Posted by https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kXgC9_VcpkSn8AJXm_x7mlUU71yCujrR/view?usp=drive_link
This STEAM project presents itself as an exploration of the effect that height and muscle mass have on a person’s ability to climb a 5.7 route. The course objectives covered are those in units four and five, the skeletal and muscular system respectively, that describe the movement of bones/muscles using proper terminology. As a case study, the knee joint’s flexion and extension are examined as models one through four (in clockwise order in the video from top left: Levi Suelberg, Axton Siekmann, Mallory Williams, Adrienne Cohoon) make their way up the climbing route. Literature on the topic argues that there is no significant effect of height on climbing skill (Ginszt et al., 2024) (Mermier et al., 2000) and this essay does not attempt to make any such claim on the topic.
The order of finishing the route was: Axton (58s), Levi (1m 12s), Adrienne (1m 20s), Mallory (1m 32s), which coincides with the order for their height. This does not line up with climbing experience; Adrienne has been climbing for twenty-four months, Axton for eighteen months, Mallory for six months and Levi for four. It appears from the video that Levi’s height allows him to haphazardly but successfully perform moves that take Adrienne and Mallory more calculation and care. Even if he is not skilled enough to reach the move through technique he is able to reach a stable position using his height to his advantage. This can make even a dynamic route (one that would normally involve dynos and momentum-based moves) very static (can be performed from a still position, with little to no swinging action).
Biologically, the angle at which the climber has extended their knee in order to reach the next hold is greater for shorter climbers. At various points in the video I have stopped and highlighted the angles at which the legs of the climbers are bent and how this affects them. Mallory at various key moves needs to readjust her positioning in order to more stably push off into the next move, which Axton and Levi barely do.
Muscles involved in knee flexion include the gastrocnemius (triceps surae), semimembranosus, biceps femoris (short & long heads), popliteus, semitendinosus, gracilis, plantaris, and the sartorius. The sartorius and gracilis muscles aid in flexion and medial rotation of the lower leg at the knee. The gastrocnemius is involved in plantar flexion of the foot and flexion of the leg at the knee. The semimembranosus and semitendinosus help flex the leg at the knee joint and rotates the leg medially. The biceps femoris long head provides flexion and lateral rotation of the lower leg and extends the thigh at the hip. The biceps femoris short head, however, only performs flexion and lateral rotation of the lower leg. The popliteus muscle provides medial movement of the lower leg and flexion of the lower leg at the knee joint. The plantaris aids in flexion of the lower leg and plantar flexion of the foot at the ankle. Conversely, the muscles involved in knee extension are the same, working oppositely. It is important to note that climbing involves many swift movements that transition knee flexion and extension seamlessly. The bones involved are the femur, patella, tibia and fibula; these serve as anchors for the muscles and load the stress as the climbers shift their weight onto them. Secondary in the movements are the foot bones (tarsals, metatarsals, phalanges) and the pelvic bone. These work in conjunction with the muscles as a support.
In conclusion, climbing gives a new appreciation and framework with which to understand how our muscles and bones work, across different body compositions.
References
Ginszt, A., Zieliński, G., Dolina, A., Stachyra, E., Zaborek-Łyczba, M., Łyczba, J., Gawda, P., & Ginszt, M. (2024). Anthropometric Parameters and Body Composition in Elite Lead Climbers and Boulderers—A Retrospective Study. Applied Sciences, 14(13), 5603. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135603
Mermier, C. M., Janot, J. M., Parker, D. L., & Swan, J. G. (2000). Physiological and anthropometric determinants of sport climbing performance. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 34(5), 359–365. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.34.5.359
For her STEAM project, King researched the effect that height and muscle mass has on performance when climbing a 5.7 route. She did this by conducting an experiment involving 4 of her classmates. They each climbed the same 5.7, and were timed from the ground to the top of the route. The independent variables of this experiment were the climbers’ height and experience.
After reading King’s essay, I had learned that height can in fact affect technique and performance when it comes to climbing. When it came to climbing experience, the order in which climbers finished the route (based on height) did not align with their climbing experience. These results suggested that height could be an advantage, even over more experienced climbers. Additionally, since shorter climbers commonly have smaller frames, they potentially would have to adjust their positions more frequently when compared to taller climbers.
I also learned about the biological mechanisms involved with climbing, specifically the flexion and extension of the knee joint and various bones located in the extremities. Muscles such as the gastrocnemius, semimembranosus, and biceps femoris contribute to knee movements that allow climbers to push off or stabilize their position. The bones involved in climbing, like the femur, patella, tibia and fibula work with muscles to structurally support movements while climbing.
This project combined biomechanics, climbing experience and physical traits to see how it affects climbing performance. After reviewing King’s beautifully crafted STEAM project, I can say confidently that it helped me visualize the mechanisms of the muscular and skeletal system and further apply what I learned to real world situations.