Open questions: what has not been measured yet
Much of what climbers do every day hasn't been tested in a study. This page lists the gaps we ran into while writing the site, so the "coaching practice" labels make sense.
In plain words
Research on climbing is young, and most studies are small. Many measure a forearm on a fingerboard, not a climber on a wall. Very few include women, beginners or children. So a lot of technique advice is reasonable experience, not measured fact. That doesn't make it wrong. It means it's worth trying, watching what happens, and staying open to change.
Memory hookUnmeasured isn't wrong. It's untested.
Gaps by topic
Resting and recovery on the wall
how many seconds per hand gives the most recovery has not been measured.
the study that measured shaking changed arm position at the same time, so the effect of shaking itself isn't known.
half-times tracked climbing ability in some studies (after exercise in 2015, after a cuff test in 2016), but a 2026 cuff test found no difference by ability. Tests, devices and sensor positions differ.
the half-times we use were measured with the arm off the wall, after a test to failure. Recovery while holding a real rest, with one hand gripping, hasn't been measured directly.
drop knees, stems and knee-bars clearly help, but by how much is unknown.
Energy systems
the energy-share data come from 13 climbers, and the half-time data from men only.
the measured routes were short indoor routes.
route-setting has become more dynamic, and energy shares on such routes haven't been measured.
Technique
no study in our pack measured how much they save.
widely taught, rarely tested in climbing.
positions and timing are taught, not measured.
Fingers
the clinical series describe injured climbers; how common the injury is in all young climbers, and what dose of climbing is safe, aren't known.
a warm-up changes finger mechanics, but whether it prevents pulley injuries hasn't been shown.
the taper evidence comes from other sports.
The evidence
- Measured Sample sizes in the cited climbing studies range from 4 people (Schweizer 2001) to 129 (Giles et al. 2021); details are in the research library.
- Coaching practice The gaps listed are our reading of the research pack, not a systematic review.
Try it
Common mistakes
it means the evidence is missing, not negative.
a result from 6 or 11 people is a starting point, not a rule.
almost all the physiology here was measured in adults.