THE EFFECTS OF ROCK CLIMBING AT DIFFERENT WALL INCLINES ON

MUSCLE ACTIVITY AND JOINT ANGLES

Noelle Bediamol, Sheila Ferrer, AJ Freund, Celia Magana, Ryan Maize,

Rebecca Mellman, Lance Vigilia, Crystal Villalobos

California State University, San Marcos, San Marcos, CA, 92096

Abstract: This study aims to determine the effects of climbing at various wall angles on upper and lower body
muscle activation and joint angles. Methods: Six males (26 5.2 years, 159.7 13.9 lbs, 71.7 2.7 inches) and
two females (28.5 3.5 years, 135 14.1 lbs, 65 1.4 inches), all experienced rock climbers, climbed a
predetermined route at 5, 15, and 25 of negative incline to measure differences in muscle activation and joint
range of motion (ROM). Results: Compared to 5, electromyography (EMG) activity score of the biceps brachii
(BB) was significantly greater during 15 of wall incline (P<0.05). Additionally, EMG scores of the latissimus
dorsi (LD), BB, and flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU) were significantly greater during 25of wall incline when
compared to 5 (P<0.05). When compared to 15, EMG scores were significantly higher at a wall incline of 25
for the LD, BB, and FC (P<0.05). Regarding the lower extremities, EMG activity scores were significantly
greater during 25 than 15 of wall incline for the gastrocnemius (GC) and vastus lateralis (VL) (P<0.05). No
significant differences were found for ROM of the elbow and knee joint angles when comparing wall angles 5
to 15, 5 to 25, and 15 to 25(P>0.05). Conclusion: Upper body muscles are increasingly used as wall incline
increases, and lower extremity muscles are minimally increased at a 25 wall angle. Additionally, elbow and
knee joint angle ROM were not affected by the variation in wall inclines.

Keywords: Climbing, incline, electromyography, joint angle, muscle activation

Introduction often leave out stabilizer groups. Rock climbing

Rock climbing is a popular recreational
sport that entails dynamic movements using muscle
groups all throughout the body. Due to the greater
diverse movements in multiple dimensions, and
greater mental engagement, many people are
substituting traditional resistance training with rock
climbing. The importance of strengthening smaller
stability muscle groups is addressed in Pete
Egoscues book Pain Free, he addresses the
importance of strengthening stabilizer muscles
which support joints alongside the primary mover
muscle groups. Weight lifting machines are
designed to strengthen large muscle groups and
engages both large primary mobilizers and deep
stability muscles while supporting body weight,
which potentially makes it a better strength training
program by allowing our joints to move efficiently
and pain free (4). Macias et al. (2015) conducted a
study comparing upper body strength between rock
climbers and resistance trained men. They found
that the climbers demonstrated significantly greater
number of pull-ups, relative grip strength, and
relative pinch strength than resistance trained men
(6). Therefore, the study suggests that the physical
demands of climbing (i.e. supporting their own
body weight by handholds and grips) may lead to
greater relative improvements of upper body

1
strength. However, studies were limited in
reporting the lower bodys contribution while rock
climbing. It is unknown whether the same effects of
relative strength improvements are applicable to
lower body strength.
Since rock climbing is an activity that
involves both the upper and lower extremities and
it is unknown how to promote isolation of upper
and lower body activity while climbing. The aim of
this study was to use electromyography (EMG) to
compare muscle activation of the lower body
(gastrocnemius, vastus lateralis and hamstrings)
with the upper body (latissimus dorsi, wrist flexors
and biceps) during a brief climbing stint at 5, 15,
and 25 of negative incline. Furthermore, we will
be able to determine if climbing angle promotes the
isolation of certain muscle groups. Additionally, we
will use wireless goniometers to examine which of
the three climbing angles affects the knee and
elbow joint angles. According to Watanabe et. al.
(2011), neuromuscular activation of the vastus
intermedius peaked at 140 during an isometric
contraction (8). Therefore, we can assume that
other muscles have a peak activation angle.
We hypothesize that as the angle of
climbing increases, EMG activity of the upper body
will increase because the upper body muscles are
more suited to grip the wall and prevent gravity
from pulling the climber backward while climbing
at a steeper angle. Additionally, the EMG activity
of the lower extremities should be greatest during
the lower angles, since the legs are more suited to
lift-up against gravity that is pulling the climber
downward while theyre climbing at a less steep
angle. However, it is possible that EMG might
show no difference in muscle activation if climbers
are more adapted to use their strongest muscle
groups, regardless of incline. Lastly, we
hypothesize that there will be no significant
difference in joint angles at the knee or elbow
during any of the measured inclines since incline
2
does not affect the distance between hand and foot
holds.
Methods
Subjects
Subjects were recruited from the Mesa Rim
Rock Climbing and Fitness Center, and they
consisted of employees and other experienced
climbers to help minimize deviation along the route
and limit falls. Six males (26 5.2 years, 159.7
13.9 lbs, 71.7 2.7 inches) and two females (28.5
3.5 years, 135 14.1 lbs, 65 1.4 inches) were
recruited for the study. A consent form and survey
was given to each subject before participation to
establish their climbing habits, skill level, and
overall health. Participants met the inclusion criteria
if they 1) are currently active in wall climbing and
bouldering, 2) engaged in climbing at least 3 or
more days per week for an average duration of 90-
180 minutes per session, and 3) have been climbing
or bouldering for at least 6 months. Aside from
climbing, three subjects participated in aerobic
training such as running, cycling, and surfing. Two
subjects participated in additional resistance
training, and three subjects participated in both
aerobic and resistance training. All subjects reported
being able to climb at a difficulty of 5.11 or higher
on the wall and boulder at difficulty of V6 or higher
without falling. No major current injuries or
medical abnormalities were reported, except for two
subjects who disclosed a history of tendonitis in the
elbow and shoulder.
Procedure
The climbing route was designed by one of
the participants who had been assigned to help
advise during the study. It consisted of 15
handholds all labeled in numerical order, and 10
foot holds. During a familiarization trial at 5 of
incline, participants were instructed to climb the
route in order, placing their right hand on the odd
numbers and their left hand on the even numbers.
Foot placement was dependent on what was most
comfortable to the climber, but they were asked to
stay consistent throughout all trials. The route was
then completed at 5, 15, and 25 of negative
incline in random order. Prior to climbing, subjects
were informed on the angle they would be climbing.
and experimenters were aware of the angle as well.
After the three trials were complete, climbers were
asked to rate the difficulty of each climb on a
subjective scale ranging from 1-10 (10 being the
most difficult).
Wireless EMG nodes were attached to the
right side of the body on the following muscles: the
medial head of the gastrocnemius, vastus lateralis,
semitendinosus, latissimus dorsi, biceps brachii, and
flexor carpi ulnaris. Wireless goniometers were also
attached to the right side of the body along the
lateral aspect of the knee and elbow joints. Subjects
performed a series of exercises to isolate each
muscle to calibrate the EMG nodes. A calf raise was
performed to assess the gastrocnemius, a single leg
squat was done to assess the vastus lateralis, a
hamstring curl was done to assess the
semitendinosus, a shoulder adduction against
resistance from an experimenter was done to
calibrate the latissimus dorsi, a bicep curl against
resistance was done to check the biceps brachii, and
a wrist flexion movement against resistance was
performed to assess the flexor carpi ulnaris. The
wireless goniometers were calibrated using a
manual goniometer while the subject was standing
up for the elbow joint, and while the subject was
lying prone for the knee joint. The wireless
goniometers were calibrated at 0, 30, 60, 90, and
135. A video camera was used to film all subjects
during the entire duration of the climb to account
for any mistakes, deviations, falls, etc.
Statistical Analysis
Paired t-tests were used in Microsoft Excel
to compare EMG activity between upper and lower
extremities, and between joint angles. The absolute
value was first rectified, then filtered to find the
area under the curve. The threshold was calculated
on the entire signal for 20% of the mean for each
trial. Microsoft Excel was used to derive graphs and
tables. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. All
data are presented as mean standard deviation.
Results
Effect of wall incline angle on the activity of upper
body muscles
Average muscle activation score of the LD,
BB, and FC are shown in Figure 1. Average EMG
activity during 5 of wall incline was 3.69 + 2.44
mV sec for the LD, 6.41 + 2.87 mV sec for the
BB, 9.66 + 4.36 mV sec for the FC. Average EMG
activity during 15 of wall incline was 4.35 + 3.22
mV sec for the LD, 7.61 + 3.11 mV sec for the
BB, 10.31 + 4.27 mV sec for the FC. Average
EMG activity during 25 of wall incline was 5.63 +
3.69 mV sec for the LD, 9.37 + 3.39 mV sec for
the BB, 14.27 + 6.35 mV sec for the FC.
Descriptive statistics for EMG scores of the
upper body muscles are summarized in Table 1.
EMG score of the BB was significantly greater
(P=0.027) during 15 when compared to 5 of wall
incline. However, no significant differences were
found for the LD and FC (P=0.139 and P=0.493,
respectively). EMG activity scores were
significantly greater for the LD, BB, and FC during
25 when compared to 5 of wall incline (P<0.05).
EMG score activity was significantly greater during
25 for the LD, BB, and FC when compared to 15
of wall incline (P<0.05). Our data supports the
hypothesis that EMG activity of upper body
muscles increases as the climbing angle increases.
3
Effect of wall incline angle on the activity of lower
body muscles
Figure 2 displays the average muscle
activity scores of the GC, VL, and HS muscles.
Average EMG score during 5 of wall incline was
2.00 + 0.41 mV sec for the GC, 1.87 + 0.53 mV
sec for the VL, and 2.54 + 0.53 mV sec for the
HS. During 15 of wall incline, the GC had an
average EMG score of 1.79 + 0.60 mV sec, the VL
was 1.85 + 0.45 mV sec, and the HS was 2.49 +
0.56 mV sec. During 25 of wall incline, average
EMG score was 2.31 + 0.62 mV sec for the GC,
2.30 + 0.62 for the VL, and 2.55 + 0.51 mV sec
for the HS.
Statistical values of the EMG scores for the
lower extremity muscles are reported in Table 2. Figure 1. Average EMG activity score of the upper
No significant changes (P>0.05) were reported for body muscles across entire trial. *Represents P<0.05
the EMG scores of the GC, VL, and HS when compared to 15. #Represents P<0.05 compared to
comparing wall angles of 5 to 15. Additionally, 15.
similar results were found when comparing wall
angles of 5 to 25; GC (P=0.206), VL (P=0.112),
and HS (P=0.911). However, EMG scores of the
GC and VL were significantly greater during 25
than 15 of wall incline (P<0.05) This data supports
our hypothesis that EMG activity of the lower
extremities is greatest when climbing smaller wall
angles.

Figure 2. Average EMG activity score of the lower

body muscles across the entire trial. *Represents
P<0.05 compared to 15.

4
Effects of wall incline on lower to upper body
muscle activity ratio
Average lower to upper body muscle activity
ratio are presented in Figure 3. Average EMG ratio
was 0.36 + 0.11 during 5 of wall incline, 0.30 +
0.10 during 15 of wall incline, and 0.27 + 0.09
during 25 of wall incline. With respect to 5 of wall
incline, EMG ratio was significantly less during 15
and 25 (P=0.005 and P=0.001, respectively).
Additionally, EMG was significantly less during 25
when compared to 15 of wall incline (P=0.015).

Effects of wall incline angle on range of motion of

the elbow and knee joints
Figure 4 displays average range of motion Figure 3. Average lower to upper body muscle
(ROM) of the elbow and knee joint. The average activation ratio across entire trial. +Represents
ROM during 5 of wall incline was 131.61 + 19.29 P<0.05 compared to 5. *Represents P<0.05
for the elbow joint, and 125.70 + 23.75 for the compared to 15.
knee joint. ROM during 15 of wall incline was
127.01 + 22.41 for the elbow joint, and 120.50 +
17.31 for the knee joint. ROM during 25 of wall
incline was 129.08 + 18.43 for the elbow joint, and
115.05 + 19.47 for the knee joint.
Descriptive statistics for the elbow and knee
joint are presented in Table 3. When comparing
ROM of the elbow between 5 to 15, 5 to 25, and
15 to 25 of wall incline, no significant differences
were found (P>0.05). Additionally, no significant
differences were reported for the knee joint when
comparing 5 to 15, 5 to 25, and 15 to 25 of
wall incline (P>0.05). Therefore, we accept our
hypothesis that there will be no significant
differences in both elbow and knee joint angles as
wall incline changes.
Figure 4. Average range of motion of the elbow and
knee joints across entire trial.

5
 Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine
the effects of climbing at different wall inclines on
upper and lower body muscle activation to see if
increasing wall incline leads to the isolation of
upper body muscle groups. We also attempted to

6
measure differences in joint angles at the knee and
elbow while climbing at different inclines to see if
one produced a greater ROM. One main finding of
our study showed that there was a significant
increase in EMG activity score for the upper body
as incline increased, thus supporting our hypothesis
that greater incline helps isolate upper body muscle
groups. Regarding the lower extremities of the
body, EMG scores of the GC and VL were
significantly greater during 25 than 15 of wall
incline. As previously stated, we would observe an
increase in lower body EMG activity during higher
angles of wall incline. Therefore, we reject our
hypothesis that lower extremity activity should be
greatest at the lower angle. Additionally, our results
did not display significant differences in joint ROM
at the knee and elbow between different inclines,
providing support for our hypothesis that changing
the incline of a wall does not affect the ROM of the
elbow and knee. Abe et al., confirms that a lack of
difference in joint angle ROM between the trials,
indicates that the subjects performed the same
movements in the repeated trials (2).
The six muscles assessed were selected
because they encompassed a largely utilized muscle
group that is affected by interaction and joint
torques. In the present study, the EMG activity for
the upper body increased as the wall angle
increased. This result was consistent with the
findings of Macias et al. because climbers had
significantly stronger upper body muscles and
greater grip and pinch strength as opposed to
resistance trained individuals. The relationship
between greater grip strength and the upper
extremities suggests a facilitation of the climbers
increasing muscle activity as the wall angle
increases.
Watanabe et al., states that normalized EMG
data collected across multiple joint angles is lower
than raw EMG data collected at one specific joint
angle (8). In this study, the data was normalized for
7
both the joint angles assessed. There was no
significant difference in knee and elbow joints at
different wall angles. Therefore, when comparing
our data to that of Watanabe et. al., we cannot
conclude that changing wall incline can change
joint angle to optimize neuromuscular activation.
Since our climbing route utilized the same
footholds, our results are consistent with Abe et. al.
(2008), who concluded that when foot position is
altered, joint angles (except the elbow joint) are
changed. The data combined from Abe et. al. and
our own study suggests that foot placement has no
effect on joint angles of the elbow while rock
climbing (1).
Contrary to Koukoubis et al., the present
study found no significant relationship between
joint angle and ROM. Koukoubis et al. states that
the elbow is not affected by finger flexor muscles
despite their crossing at the elbow joint.
Limitations of this study include the use of
employees and experienced climbers rather than
non-climbers, which yielded a smaller sample size.
Additionally, a fixed climbing route yielded
consistent results, but failed to provide a broader
use of muscle activity, specifically in the lower
extremities. As suggested by Watanabe et al.,
muscle structure changes during dynamic
movement. Since rock climbing primarily consists
of dynamic movements, the changes in muscle
structure may have limited EMG detection.
Future studies should further investigate the
isolation of lower leg muscles while rock climbing.
Also, assessing hip angle displacement may help
determine a relationship between hip angle
reference and muscle activation. Furthermore, the
relationship between joint angle and muscle
activation should be assessed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our results show that there is
no significant difference in knee and elbow joint
ROM during a fixed climbing route on a 5, 15,
and 25 angle climbing wall. There was a
significant difference in EMG activity in the lower
and upper body muscle groups. When there was a
greater incline, the upper body muscles had greater
activation, while the lower body muscles had
greater activation when the wall was at lower
incline.
References
1) Abe, S., Jensen, R. L., Malin, P. L., & Watts, P. B.
(2008). Joint angle changes with varied foot positioning in
rock climbing. Retrieved April 12, 2017.
2) Abe, S., Jensen, R. L., Malin, P. L., & Watts, P. B.
(2008). Reliability of Joint Angle Movements During Rock
Climbing Retrieved May 8, 2017.
3) Deyhle, Michael R., Hung-Sheng Hsu, Timothy J.
Fairfield, Taryn L. Cadez-Schmidt, Burke A. Gurney, and
Christine M. Mermier. "Relative Importance of Four Muscle
Groups for Indoor Rock Climbing Performance." 29.7 (2015)
4) Egoscue, P. (1998). Pain Free (pp. 214-215). New York,
NY: Bantam Trade.
5) Koukoubis, T. D., Cooper, L. W., Glisson, R. R., Seaber,
A. V., & Feagin, J. A. (1995). An electromyographic study of
arm muscles during climbing. Knee Surgery, Sports
Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 3(2), 121-124.
6) Kristina M. Macias, Lee E. Brown, Jared W. Coburn
and David D. Chen. A comparison of upper body strength
between rock climbers and resistance trained men. Human
Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology,
California State University, Fullerton. 30 July 2015.
7) Mariusz Ozimek, Robert Rokowski, Arkadiusz Stanula,
and Robert Staszkiewicz. (2016). Analysis of Tests
Evaluating Sport Climber's Strength and Isometric
Endurance Journal of Human Kinetics Vol 53/2016. 249-260
DOI:10.1515.
8) Watanabe, K, and H Akima. "Effect of knee joint angle
on neuromuscular activation of the vastus intermedius muscle
during isometric contraction." Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine and Science in Sports, vol. 21, no. 6, 15 June 2011,
pp. 412-20.