Keeping my elbow and wrist "forward"

I've started hangboarding 1-2x per week (once if I'm climbing that week, twice if I'm not able to get out on the rock, so I'm making sure to recover adequately after the sessions). Overall it's seeming like it'll be a great addition in terms of building finger strength.

Anyway, I was noticing today that I wasn't able to keep my left wrist and elbow as far "forward" ("anteriorly" would be the anatomic term) as my right, and was greasing off the left handhold first as a result because I wasn't able to keep my wrist underneath the hold as well. No pain or anything, just fatiguing sooner on that side. No history of injury.

It seemed like this imbalance was a question of shoulder strength, does that seem right? Ways to address this? Push-ups? Planks? Just keep hangboarding? Something else?

Thanks,
David

Bump

No answers for you but I'll share some psych!
Get on it dude!

Ian's been training in his garage and it shows, he's climbing like a beast.
Maybe you guys could link up?

rogerbenton wrote:No answers for you but I'll share some psych! Get on it dude! Ian's been training in his garage and it shows, he's climbing like a beast. Maybe you guys could link up?

Hey Roger,
Yeah that's the rumor! Hard to get out with him, though... I almost never climb weekends, and you guys pretty much ONLY do! Maybe it'll take another Chattanooga run to get the band back together!

Optimistic wrote:I wasn't able to keep my left wrist and elbow as far "forward" ("anteriorly" would be the anatomic term) as my right, and was greasing off the left handhold first as a result because I wasn't able to keep my wrist underneath the hold as well.

For thicker or slopier holds, I guess maybe that might make sense.

But for thinner "edgier" handholds, I think the physics of it is that you hold grip better with the wrist higher (and thus also farther away horizontally from the handhold, toward the back of the body - ? "posteriorly" ?).

Two perspectives on why this wrist configuration ought to work:
First, it helps the fingertips "dig in" better into the "inside angle" where the top of a protruding hold meets the wall supporting the hold. I think this applies to both Open and Crimp grips (but perhaps more critical for Open?).

Sometimes I think of this higher wrist configuration as offering a "higher angle of attack" for gripping a thin edge. Which might lead to the idea of developing more Wrist Flexion strength.

Second, the farther away from the hold is the body's center-of-mass - (other things being equal) - the less horizontal force between the fingertip pad and the top surface of the handhold. (A similar argument can be made for a climber's foot on a foothold).
Then (other things being equal) the more "posterior" the climber's wrist and elbow, the farther away will be the body's center-of-mass.

. (but in the complicated game of real climbing, often "other things" are not equal).

I'd be glad for more suggestions and corrections about this sort of analysis.

Good luck trying to figure out how which kinds of strength training fit your kinds of complexity.

Ken

Hm, I guess my experience has been different. I feel like getting my weight more perpendicular to almost any handhold is the way to go, and in the case of small handholds that's right underneath them. Also, in the specific example I posted the about, when my elbow and wrist moved away from the plane of the hold, I greased off it.

I'll just follow my nose if no one has specific counsel about how to strengthen these things...mainly by just keeping up with the hangboarding!

Hard to comment without photos of your positioning.

If you can't keep them forward, and elbows down, I'd suspect your large pull muscles could be limiting, sort of the same way people get "batwing" or "flying elbows" when they tire on routes. As they tire you see the elbows creep up and back.

I know for me, sometimes on really hard sets I begin to pull more from those big muscles and actually raise my body a bit during the rep, almost like doing a pullup (although only the very bottom of the movement) when I feel like greasing off. If you are using added weight, that pulling into it slightly puts more arch in your back/chest up and might cut down the subtle swinging of the weight hanging off the harness.

Here's a couple pics of my normal positioning (notice my high-tech training log app in the background...a pen and piece of scrap paper and a clock propped up on a bike shoe):

Hang1

Hang2

Will S wrote:Hard to comment without photos of your positioning. If you can't keep them forward, and elbows down, I'd suspect your large pull muscles could be limiting, sort of the same way people get "batwing" or "flying elbows" when they tire on routes. As they tire you see the elbows creep up and back. I know for me, sometimes on really hard sets I begin to pull more from those big muscles and actually raise my body a bit during the rep, almost like doing a pullup (although only the very bottom of the movement) when I feel like greasing off. If you are using added weight, that pulling into it slightly puts more arch in your back/chest up and might cut down the subtle swinging of the weight hanging off the harness. Here's a couple pics of my normal positioning (notice my high-tech training log app in the background...a pen and piece of scrap paper and a clock propped up on a bike shoe):

Yep, the "bat wing" thing is what I'm talking about...elbows and wrists moving backwards from the vertical plane of the hold. So you think that pull ups would help with that?

Hard to say. If it were me, I'd use a smaller edge with less added weight, so that the limiter is your finger strength/forearms (unless you are just comically weak on the pull muscles).

If you are disproportionately weak in those big pull muscles, I'd train the bottom half of the pull movement and not go up to a lockoff (which I find leads to elbow issues/inflammation).

Without seeing you workout in person, it's quite a bit of guesswork.

edit:
Whoops -- I see now that the analysis and formula below are completely wrongheaded.
. (which among things shows how tricky even apparently-simple physics can be).
So please just disregard and move on.

Optimistic wrote:I feel like getting my weight more perpendicular to almost any handhold is the way to go, and in the case of small handholds that's right underneath them.

well ... Allow me to suggest that given how long you've been fingerboarding, maybe you just don't have the strength yet to try a substantial experiment comparing wrist higher (and farther back) versus wrist lower (and farther forward). Maybe try some apparatus to remove enough body-weight resistance so you can attain a significant "wrist high" position.

Anyway I did some more analysis on my second argument, and it turns out the simple physics (based on basic first-year mechanics of force-torque static equilibrium), yield a clear result:

fx = (z / x) * mG
where

• fx is the horizontal "anti-shear" force from the climber's fingertip against the top surface of the edge-hold which is _required_ in order to keep the climber's body from slipping off.
• x is the horizontal distance from the edge-hold outward to the climber's body center-of-mass.
• z is the vertical distance from the edge-hold downward to the climber's body center-of-mass.
• mG is the downward force of earth's gravity due to the climber's body mass.

implications of that equation:

• the closer inward the climber's body center-of-mass is to the fingerboard, the higher anti-shear force is required. So more likely that the actual force is insufficient, thus more likely the climber's fingers blow off the hold.
• the lower downward the climber's center-of-mass hangs below the hold, the higher the _required_ anti-shear force, so the more likely the climber's fingers slip off the hold.

now ... More complicated analysis of this physics is possible, or some deeper analysis of the first argument about "digging in" with the fingertips -- and I gladly welcome that.

meanwhile ... How about taking seriously the simple physics model for the second argument. Such as some personal experiments with substantially different wrist (or elbow or shoulder) positions.

Ken

Regarding the first argument above, about
higher wrist configuration enabling the fingertips to "dig in" more onto the "inside angle" between the top of the edge-hold and the vertical board or wall behind it ...

A simple way to model the structure of the distal link of the finger is as a cylinder (somewhat longer than it is thick) with a half-sphere tip. That's the soft tissue. Then the bone would be a thinner cylinder inside with the same axis, and a small half-sphere tip. Further assume the the center of the bone hemisphere tip coincides with the center of the soft-tissue hemisphere tip (or allow the bone tip center to be farther out toward the fingertip than the soft-tissue tip center).
Further assume that the edge-hold is flat horizontal, that that its "thickness" (distance between front lip and the wall or board behind) is less than the length of the soft-tissue cylinder.

Simple case is that the finger's distal link is exactly horizontal, with cylinder axis parallel to the top surface of the edge-hold. (Not often obtained with full-body-weight hang on a thin edge by many climbers using Open grip. Most climbers get distal link closer to horizontal on a thin edge by using Crimp grip.

If the distal link is angled _below_ horizontal (i.e. the vertical position of the outer tip of fingertip cylinder is above the joint (DIP) connecting the distal link with interior finger links and hand and wrist), then the tip of the bone cylinder is farther away from rear end of edge-hold.

• claim 1: A smaller length + area (smaller than simple horizontal case above) of the soft tissue of the fingertip is well-supported by underlying inner bone -- so the soft tissue tends of deform "lazily".
• claim 2: The half-sphere tip of the bone tends to "ride higher", so it applies less pressure on the soft tissue -- therefore the soft tissue applies less of horizontal "anti-shear" force to the edge-hold top surface. So it is more liklely that this force is less than the required anti-shear force (see post above). Thus more likely that the climber's fingertip slips off. (Often happens with Open grip on a thin edge).

If the finger's distal link is angled _above_ horizontal (i.e. the vertical position of the outer tip of fingertip cylinder is below the joint (DIP) connecting the distal link with interior finger links and hand and wrist), then the tip of the bone cylinder is closer in to the rear end of edge-hold.

• claim 1: A larger length + area (larger than simple horizontal case above) of the soft tissue of the fingertip is well-supported by underlying inner bone -- so the soft tissue tends of hold more stable in its contact with the edge.

. . (This is not saying that the total area of surface contact is larger than the simple horizontal case, rather it might by smaller).

• claim 2: The half-sphere tip of the bone tends to "ride lower" (because the force of the climber's body weight is focused into a smaller area), so it applies more pressure on the soft tissue -- therefore the soft tissue applies more horizontal "anti-shear" force to the edge-hold top surface. So it is more liklely that this force is higher the than required anti-shear force (see post above). Thus more likely that the climber's fingertip stays on.

The distal link of the finger will tend to angled above horizontal if the MetaCarpal-Phalangeal (MCP) joint (connecting base of visible finger to the hand) is more flexed and higher. The MCP will tend to higher if most obviously applicable Wrist joint (Carpal-Metacarpal) is more flexed and higher.

I'd be glad for more careful analysis of the physics and physiology here.

Maybe careful personal experiments are easier (and more convincing). But it's difficult for many of us to achieve substantially different MCP or Carpal-Metacarpal flexion angles, when hanging with full body weight.

Ken

kenr wrote: Anyway I did some more analysis on my second argument, and it turns out the simple physics (based on basic first-year mechanics of force-torque static equilibrium), yield a clear result: fx = (z / x) * mG where * fx is the horizontal "anti-shear" force from the climber's fingertip against the top surface of the edge-hold which is _required_ in order to keep the climber's body from slipping off. * x is the horizontal distance from the edge-hold outward to the climber's body center-of-mass. * z is the vertical distance from the edge-hold downward to the climber's body center-of-mass. * mG is the downward force of earth's gravity due to the climber's body mass. implications of that equation: * the closer inward the climber's body center-of-mass is to the fingerboard, the higher anti-shear force is required. So more likely that the actual force is insufficient, thus more likely the climber's fingers blow off the hold. * the lower downward the climber's center-of-mass hangs below the hold, the higher the _required_ anti-shear force, so the more likely the climber's fingers slip off the hold.

i think you have the z/x inverted. if you take a moment about the climbers COG, basically fx*z = fz*x. this makes a lot more sense as anybody who has ever climbed on slopers will quickly point out that both of your 'implications' are completely backwards...

kenr wrote: How about taking seriously the simple physics model for the second argument. Such as some personal experiments with substantially different wrist (or elbow or shoulder) positions. Ken

I did take it seriously: after observing that my fingers slipped off the hold when my wrist fell out of dorsiflexion and my elbow drifted posteriorly, I started this thread to get some ideas about what to do about it. I'll try out what you're suggesting during my next workout and see how it goes, but I think it contradicts a lot of other sources.

Meanwhile, I did talk this issue over with a friend of mine (fwiw, he's a professional climbing coach and a 5.13 climber), he recommended strengthening the wrist to make it stronger in dorsiflexion.

optimistic, i think i know what you are describing. sometimes i will find myself almost trying to plank to keep my fingers on. i have really noticed this on a sloper hold that i have built. on the sloper, i can tell that my wrists are pretty weak in this position, so i am going to start trying to work on that a bit.

Optimistic wrote: Meanwhile, I did talk this issue over with a friend of mine (fwiw, he's a professional climbing coach and a 5.13 climber), he recommended strengthening the wrist to make it stronger in dorsiflexion.

The wrist doesn't dorsiflex. Only the ankle does. (edit: I guess some sources use that term for the wrist but typically this motion describes the ankle alone...better just to say wrist extension)

But anyway, I think it's a good idea to get feedback from someone who can visually see whatever it is you're talking about. There is also a possibility that this "problem" might not alter your outcome in any significant way to begin with. (Don't know, just posing the idea.)

slim wrote: i think you have the z/x inverted. if you take a moment about the climbers COG, basically fx*z = fz*x. this makes a lot more sense as anybody who has ever climbed on slopers will quickly point out that both of your 'implications' are completely backwards...

You're probably right about what works for slopers.

But it just hit me that for dead hangs (no feet touching anything) my analysis and formula for the second argument is completely wrongheaded.

Ken