Mountain Project Logo

HYPertrophy of finger muscles unnecessary?

Original Post
kenr · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 16,608

Well nobody really says it's unnecessary. But some very smart successful climbers seem to be saying there's other ways to achieve climbing-relevant gains in finger strength. And that key evidence might be that there are successful elite climbers with obviosly less forearm hypertrophy than others.
Looks like a good argument.

Which raises two questions in my mind:

A) Since forearm hypertrophy is tricky to measure (some say), how do we know for sure that some elite climbers have so much less of it than others? The ones with visibly thicker forearms: How do we know how much of that is body fat? or "non-functional" sarcoplasmic muscle tissue? (and then Body Fat percentage is yet another tricky thing to measure).
So like some elite climbers (some women, but not others, and at least one man) seem to have skinnier arms than we might have guessed ...
but ...
Then take a look at some non-athletic women with very low body fat, to see what truly skinny arms and legs look like. So what we do not know is how skinny these elite climbers forearms would be if they had not received lots of intense training stimulus for climbing.

Another tricky thing to estimate is the ratio of forearm muscle volume (or mass?) to overall body weight.

The simple reply to this is: No the differences in forearm diameter between some elite climbers are just too large.

B) What's the micro-physiological / biochemical explanation for how muscles get stronger without getting bigger on some dimension (diameter or effective contraction length)?
The first answer is neural recruitment. Yes but that's supposed to plateau fairly quickly (after a few weeks). Seems like the finger-strength gap between average and elite climbers is much larger than just eight weeks could account for. And some very smart elite climbers say it took years to slowly achieve their gains in finger-strength.

So if some substantial percentage of those long-term gains is not derived from increases in muscle diameter or effective muscle contraction length, then what is the physiology or biochemistry of the transformations that account for that other percentage?

Ken

P.S. I once had a severe injury so I couldn't use my fingers hardly at all, and in less than two weeks I saw obvious visible shrinking of my forearm. Then with (much more than two weeks of) rehab exercise, my forearm achieved obvious visible hypertrophy -- increased diameter which my PT could record with a tape measure.

slim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2004 · Points: 1,103

i think there is just so much to all of it that you can't really come up with one singular explanation. if there is one thing that i have learned from climbing around a LOT of folks who climb well - you can't judge a book by it's cover.

at the gym i climb at, there are folks who are absolutely jacked, yet don't really climb that hard. also, there are folks who you would never guess by looking at them that they climb pretty hard. for example, there is one young gal who looks just like the little bee in that old blind melon video "no rain", and she is a beast. great little boulderer.

there are so many nuances to it. some folks are just naturally strong as hell, without working at it and without looking like it. i have quite a few friends who aren't athletic looking, but even if they didn't train or climb for a year, they would still be a lot stronger than i am, despite all of my training.

maybe they naturally just have a lot better recruitment. maybe they have more effective tendon attachment points. some folks just have an amazing kinesthetic awareness, and are able to operate a lot closer to balance points, adhesion limit points, etc.

Christian RodaoBack · · Tucson, AZ · Joined Jul 2005 · Points: 1,486

Always thought fingers didn't have muscles.

jim.dangle · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2011 · Points: 5,882
Christian wrote:Always thought fingers didn't have muscles.
Fingers have muscles but they are not located in the fingers.
Kerwin Loukusa · · PNW · Joined Aug 2013 · Points: 135

A) Not exactly sure what your question is here.

B) I think we can say there is a relationship between muscle cross sectional area and maximum force development, if you keep the population sample consistent, IE measure only trained or untrained subjects. Here is a link to a study examining the relationship between individual fiber size and force generation: CSA vs. Force

Can we say that increases in CSA will always lead towards an increase in force, or that because one subject has a larger CSA that they will be able to generate a large force? I would say no, and because of the many other factors involved, such as the distribution of fiber types, stage of neural recruitment, tendon attachment point, length of lever arm (It may just be me, but it appears that Adam Ondra has very short distal phalanges which is a smaller lever in comparison to average, which would reduce the force load required on a small hold), climbing style (static vs. dynamic movement changes the requirements for rate of force development).

Christian RodaoBack · · Tucson, AZ · Joined Jul 2005 · Points: 1,486
jim.dangle wrote: Fingers have muscles but they are not located in the fingers.
"34 muscles which move the fingers and thumb:
17 in the palm of the hand, and
18 in the forearm. "

wait a minute, 17+18= 35?

guess I'm just OCD about the title of this thread lol
slim · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2004 · Points: 1,103
kerwinl wrote:A) Not exactly sure what your question is here. B) I think we can say there is a relationship between muscle cross sectional area and maximum force development, if you keep the population sample consistent, IE measure only trained or untrained subjects. Here is a link to a study examining the relationship between individual fiber size and force generation: CSA vs. Force Can we say that increases in CSA will always lead towards an increase in force, or that because one subject has a larger CSA that they will be able to generate a large force? I would say no, and because of the many other factors involved, such as the distribution of fiber types, stage of neural recruitment, tendon attachment point, length of lever arm (It may just be me, but it appears that Adam Ondra has very short distal phalanges which is a smaller lever in comparison to average, which would reduce the force load required on a small hold), climbing style (static vs. dynamic movement changes the requirements for rate of force development).
i have always found it really interesting that strength is generally proportional to fiber diameter (as opposed to cross-sectional area). it is readily apparent when looking at pound for pound strength, ie bigger not necessarily being better. but, for us engineer types who are used to axial strength being a function of area, it is kind of a mind bender.
kenr · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 16,608

kerwinl wrote:
> Here is a link to a study examining the relationship between
> individual fiber size and force generation:
> CSA vs. Force

Thanks for that link, which suggests that yet another reason why it's complicated. The implication I get is that two climbers could have the same total Cross-Sectional Area of forearm/finger muscls, but if one has (a larger number) of smaller diameter fibers, then (other things being equal) they will have higher maximum strength than the climber with (fewer) larger-diameter fibers.

Also it suggests that splitting into new fibers (if that's possible in adults) is a more effective way to gain strength than by expanding existing fibers.

kerwinl wrote:Can we say that because one subject has a larger CSA that they will be able to generate a large force? I would say no, and because of the many other factors involved, such as the distribution of fiber types, stage of neural recruitment, tendon attachment point, length of lever arm
Yes this seems clear, for the reasons you give.
Anyway it's also problematic to measure (or even just estimate) total CSA of forearm muscle fibers for a specific climber, because of unknown differences in bone diameter, skin thickness, water retention, body fat.

Also some climbers might have tendency to gain muscle mass easily, so they tend to be carrying "extra" muscle for body parts which are not much helpful for climbing. So they need more forearm/finger muscles to carry that (but fortunately it's easier for them to build that).

kerwinl wrote:Can we say that increases in CSA will always lead towards an increase in force
"always" is tough to reply to. But seems to me a reasonable training assumption is that:
Gaining functional climbing strength from HYPertrophy of finger/forearm muscles is "the way to bet". Even if it's difficult to measure.

Ken
kenr · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 16,608

Some possible ideas to increase finger strength without HYPertrophy might be:

  • transform Type I fibers to Type II, and Type IIa to IIb. A concern is that training with longer durations if isometric contraction might block this transformation. So several climbing-training authorities advocate only very short maximal-intensity isometric reps.
  • increase number of muscle fibers while decreasing average individual-fiber diameter (not sure how to stimulate this, or if it's at all possible in human adults).
. (Actually I would be very glad to know how to increase the count of my finger/forearm fibers even without decreasing individual-fiber diameter)

  • increase capillarization. Sounds like a good thing. But to me this seems like another variation on Hypertrophy -- namely it ought to result in measurable increases in total forearm diameter.
  • neural recruitment (already proposed by almost everybody).

Ken
kenr · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 16,608

Reason I posted these questions was that I read a book on climbing which proposed a training program without a specific HYPertrophy phase, which caught me by surprise. Which raised two questions for me:

"Are designed-for-Hypertrophy exercises actually important?" (like # sets / # reps / resistance levels)

"Is it important to include a multi-week HYPertrophy-focus phase in a macro training program?"

Now with further reflection I'm not convinced by the argument that skipping HYPertrophy focus is OK because (1) We see that different elite climbers show different forearm diameters.

But there are other arguments for not having a specific HYP phase or exercises designed for hypertrophy:

(2) It's not clear from well-designed scientific studies what is the best way to stimulate finger/forearm muscle growth anyway.
Because different studies favor different protocols of sets and reps and resistance.
Because most studies were not targeted for finger/forearm muscles.
Because most studies were not targeted for the special kinds of strength needed for climbing (notably isometric at special finger joint angles for crimp and open grips).

(3) If you really work on the other key elements for climbing better and more difficult, appropriate HYPertrophy will happen anyway - (provided you don't get injured, or you get good at managing the inevitable finger injuries).

More specifically ... Absolutely critical is spending lots of time working moves and sequences near and beyond your current difficulty limit. Do this and appropriate HYPertrophy will (eventually?) take care of itself. Add some special neural recruitment exercises, and (perhaps delayed-reaction) hypertrophy will happen.

Not saying I agree with those arguments. Just trying to stimulate more thinking and discussion about this sort of thing.

Ken

Ryan Watts · · Bishop, CA · Joined Apr 2013 · Points: 25
kenr wrote: * increase number of muscle fibers while decreasing average individual-fiber diameter (not sure how to stimulate this, or if it's at all possible in human adults). . (Actually I would be very glad to know how to increase the count of my finger/forearm fibers even without decreasing individual-fiber diameter)
I've seen some studies that showed muscle fiber hyperplasia in adult animals, although I don't know if it's been confirmed on humans. I remember one of the studies involved tying a weight to a bird's wing (so it was "lifting" all the time) and another one that found stretching helped induce hyperplasia in some other animal (cats maybe?).

Honestly though if there was an effective way to accomplish it via exercise in humans I think we would know about it.

Of course there is always IGF. Possibly cheater beta and/or all around bad idea though.
Kerwin Loukusa · · PNW · Joined Aug 2013 · Points: 135
kenr wrote:Some possible ideas to increase finger strength without HYPertrophy might be: * transform Type I fibers to Type II, and Type IIa to IIb. A concern is that training with longer durations if isometric contraction might block this transformation. So several climbing-training authorities advocate only very short maximal-intensity isometric reps. * increase number of muscle fibers while decreasing average individual-fiber diameter (not sure how to stimulate this, or if it's at all possible in human adults). . (Actually I would be very glad to know how to increase the count of my finger/forearm fibers even without decreasing individual-fiber diameter) * increase capillarization. Sounds like a good thing. But to me this seems like another variation on Hypertrophy -- namely it ought to result in measurable increases in total forearm diameter. * neural recruitment (already proposed by almost everybody). Ken
  • For some really interesting reading on fiber types, look at this link: Fiber Type

The conversion from IIb->IIa during strength training, followed by conversion back from IIa->IIb with rest followed by an overshoot draws some questions in my mind about how we approach training.

  • No idea how you induce hyperplasia, if you could that may be the holy grail.
  • I dont think hypertrophy and capillarization are variations of each other, both will lead to an increased forearm circumference, but only one will lead to an increase in the muscle cross sectional area. Although it is interesting to note that hypertrophy does induce capillary growth in proportion to the increase in muscle cross sectional area, so that capillary density does not change, but absolute value of blood flow would be increased.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Training Forum
Post a Reply to "HYPertrophy of finger muscles unnecessary?"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.