Lead experience (years) Discussion and Conclusion Effect of Ability and Style of Ascent on Psychophysiological Responses to Difficult On-sight Rock Climbing. Tabitha Dickson1, Simon Fryer 1, Gavin Blackwell 2, Helen Marshall 2, Keeron Stone 1, Rodrigo Aspe 1 and Nick Draper 3 Contact: tdickson@glos.ac.uk 1 School of Sport and Exercise, University of Gloucestershire, UK. 2 University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ. 3 University of Derby, Buxton, UK. circumferential strain (extent of arterial deformation) and strain rate (rate of artery deformation), Abstract Results PURPOSE: To investigate psychophysiological differences in difficult on-sight rock climbing with respect to ability level and style of ascent. METHODS: Fifty-two climbers [lower-grade (n = 10), intermediate (n=12), advanced (n = 19) and elite (n = 11)], attempted an on-sight ascent of a designated test route set at the top of their respective ability level. Participants were randomly assigned a lead or top-rope protocol. Before climbing, measures of anxiety (CSAI-2R), heart rate (HR), oxygen consumption (V̇O2), blood lactate (BLa) and plasma cortisol concentration were assessed. During the ascent, climb time, HR, V̇O2, were measured. Post-climb measures included BLa, plasma cortisol concentration and ratings of task load (NASA-TLX). RESULTS: When pre-climb variables (somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, self-confidence, delta (∆) pre-climb cortisol, pre-climb HR and pre-climb V̇O2) were considered together to investigate pre-climb state, there was no significant effect between ascent styles. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in subjective anxiety scores with respect to ability level, and no significant between group differences for average HR during ascent. However, there was a significant difference between ability groups for average V̇O2 during ascent (p< 0.05), this was significantly higher in the elite group compared to lower-grade (mean difference = 6.61, CI 1.54 - 11.68) and advanced (mean difference = 4.08, CI 0.20 - 7.95) groups, but not the intermediate group (mean difference = 2.67, CI -1.51 - 6.84). It was found that when expressed as a percentage of HRmax (Lower-grade; 83.0 ± 5.0%, Intermediate; 85.8 ± 6.9%, Advanced; 86.8 ± 6.1%, Elite; 88.5 ± 4.1%) and V̇O2max (Lower-grade; 63.3 ± 8.4%, Intermediate; 63.2 ± 8.7%, Advanced; 59.4 ± 11.7%, Elite; 63.7 ± 6.8 %) all ability groups utilised similar fractions of maximal capacity during their ascents. When post-climb Δ cortisol, Δ peak BLa, and ratings of task demand (NASA-TLX subscales) were considered together, results indicated no significant differences for the main effects ‘ability group’ and ‘ascent style’ for post-climb variables. CONCLUSION: Indoor on-sight sport climbing near the top of self-reported best on-sight lead appears to elicit a similar psychophysiological response pre-climb irrespective of style of ascent. It would appear that oxygen uptake during rock climbing may not be directly related to difficulty or personal ability. Pre-climb variables were considered together to investigate pre-climb state, with no significant effect between ascent styles. In addition there were no significant differences in subjective anxiety scores with respect to ability level. There were no significant between group differences for average HR during ascent. There was a significant difference between ability groups for average V̇O2 during ascent (p< 0.05), this was significantly higher in the elite group compared to lower-grade (mean difference = 6.61, CI 1.54 - 11.68) and advanced (mean difference = 4.08, CI 0.20 - 7.95) groups, but not the intermediate group (mean difference = 2.67, CI -1.51 - 6.84). When expressed as a percentage of HRmax (Lower-grade; 83.0 ± 5.0%, Intermediate; 85.8 ± 6.9%, Advanced; 86.8 ± 6.1%, Elite; 88.5 ± 4.1%) and V̇O2max (Lower-grade; 63.3 ± 8.4%, Intermediate; 63.2 ± 8.7%, Advanced; 59.4 ± 11.7%, Elite; 63.7 ± 6.8 %) all ability groups utilised similar fractions of maximal capacity during their ascents. When post-climb Δ cortisol, Δ peak BLa, and subjective ratings of workload (NASA-TLX subscales) were considered together, results indicated no significant differences for the main effects ‘ability group’ and ‘ascent style’ for post-climb variables. Heart rate and oxygen consumption during ascent Table 2. Average HR responses (bts·min-1) for ability groups presented as mean ± SD alongside mean (SE) adjusted totals. Ability Group n Top-rope Lead Total Adjusted total* Lower-grade 10 160.0 ± 8.6 148.7 ± 10.6 156.6 ± 10.2 157.5 (3.5) Intermediate 12 162.7 ± 7.9 161.6 ± 20.4 162.2 ± 13.6 163.5 (3.0) Advanced 19 162.1 ± 14.2 170.1 ± 12.4 166.1 ± 13.5 166.7 (2.5) Elite 11 171.8 ± 9.4 167.9 ± 13.1 170.6 ± 10.0 167.8 (3.4) *Adjusted for age and HRmax Table 3. Average V̇O2 (mL·kg-1·min-1) responses for ability groups presented as mean ± SD alongside mean (SE) adjusted totals. Introduction Ability Group n Top-rope Lead Total Adjusted total* Lower-grade 10 26.4 ± 3.6 26.8 ± 2.9 26.5 ± 3.2 28.9 (1.3) Intermediate 12 33.5 ± 4.9 32.3 ± 2.4 33.0 ± 4.0 32.9 (1.0) Advanced 19 32.8 ± 5.5 31.3 ± 4.2 32.0 ± 4.8 31.5 (0.9) Elite 11 37.7 ± 3.5 34.7 ± 3.4 36.8 ± 3.6 35.5 (1.1) Rock climbing has been described as a multi-faceted sport which relies upon the interactions of various components of performance in order to succeed. The influence of psychological state with respect to perception of the task has been suggested as a key contributory factor in the physiological responses and resulting performance of climbers (Goddard and Neumann, 1993, Hörst, 2003, Hurni, 2003). Research which directly investigates possible interactions between the psychological and physiological mechanisms of performance during ascent is scarce. A number of suggestions as to the extent and nature of these responses remain speculative. As such, understanding of the psychological and physiological demands which underpin successful climbing performance is limited. *Adjusted for V̇O2max Aims Post-climb BLa and plasma cortisol concentration Determine whether lower-grade climbers exhibit a greater intensity of anxiety response compared to elite climbers. Investigate the effect of ascent style (lead and top rope) on psychological and physiological responses during on-sight ascents with respect to a range of climbing abilities. Determine to what extent objective and subjective anxiety responses differ between lower-grade, intermediate, advanced and elite climbers prior to and during difficult on-sight ascents. Table 3. Mean ± SD Δ Peak BLA for ability groups presented with respect to ascent style (lead and top rope) and group total. Ability Group n Δ Peak BLa (mmol·L-1) Lower-grade Top-rope Lead Total 7 3 10 2.4 ± 0.9 1.6 ± 0.5 2.2 ± 0.9 Intermediate 5 12 3.5 ± 1.0 4.4 ± 2.6 3.9 ± 1.3 Advanced 9 19 2.5 ± 0.7 3.2 ± 1.1 2.8 ± 0.9 Elite 4 11 3.8 ± 1.4 3.9 ± 1.2 3.8 ± 1.3 Methods Participants Fifty-two climbers who were proficient in sport lead climbing were included in the study. Climbers were categorised into lower grade, intermediate, advanced and elite ability groups based on self-reported on-sight ability grades of ≤17, 18-20, 21-24 and ≥25 (Ewbank) respectively. Experience and ability data for each group is presented in Table 1. Table 1: Participants climbing experience and ability level. Ability n Age (years) Lead experience (years) On-sight (Ewbank) Redpoint (Ewbank) Lower-grade 10 25.8 ±4.3 1.6 ± 3.0 16.2 ±0.9 17.5 ± 1.6 Intermediate 12 27.4±6.5 6.4 ± 6.8 18.5 ± 0.5 20.8 ± 0.9 Advanced 19 27.6 ±10.4 8.5 ±9.4 23.2 ± 0.6 25.9 ± 1.2 Elite 11 23.1±4.4 6.9 ±5.1 26.3 ± 0.9 29.3 ± 1.5 Figure 2. Mean plasma cortisol concentrations at various sampling points throughout the baseline and climb session for lower-grade, intermediate, advanced and elite groups. Figure 1. Mean BLa at pre-climb and various post-climb sampling points for lower-grade, intermediate, advanced and elite groups. Discussion and Conclusion Routes Four independent test routes (one for each ability level) were set on the same section of artificial wall (12.13m high), all following the same line of pre-placed protection. Routes were distinguished by coloured bolt on holds. Each route was set and confirmed by expert climbers at grades of 16, 18, 22 and 25 (Ewbank). Each climber completed either a lead or top-rope on-sight ascent of their respective test route. Irrespective of ascent style climbers who completed an on-sight ascent exhibited similar psychophysiological responses prior to attempting their ascent – a trend which was replicated across all ability groups. All ability groups appeared to utilise similar fractions of maximal capacity with respect to HR and V̇O2 during ascent, with elite climbers successfully ascending a route up to eight difficulty grades harder than those of lower ability, whilst still performing at the same workload intensity. It would appear that oxygen uptake during rock climbing may not be directly related to difficulty or personal ability. A technical advantage, personal climbing style, and possible physiological adaptations may be contributors to more strategic and efficient ascents – resulting in the capacity to climb at higher grades of difficulty. Measures Pre-climb anxiety and self-confidence using the 17 item Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2Revised (CSAI-2R) (Cox et al., 2003) Pre-climb HR and measured as 15 s average for each variable prior to ascent (breath-by-breath data) During the climb ascent time was recorded, and average and average HR were calculated from breath-by-breath data. Blood lactate sampling (BLa) was conducted pre-climb, immediately post-climb and at 5, 10 and 15 min post-climb via capillary sampling from the first (big) toe by the method detailed by Fryer et al., (2011). Plasma cortisol sampling was conducted during a baseline visit and 30 and 15 min pre-climb, immediately pre-climb, immediately post-climb and at 15 and 30 min post climb via capillary sampling from the first (big) toe by the method detailed by Dickson et al., (2012). National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) (Hart and Staveland, 1988) was completed by participants immediately post-climb in order to assess subjective workload. References Cox, R. H., Martens, M. P., & Russell, W. D. (2003). Measuring anxiety in athletics: the revised competitive state anxiety inventory-2. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25(4), 519-533. Dickson, T., Fryer, S., Draper, N., Winter, D., Ellis, G., & Hamlin, M. (2012). Comparison of plasma cortisol sampling sites for rock climbing. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 52(6), 688-695. Fryer, S., Draper, N., Dickson, T., Blackwell, G., Winter, D., & Ellis, G. (2011). Comparison of lactate sampling sites for rock climbing. International journal of sports medicine, 32(6), 428. Goddard, D., & Neumann, U. (1993). Performance rock climbing. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Human Mental Workload, 1, 139–183. Hörst, E. J. (2003). Training for climbing. Connecticut: Falcon Guide. Hurni, M. (2003). Coaching climbing: Guilford, CT: Globe Pequot Press.