012; Fryer et al., 2018; Laffaye et al., 2016; MacKenzie et al., 2020; Magiera et al., 2013; Mermier et al., 2000; Winkler et al., 2023), there is limited evidence on the importance of the strength characteristics of the lower limbs for climbing performance: España-Romero et al. (2009) and Giles et al. (2021) found neither ability-related differences in jumping power nor a correlation with lead climbing performance. In contrast, Winkler et al. (2023), found lower body power to be one of the highest predictors of competitive bouldering and lead climbing performance. Brent et al. (2009) reported that a combined measure of flexibility and leg strength correlated highly with bouldering and lead climbing performance.
This study focussed on the lower limbs to measure the effects of deload, and given the limited evidence on the relevance of lower limb strength for climbing performance, the findings may not be directly transferable into training for climbing.
Corollary or secondary conclusions
- Applying Deload as an adaptive response to training progress and fatigue makes it mandatory to track variables representing both of those concepts.
- To evaluate training progress in climbing, it is recommended to use evidence-based tests that assess strength characteristics (For reviews see Langer et al., 2023, and Stien et al., 2022).
- Various approaches are available for monitoring fatigue and recovery. According to Halsen et al. (2014), these can be divided into external load and internal load measures.
- Monitoring external load focuses on measuring strength and power output.
- Internal load would be measured using tools like questionnaires to assess perceived exertion, motivation, readiness to train, and sleep quality, as well as physiological indicators such as heart rate variability.
What questions remain about the subject addressed by the study?
- Future research should explore different deload strategies, such as reduced volume or intensity rather than a complete cessation from training.
- Participants were resistance-trained subjects, however, future research should evaluate the effects of deload strategies in climbing-specific populations.
- The measurements were taken on the lower extremities instead of the upper ones which are more relevant for climbing, which questions the transferability of the results.
Link to original study
Coleman, M., Burke, R., Augustin, F., Piñero, A., Maldonado, J., Fisher, J. P., Israetel, M., Korakakis, P. A., Swinton, P., & Oberlin, D. (2024). Gaining more from doing less? The effects of a one-week deload period during supervised resistance training on muscular adaptations. PeerJ, 12, e16777.
References
Coleman, M., Burke, R., Augustin, F., Piñero, A., Maldonado, J., Fisher, J. P., Israetel, M., Korakakis, P. A., Swinton, P., & Oberlin, D. (2024). Gaining more from doing less? The effects of a one-week deload period during supervised resistance training on muscular adaptations. PeerJ, 12, e16777.
Baláš, J., Pecha, O., Martin, A. J., & Cochrane, D. (2012). Hand–arm strength and endurance as predictors of climbing performance. European Journal of Sport Science, 12, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2010.546431
Brent, S., Draper, N., Hodgson, C., & Blackwell, G. (2009). Development of a performance assessment tool for rock climbers. European Journal of Sport Science, 9, 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390902741132
España-Romero, V., Ortega Porcel, F. B., Artero, E. G., Jiménez-Pavón, D., Gutiérrez Sainz, A., Castillo Garzón, M. J., & Ruiz, J. R. (2009). Climbing time to exhaustion is a determinant of climbing performance in high-level sport climbers. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 107(5), 517–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-009-1155-x
Fryer, S. M., Giles, D., Palomino, I. G., de la O Puerta, A., & España-Romero, V. (2018). Hemodynamic and cardiorespiratory predictors of sport rock climbing performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 32(12), 3534–3541.
Laffaye, G., Levernier, G., & Collin, J.-M. (2016). Determinant factors in climbing ability: Influence of strength, anthropometry, and neuromuscular fatigue. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 26(10), 1151–1159. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12558
Giles, D., Barnes, K., Taylor, N., Chidley, C., Chidley, J., Mitchell, J., Torr, O., Gibson-Smith, E., & España-Romero, V. (2021). Anthropometry and performance characteristics of recreational advanced to elite female rock climbers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 39(1), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1804784
Halson, S. L. (2014). Monitoring fatigue and recovery. Sports Med, 44, 139-147.
Langer, K., Simon, C., & Wiemeyer, J. (2023a). Physical performance testing in climbing—A systematic review. Frontiers in sports and active living, 5, 1130812.
Langer, K., Simon, C., & Wiemeyer, J. (2023b). Strength training in climbing: a systematic review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 37(3), 751-767.
MacKenzie, R., Monaghan, L., Masson, R. A., Werner, A. K., Caprez, T. S., Johnston, L., & Kemi, O. J. (2020). Physical and Physiological Determinants of Rock Climbing. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 15(2), 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0901
Magiera, A., Roczniok, R., Maszczyk, A., Czuba, M., Kantyka, J., & Kurek, P. (2013). The Structure of Performance of a Sport Rock Climber. Journal of Human Kinetics, 36(1). https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2013-0011
Mermier, C. M., Janot, J. M., Parker, D. L., & Swan, J. G. (2000). Physiological and anthropometric determinants of sport climbing performance. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 34(5), 359-365.
Rogerson, D., Nolan, D., Korakakis, P. A., Immonen, V., Wolf, M., & Bell, L. (2024). Deloading Practices in Strength and Physique Sports: A Cross-sectional Survey. Sports medicine-open, 10(1), 26.
Saul, D., Steinmetz, G., Lehmann, W., & Schilling, A. F. (2019). Determinants for Success in Climbing: A Systematic Review. Journal of exercise science and fitness, 17(3), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesf.2019.04.002
Stien, N., Riiser, A., Shaw, M. P., Saeterbakken, A. H., & Andersen, V. (2023). Effects of climbing-and resistance-training on climbing-specific performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biology of Sport, 40(1), 179-191
Stien, N., Saeterbakken, A. H., & Andersen, V. (2022). Tests and Procedures for Measuring Endurance, Strength, and Power in Climbing-A Mini-Review. Frontiers in sports and active living, 4, 847447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2022.847447
Winkler, M., Künzell, S., & Augste, C. (2023). Competitive performance predictors in speed climbing, bouldering, and lead climbing. Journal of Sports Sciences, 41(8), 736-74