International rock climbing research association abstracts are up
Including the Lopez paper comparing max hangs to repeaters and several other interesting papers.
My read of her paper is that max hangs were more effective than repeaters, when the "test" is a max hang.
Would be interesting to know how the study groups would have compared if she had added a test for max added weight sustainable over a repeater set (i.e. 10sec/5 sec x 5 in her protocol.)
A quick look at most of the presentations didn't reveal anything too earth shattering, but I'm looking forward to reading deeper.
Thanks for posting this, Mark. I can't figure out what their measurement for "% Strength" is, or maybe I am missing something. If the picture that shows a dude doing what looks like a max hang as their measurement for "% Strength" then it's not surprising to me that those doing max hands would improve the most. I'm hoping someone can clear that up. I am a statistician by training, so to me those sample sizes for each group are insanely low.
You can find her full article at research gate.
IIUC, the strength test consisted of determining the maximum added weight with which the climber could still hold a 15mm edge for 5 seconds.
The data in the paper show the pure max hang group going from 30 kg added to 38 kg after training, repeater group from 34 to 38 and mixed group from 35 to 39.
This isn't actually how the percent gain in strength should be calculated.
You need to include the weight of the climber, not just the added weights.
Combining data, the max group at ST1 held 97 kg, repeaters also 97, mixed 101 kg.
At ST3 max 105.4 (8.7% increase), repeaters 101.7 (4.8 %), mixed 105.6 (4.6%).
I suspect this calculation is bogus statistically, as the data for each individual isn't reported, just the average weight for each group, which is what I have used.
Regardless, I think it's pretty convincing that max hangs are better at improving max hangs.