An updated perspective on “The Simplest Finger Training Program” I created in 2019.
I still think this framework works extremely well, but primarily because each phase biases different physiological adaptations.
Density hangs likely improve sustainable force production, oxidative capacity, fatigue resistance, and tissue tolerance. This is the foundation phase that prepares the fingers for harder loading later.
Recruitment pulls shift toward maximal force production. Overcoming isometrics likely bias motor unit recruitment, force expression, and stiffness differently than longer duration yielding hangs.
Velocity hangs/pulls bridge strength into climbing specific force application. Faster loading rates and rapid tension development likely train qualities more relevant to board climbing, dynamic movement, and hard bouldering.
Grip position likely matters as well.
Open hand positions appear to bias longer muscle lengths and greater muscular contribution while reducing some pulley stress concentration. Half and full crimp positions increase tendon, pulley, and joint loading while improving climbing specificity and maximal force demands.
Instead of treating all finger training as the same stimulus, it may be more useful to think about progression through:
1. capacity
2. force
3. speed#
Different loading strategies create different physiological adaptations.
#rockclimbing
#climbingtraining
#fingerstrength
#hangboardtraining
c4hp
A recent climbing paper compared “HIMA” vs “PIMA” finger training using weighted hangs versus unilateral dynamometer pulling.
Both groups improved finger strength, RFD, and hang performance after only 4 weeks.
But the more interesting question is whether the study actually isolated different contraction strategies at all.
The paper frames weighted hangs as a “holding” isometric and dynamometer pulls as an “overcoming” isometric.
I’m not convinced the distinction was that clean.
The methods never clearly described:
• body position
• shoulder contribution
• preload strategy
• finger flexor intent
• whether athletes were truly curling into the edge
If the athlete simply lowered their body into the hold while pulling against the dynamometer, mechanically that still resembles a supported hang.
That is not necessarily a true finger specific overcoming isometric.
The paper also never standardized contraction intent.
Trying to aggressively curl into an immovable edge is probably very different neurologically than simply resisting bodyweight.
Another issue is the testing itself.
Peak force and RFD were both tested using the same instruction:
“pull as fast and hard as possible.”
That may bias both testing and adaptation toward the dynamometer group since they were already training explosive unilateral pulls.
The intervention was also extremely short at only 8 sessions total.
Because overcoming finger contractions require coordination and motor learning, that may not be enough time for athletes to fully adapt to the task.
The study is still valuable because it pushes the conversation forward.
But future climbing research needs to better isolate:
• intent
• position
• muscular contribution
• passive tissue loading
• yielding vs overcoming mechanics
Right now those variables are not clearly distinct.
#fingertraining #climbingtraining #climbingrehab #climbingrehabilitation #c4hp
Upper Extremity Rehab 4 Climbers @moumogram
2-Day Course for Healthcare Providers
Rock climbers place extreme, repetitive loads on the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and fingers—often in positions that don’t map cleanly onto traditional orthopedic models.
This 2-day course is built for physicians, PTs, chiropractors, and massage therapists who treat climbers and want a clearer, more defensible approach to injury assessment, diagnosis, prognosis, and rehabilitation.
We’ll cover:
-Climbing-specific biomechanics and injury mechanisms
-The most common shoulder, elbow, wrist, and finger injuries in climbers
-Client intake and clinical reasoning specific to climbing
-Functional testing: force, rate of force development, and capacity
-How to modify climbing and training
-When education, passive care, splinting/bracing, or imaging actually makes sense
Format
Day 1 AM: Shoulder & elbow injuries (didactic)
Day 1 PM: testing, training progressions and case studies
Day 2 AM: Wrist & finger injuries (didactic)
Day 2 PM: testing, training progressions and case studies
This course is not about protocols. It’s about understanding load, tissue stress, progression, and applying that understanding to real climbers with real constraints.
If you treat climbers and want better outcomes, this course is designed for you.
Comment REHAB for ticket information.
#swedishclimbing
#swedishclimbingfederation
#climbingrehab
#climbingrehabilitation
#climbinginjuries
One of the biggest problems in shoulder rehab is assuming every painful or stiff shoulder is a “tight capsule” problem.
The GH capsule is extremely load tolerant tissue. It is designed to stabilize the shoulder while still allowing massive ranges of motion. The idea that we are mechanically deforming or permanently lengthening it with a few stretches is probably overstated outside of conditions like adhesive capsulitis.
That does not mean stretching is useless.
Stretching may still improve symptoms and range of motion. But the mechanism is likely more complicated than simply “stretching connective tissue.” Reduced guarding, altered pain perception, improved movement confidence, stress relaxation, fluid changes, and gradual exposure to previously avoided positions are probably all involved.
This is also why full-range strength training is often effective for shoulder pain.
You are not just moving the shoulder. You are teaching the system that those ranges are safe, strong, and usable again.
For many shoulder pain cases, especially rotator cuff-related pain, strength through range matters more than aggressively chasing passive mobility.
#climbingrehab #climbingrehabilitation #climbinginjury #climbinginjuries #c4hp
Risk vs consequence
This is a super important distinction to understand in bouldering. And no, you cannot avoid this by always climbing in a group. It’s an incredibly common misconception that climbing in a group is automatically safer than climbing alone!
The first lesson I would teach someone about climbing safely is that every single time you step off the ground, you are taking on risk. There is no 100% safe climbing environment, even the jugs on the kid’s wall at your local gym. The consequence in that situation is much lower than the consequences of say, free soloing a wall. But the risk is not zero. Holds spin and break. The human body is not a totally predictable system, either.
The second lesson would be that you are always responsible for your own safety, even when in a group. You should never assume the pads are set up correctly, or that a toprope is set up the way you want it to be set up. You need to take steps to review these things yourself or at least get assurances in cases where review isn’t possible before you take on risk.
The third lesson is the one in this reel – to learn to distinguish between risk and consequence. In this case I am speaking specifically about setting up the pads for bouldering, but here are some examples:
Low risk / low consequence: climbing an easy, short boulder or an easy route.
Low risk / high consequence: free soloing a route that is extremely easy for you. You are unlikely to fall, but a fall would be catastrophic.
High risk / low consequence: Situations where you are likely to fall, but not in a bad way. Harder bouldering close to the ground and most sport climbing.
High risk / high consequence: a highball boulder or trad route that is challenging for you.
Individual problems and routes can also have different sections that fall into different categories, as I imply in the reel, and this is worth taking time to understand.
#climbingcoach #climbingtraining #bouldering
Climbers often reduce finger injury risk down to a single concept:
But the tissues of the fingers likely do not interpret all “intensity” the same way.
There is a major difference between:
• Controlled high force loading
• Explosive high force loading
• Long-duration, low-force loading
Fingerboard training is a good example. The force can be high, but the loading rate is slower, the direction is controlled, and the volume is lowest. This may allow the connective tissues to develop a stiffness response while keeping recovery demands relatively manageable.
Board climbing is different. The forces are often high AND explosive. The fingers experience rapid force spikes, changing vectors, body swing, rotation, and uneven loading patterns. This is likely one of the highest mechanical stress environments for the pulleys, tendons, and joints.
Then there is the type of session many climbers underestimate:
High volume, lower intensity climbing.
Large holds, long sessions, repeated gripping, and high total movement counts may create substantial recovery demand despite lower peak force. The loading is often not intense enough to create the same connective tissue stiffness adaptations seen with higher force work, but the total exposure may still irritate pulleys, tendon sheaths, and joint capsules.
The take home message: “Intensity” is not one variable.
Peak force, loading rate, direction change, compression, movement variability, and total volume all matter when discussing finger rehabilitation and injury risk.
#climbingrehab #climbingrehabilitation #climbinginjury #climbingpain #c4hp
Comment “Level 2” for more information and details about our currently available courses!
*Must be a Level 1 Coach to attend*
📍NYC, May 16/17
📍Germany, July 25/26
📍California, Aug 22/23
Dorsal-sided PIP joint pain in climbers is usually termed “capsulitis” or “synovitis”, but that’s often an incomplete evaluation.
The central slip sits directly over the PIP joint and functions as a dynamic stabilizer during gripping. As crimp intensity increases, the tissue is exposed to increasing compression, tension, bending, and shear simultaneously.
Open hand gripping likely creates more prolonged low-grade loading. Half crimp and full crimp dramatically increase dorsal compression and extensor mechanism stress around the PIP joint.
This may help explain why climbers commonly present with:
• dorsal finger pain
• side swelling around the PIP
• morning stiffness
• pain during crimping
• soreness after dynamic loading
On ultrasound, I commonly see fluid and inflammatory changes near the central slip insertion in these athletes.
That does not necessarily mean a major tear.
But it may represent repetitive low-grade overload of the dorsal extensor apparatus from years of high-force crimping.
This makes management quite difficult when an athlete continues to climb.
If you’re a rehab professional interested in learning how to manage climbing injuries, comment REHAB for information on courses this year.
#climbingrehab #climbingrehabilitation #climbinginjury #climbinginjury #c4hp
This is a working hypothesis I’ve been thinking through with finger loading and pulley stress. A2 rehab cases will note more pain with the MCP joint straight versus having it “flexed” under the edge.
Regarding the half crimp position. Most climbers treat it as one fixed grip, but small changes in MCP position seem to meaningfully change how load is distributed.
When the MCP is more extended, the flexor tendons are pulled more linearly across the proximal phalanx. That likely creates a sharper deflection angle at the A2 pulley, resulting in more focal loading at that location.
When the MCP is flexed (curling the palm under the edge), the tendon wraps earlier, shifting some of the load proximally. My hypothesis is that this redistributes stress across A1 and A2, rather than concentrating it at a single point.
This does not mean less load. It likely means a different load distribution.
The second component is muscle contribution.
With MCP flexion, you likely get more involvement from the intrinsic muscles (lumbricals and interossei), rather than relying primarily on FDP-driven force. That could increase total muscle activation and change how force is transferred through the pulley system.
From a rehab perspective, this might offer a way to reintroduce load to the A2 pulley while reducing peak stress concentration.
From a training perspective, it may be a way to change the stimulus without changing the external load.
This is not something that has been clearly demonstrated in the literature. But mechanically, it is consistent with how tendon path, joint position, and force sharing interact.
#climbingrehab #a2pulley #pulleyinjury #fingerstrength #c4hp
