Physiological Responses to Indoor Rock-Climbing and Their Relationship to Maximal Cycle Ergometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantify the cardiorespiratory responses to indoor climbing during two increasingly difficult climbs and relate them to whole-body dynamic exercise. It was hypothesized that as climbing difficulty increased, oxygen consumption ([V02] and heart rate would increase, and that climbing would require utilization of a significant fraction of maximal cycling values. METHODS: Elite competitive sport rock climbers (6 male, 3 female) completed two data collection sessions. The first session was completed at an indoor climbing facility, and the second session was an incremental cycle test to exhaustion. During indoor climbing subjects were randomly assigned to climb two routes designated as "harder" or "easier" based on their previous best climb. Subjects wore a portable metabolic system, which allowed measurement of oxygen consumption [V02], minute ventilation ([V02]E), respiratory exchange ratio (RER), and heart rate. During the second session, maximal values for [V02], [V02]E, RER, and heart rate were determined during an incremental cycle test to exhaustion. RESULTS: Heart rate and [VO2], expressed as percent of cycling maximum, were significantly higher during harder climbing compared with easier climbing. During harder climbing, %HR(max) was significantly higher than %[V02] (2max) (89.6% vs 51.2%), and during easier climbing, %HR(max) was significantly higher than %[V02] (2max) (66.9% vs 45.3%). CONCLUSIONS: With increasing levels of climbing difficulty, there is a rise in both heart rate and [V02]. However, there is a disproportional rise in heart rate compared with [V02], which we attribute to the fact that climbing requires the use of intermittent isometric contractions of the arm musculature and the reliance of both anaerobic and aerobic metabolism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".