Tindeq Calculator Classic

Climbing performance is no longer guesswork

With tools like the Tindeq Progressor, you can directly measure finger strength (Peak Load) and endurance (Critical Force) — and use that data to estimate your current sport climbing level.

Most climbers don’t lack strength.
They lack the ability to use it repeatedly.

Common signs include:

✓pumping early

✓struggling to recover

✓feeling strong but inconsistent

Strength isn’t the problem. Your aerobic base is.

Strength isn’t the problem.
Your aerobic base is.

Estimate your current level — most climbers are surprised by the result!

Test

Force plate dynamometer measurements for rock climbing training – Introduction
Sport climbing level calculator for Tindeq Progressor
Brief overview of the climbing grade models
The concept of Critical Force in rock climbing endurance training
Finger flexor Critical Force measurements in practice
Peak Load/Peak Force measurements
What can we learn from CF measurements?
Rock Climbing Critical Force measurements with the Tindeq Progressor – Summary

Force plate dynamometer measurements for rock climbing training - Introduction

Believe it or not, rock climbing training knowledge is still in its infancy compared with sports such as weightlifting, running, or cycling. Nonetheless, rock climbing training underwent a significant evolution in recent years, owing to groundbreaking research done by renowned climbing authors, including Eva Lopez, Steve Bechtel, Eric Horst, Jared Vagy, and Tyler Nelson, to name only a few.

Rock climbing is a multidimensional sport where skills and tactics are equally important as physical conditioning. However, finger strength and endurance are certainly the most critical factors determining the individual’s performance on the rock. In this regard, hangboards remain the primary exercise tool, but new training methods constantly appear.

Force plate dynamometers are some of the most valuable devices to aid climbing training that recently entered the market. They’re small, portable, and easy to carry to the crag. For a coach with some knowledge and experience, such devices can provide valuable insight into the athlete’s physical performance. Now, you don’t necessarily have to use a dynamometer explicitly designed for climbing measurements. In fact, with some creativity, a simple crane scale could also do the job. Still, investing in a climbing training dedicated force plate dynamometer, such as the ExSurgo GStrength or the Tindeq Progressor, allows access to many useful settings that simplify the measurement and results analysis process.

I’ve been using the Tindeq Progressor already for a few years to aid my climbing training, and I recently noticed that a new setting, namely the Critical Force test, had been added. The test is based on the tests described in the 2020 paper by Lattice Training, “An All-Out Test to Determine Finger Flexor Critical Force in Rock Climbers”. In this article, I will discuss my experiences with the Beta version of the Critical Force test by Tindeq and how it can be applied to evaluating sport climbing physical performance.

Sport climbing level calculator for Tindeq Progressor

This is a simple calculator to estimate your current redpoint level based on Peak Load and Critical Force measurements from the Tindeq Progressor. The calculator also lets you compare the result with the model developed by Lattice Training and the model I’ve created for this post. Still, at this early development stage, I believe the calculations based on the earlier 4-trial method are more reliable, although the tests are more time-consuming. To get a detailed automatic sport climbing performance analysis based on the 4-trial method, please try my Sport Climbing Level Calculator.

Climbing routes, not boulders?

The concept of Critical Force in rock climbing endurance training

The concept of finger flexor Critical Force and its role in determining sport climbing performance has been discussed extensively on my blog, and I've been using it regularly to assess climbers ¹². However, looking at it again from the perspective of the new all-out test makes sense.

In theory, finger flexor Critical Force is the force a climber can generate on and off for a very long time. You may compare that to Critical Speed. For example, there is a certain walking speed with which a person could go on for many kilometers, but as soon as they start running fast, they’ll quickly get exhausted and need to rest. Critical Speed is the maximum speed they could walk theoretically unlimitedly ³. Finger flexor Critical Force in climbing is similar; it is the theoretical load you can endure intermittently and infinitely on your fingers. The higher this force is relative to your body weight, the better your expected sport climbing performance.

To determine the Critical Force of my clients, I typically use the three separate repeaters tests at 80%, 60%, and 45% MVC-7, as described in the earlier paper by Lattice Training ⁴. Based on this method, I built an extensive database of results, letting me determine the athlete’s climbing level ¹. Because the 80%, 60%, and 45% MVC-7 loads roughly represent the anaerobic alactic, anaerobic lactic, and aerobic endurance systems, the results allow insight into the performance of the entire spectrum of the endurance profile.

However, the original test has drawbacks. First of all, four separate trials are required, often split into two individual testing sessions because fatigue accumulation would negatively impact the test results. Moreover, you need to have added weight at your disposal and a pulley unloading system behind your hangboard. Finally, the 60% and 45% MVC-7 tests can take up to 20 minutes, which can be grueling and mentally challenging, preventing some climbers from completing the measurements. In contrast, the new test proposed by Lattice Training allows the determination of Critical Force in one relatively quick trial, lasting only 4 minutes, which is a huge advantage and enables us to assess the client very quickly.

Figure 1: Typical Critical Force curves made with the original Lattice Training method - my personal 1-year training progress.

Brief overview of the climbing grade models

In this blog post, you’ll find a simple calculator letting you approximately predict your sport climbing level based on the Tindeq Progressor measurements. Here, I’m comparing two different models - the first is a model developed by Lattice Training and published in their 2021 paper. The second is my alternative model, which includes Peak Load measurements as a parameter.

Model 1: Lattice Training

The first model was developed by Lattice Training, based on the research done for their 2021 paper ⁵. In the article the model is named CF% BM Unadjusted - see Figure 2. The model considers the relationship between the climber’s CF and body mass (BM). The results from the tests are recalculated to the numerical IRCRA scale, as explained in the 2016 article by Draper et al. ⁶ According to the authors, The CF as a % body mass was positively associated with both sport climbing and bouldering performance, and the Lattice Training model enables predicting the tested athlete’s sport climbing redpoint grade.

Even better results were reported after combining the W’ relative to body weight with CF relative to body weight. Unfortunately, the Tindeq Progressor software cannot extract W’ from the measurements yet, so I didn’t consider this model in the calculator. In any case, the reported accuracy of both models is similar.

Figure 2: Linear regression model S2 - Critical Force (% Body mass) adapted from the 2021 Lattice Training paper ⁵.

Model 2: StrengthClimbing

Based on my experience with Critical Force measurements and redpoint climbing grade prediction,
I developed my own model that considers the Critical Force relative to body mass as well as the Peak Force relative to body mass. I believe that evaluating the finger flexor endurance in the context of finger strength improves the accuracy of the analysis. However, this is still an experimental model, and for reliable results, please use my Sport Climbing Level Calculator, which is based on the original 4-test method ¹.

Please try out both models and let me know which one works better for you!

Finger flexor Critical Force measurements in practice

The first mention of a single-bout forearm Critical Force test was published in 2014 by Kellawan and Tschakovsky ⁷. But it wasn’t until the test consisting of four separate trials was described by Giles in 2019 that the concept of Critical Force became more widely recognized in the climbing community ⁴.

To carry out the test proposed by Lattice Training in 2019, you first measure the 7-second maximum finger strength (MVC-7). Then, you calculate 80%, 60%, and 45% of that value and perform three separate endurance tests with the respective loads. High-level amateurs and professional climbers, whose CF may be higher than 45% MVC-7, typically use 50% or even 55% MVC-7 loads in the final trial. During each test, you perform 7/3 Repeaters until failure.

Typically, for the 80% test, you need to add some weight to your harness, and for the 45% - 60% tests, you need to subtract some of your weight using a pulley setup. That may pose additional complications, especially for heavy climbers with poor finger strength, because using a heavy counterweight may be necessary.

After performing each test, you note the Time Under Tension (TUT), the total hanging time at each load. For example, if during your 60% MVC-7 endurance test, you performed 21 full 7-second hangs and failed at the third second of your 22^nd hang, then the TUT is 7 s *21 + 3 = 150 s. Finally, you input your test results into a spreadsheet or a calculator ¹. The test results serve as input, and based on the equations explained by Giles in his 2019 paper, the extrapolated Critical Force is calculated.

The procedure may seem complex and often impossible to complete within a single testing session. That's why Giles and the Lattice Training team developed a simpler alternative approach and published it in the second paper from 2021. According to the new procedure, we need to perform only one short test instead of four separate tests. The new CF measurement consists of 24 all-out one-arm pulls. CF was defined as the mean end-test force, using the last six contractions of the test. A typical result plot from the Tindeq measurement is shown in Figure 3 below. I explain the entire procedure in Video 1.

Figure 3: Example of a Critical Force curve registered with the Tindeq Progressor.

Video 1: Critical Force (CF) measurement with the Tindeq Progressor instructional video.

Peak Load/Peak Force measurements

The Peak Force or the Peak Load is the force/load that your fingers can generate statically on a given hold. The most commonly used holds are 20 mm edges in half crimp/open hand positions, such as the Tindeq V-Rings. However, the procedure can be done for any hold, including pinches and pockets.

Although the Lattice Training model does not rely on Peak Load measurements, I’m proposing an alternative model with Peak Load as the second parameter. Below, you’ll find brief instructions on how to measure the Peak Load with the Tindeq Progressor. You will find additional information in the RFD article and video ⁸. Before you engage in any measurements or climbing-specific activity, please ensure you're properly warmed up, including your fingers, elbows, shoulders, and back.

Hang your Tindeq Progressor above your head with the V-Ring, or any other portable edge attached, so that your arm is slightly bent when holding the edge.
Turn on and tare your Tindeq Progressor.
Select the Peak Load setting and start a new session.
Load the edge slowly, trying to put as little load as possible on your feet. Strong climbers may need to use an additional load to avoid lifting off.
Save your results for future reference.
Repeat the procedure with your other hand.

Perform the Peak Load measurements one or two more times for both hands to ensure your fingers are fully recruited.

What can we learn from CF measurements?

We can obtain a lot of valuable information from Critical Force measurements. First, knowing the Critical Force lets us decide whether we should train finger flexor endurance at all or whether it’s better to invest our time in finger strength training. As a rule of thumb, you can use Table 1 below to make that decision.

Table 1: Critical Force vs. maximum finger strength training criteria.

Critical Force vs. Peak Force training criteria
CF/PF > 50%	Train finger strength
35% < CF/PF < 50%	Train both
CF/PF < 35%	Train finger endurance

Second, you can optimize hangboard endurance training once you measure your CF. For example, as a rule of thumb, climbing coaches may recommend performing hangboard endurance training exercises at 40% MVC intensity. However, for some climbers, that means exercising in the aerobic regime, while others will already be in the anaerobic intensity range. That means the two groups will be subjected to different training stimuli, and various intervention outcomes will be observed ⁵⁴. Knowing the Critical Force of the athlete allows the coach to prescribe exercises at the intensity precisely targeting the right adaptation.

Furthermore, knowing W’ makes it possible to calculate the exact training load to allow you to continue the exercise for a certain target time. For example, let’s say you’re projecting an endurance route that takes 5 minutes to climb. Based on the result of your CF measurement, you may calculate the 7/3 Repeaters training load to improve your 5-minute endurance. After several weeks of training, you will find that you have more finger strength remaining for the final moves of the route.

Finally, with the models developed by researchers such as Lattice Training and myself, it’s possible to predict the athlete’s potential redpoint performance based on the CF measurement. That, in turn, makes it possible to establish whether the climber requires more physical conditioning (if they’re overperforming for their calculated grade) or more outdoor climbing and technical drills if they’re underperforming on the rock.

Rock Climbing Critical Force measurements with the Tindeq Progressor - Summary

In this article, I’ve discussed a method that allows us to directly perform finger forearm flexor Critical Force measurements with the new Tindeq Progressor feature. Furthermore, I’ve included a simple calculator that makes estimating your current redpoint level possible based on the Peak Load and Critical Force measurements. The calculator also lets you compare the result obtained with the model developed by Lattice Training and the model I’ve created for this post. Still, at this early development stage, I believe the calculations based on the earlier 4-trial method are more reliable, although the tests are more time-consuming. To get a detailed automatic sport climbing performance analysis based on the 4-trial method, please try my Sport Climbing Level Calculator.

Interestingly, in the conclusions of the 2021 Lattice Training paper, we read that:

“Further research is necessary to determine if ff-CF and W’ are trainable characteristics in climbers and the efficacy of interventions based on exercise intensities determined relative to ff-CF end-test force.”

This question is relatively easy to answer since Critical Force is a measure of endurance, and we know that endurance can be trained. In fact, over the years, I’ve been tracking my Critical Force measured with the original 4-test method, and I’ve found beyond all doubt that I could significantly improve it in absolute numbers (kg), relative to my body weight, and relative to my MVC-7. For example, in the period between July 2019 and July 2020, I increased my CF/MVC-7 ratio from 30% to 40% by doing Endurance Repeaters Pyramids - see Figure 1 ².

What is more interesting is how impactful Critical Force training is on improving the athlete’s sport climbing performance at the crag. From my own experience and the experience of the athletes I’ve trained, I can say that working on your Critical Force gives you more confidence and makes it possible to climb longer, with less pump and, consequently, better technique. It also improves the recovery rate between burns and allows you to perform more hard tries during the climbing day. From this perspective, finger flexor Critical Force training can potentially affect many different aspects of your climbing, including technique and tactics.

If you’re new to sport climbing, or you’ve been stuck in a rut trying to figure out why your lead climbing level is not improving despite you doing body weight 7/3 Repeaters, you might try to evaluate your Critical Force with any of the methods described in this post and see if you can get interesting insight into your climbing performance. Please let me know about your experiences in the comments!

References

J. Banaszczyk, StrengthClimbing – Sport Climbing Level Calculator – Automatic Climbing Assessment!, Apr. 09, 2023. (link)
J. Banaszczyk, StrengthClimbing – The Best Hangboard Endurance Training For Rock Climbing – Pyramids, Mar. 02, 2023. (link)
Smyth, B., Muniz-Pumares, D., 2020. Calculation of Critical Speed from Raw Training Data in Recreational Marathon Runners. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. (link)
Giles, D., Chidley, J.B., Taylor, N., Torr, O., Hadley, J., Randall, T., Fryer, S., 2019. The Determination of Finger-Flexor Critical Force in Rock Climbers. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 1–8. (link)
Giles, D., Hartley, C., Maslen, H., Hadley, J., Taylor, N., Torr, O., Chidley, J., Randall, T., Fryer, S., 2021. An All-Out Test to Determine Finger Flexor Critical Force in Rock Climbers. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. (link)
Draper, N., Giles, D., Schöffl, V., Konstantin Fuss, F., Watts, P., Wolf, P., Baláš, J., Espana-Romero, V., Blunt Gonzalez, G., Fryer, S., Fanchini, M., Vigouroux, L., Seifert, L., Donath, L., Spoerri, M., Bonetti, K., Phillips, K., Stöcker, U., Bourassa-Moreau, F., Garrido, I., Drum, S., Beekmeyer, S., Ziltener, J.-L., Taylor, N., Beeretz, I., Mally, F., Mithat Amca, A., Linhart, C., Abreu, E., 2015. Comparative grading scales, statistical analyses, climber descriptors and ability grouping: International Rock Climbing Research Association position statement. Sports Technology. (link)
Kellawan, J.M., Tschakovsky, M.E., 2014. The Single-Bout Forearm Critical Force Test: A New Method to Establish Forearm Aerobic Metabolic Exercise Intensity and Capacity.(link)
J. Banaszczyk, StrengthClimbing – All You Need To Know For Perfect RFD Measurements With Tindeq Progressor!, June 02, 2023.(link)

Strong fingers — but still getting pumped?

Instant access • Premium included
Lifetime updates

About the author

40 thoughts on “Tindeq Calculator Classic”

Sergio
July 12, 2026 at 3:59 pm

Hello Jędrzej, thanks for all the great resources.
I completed the critical force and peak load assesments with the Tindeq and have some doubts about next steps. For reference, I’ve climbed multiple 7a, some 7a+ and one 7b.

I got 36kg (left) and 37.7kg (right) peak load and 13kg (left) and 14.6kg (right) critical force. According to table 1 I need to train both strength and endurance (CF/PF = 36%-38%), but closer to the “train endurance” limit.
Then I saw in one of your videos that with a W’ lower than 1500 you should train anaerobic endurance. I got 657.8 (left) and 883.1 (right).

Looks like I need to train everything? Should I focus for some time in aerobic endurance (60%-80% of CF repeaters), or focus on anaerobic endurance or just increase my max strength first and then endurance…?

Thank you again, cheers.

Reply
1. Jędrzej
  July 13, 2026 at 4:45 am
  
  Hi Sergio,
  Thanks for the detailed comment. The 1,500 kg·s W′ threshold came from a video I made about a year ago, and in hindsight, I think presenting it as a clear cutoff was misleading. The interpretation is much more nuanced.
  A W′ of 1,500 kg·s is already quite high, but even a value around 1,000—or sometimes 500 kg·s—doesn’t automatically mean that anaerobic endurance should be the priority. Depending on Peak Load, Critical Force, body weight and the relationships between them, the better direction might be finger strength, aerobic endurance or anaerobic endurance.
  These nuances are now built into the updated calculator algorithm. If you like, send me your complete results by email and I’ll take a closer look and tell you which training direction makes the most sense in your case.
  Cheers,
  Jędrzej
  
  Reply
  1. rubiosrm
    July 14, 2026 at 8:00 pm
    
    Ok it makes sense what you said about W’ and the relationship between the other qualities. And I forgot to say something important, I’m 75kg. So PL/BW 48%, CF/BW 17.3% and CF/PL 36.1%.
    
    I used the updated calculator, great resource. “Aerobic deficit” and recommended focus “Aerobic Base Expansion Program”, I guess that solves my doubt 🙂
    
    Thanks again, cheers,
    Sergio
    
    Reply
    1. Jędrzej
      July 15, 2026 at 6:37 am
      
      Thanks, Sergio! Yes, that makes sense. Looking at your results as a whole, I’d agree with the calculator’s recommendation. Your sustainable force (Critical Force) appears to be the main limitation, so I’d focus on building your aerobic base before worrying about additional anaerobic endurance work.
      
      If you’d like, send me screenshots of your complete test results. I’m continuously improving the calculator models for research, so well-executed tests like yours are always valuable.
      
      Cheers!
      
      Reply
Juliet
June 3, 2026 at 3:41 pm

Hello! Just to clarify, should the CF test be performed in the half crimp?

Reply
1. Jędrzej
  June 8, 2026 at 1:54 pm
  
  Hi Juliet,
  
  Thanks for reaching out!
  
  The CF test should be performed using the Active Curl method. In practice, this means an overcoming isometric contraction where you gradually move from a slightly extended finger position into a half-crimp position while pulling maximally on the edge. The same movement pattern should be used throughout the test, as well as during the Maximum Force assessment, so that the resulting metrics remain comparable.
  
  I have recently updated the calculator and testing recommendations on the page, so please make sure to check the latest instructions before testing.
  
  If you’d like to use the original endurance-focused calculator, I’ve moved it to a separate page:
  
  https://strengthclimbing.com/calculate-your-sport-climbing-grade-with-the-new-tindeq-setting-classic/
  
  Good luck, and let me know if anything is unclear!
  
  Cheers
  
  Reply
Leo Cherri
June 1, 2026 at 6:08 am

Hi! Thank you so much for all the information. I just bought the Tindeq and started testing it. In passive pull (20 mm, unlevel) my peak was 65. But on a 21–22 mm edge of the BeastMaker I can hold for 2–3 seconds. I couldn’t complete the 24 repetitions of the CF test (23 with the left, 20 with the right), and obtained a CF of 16.5. The calculator gives me 7c. I can climb some 7c+ in two goes, and have onsighted 7b+. I have redpointed 8a in three to seven sessions. I can do the moves of an 8a+ in one session, but I still feel it’s too hard for me (even achievable), I’ve never projected it. And I did the moves of two 8b routes in two sessions (but without having linked the whole cruxes or long sequences). So, I guess the approximation is pretty good, in the next sense.
That said, I feel capable of climbing any 7c, but I don’t know if I could climb any 8a. The 8as I have sent were always convenient for me (easy section, hard boulder; or hard boulder, good rest, hard boulder, good rest, easy section; or continuous 7c, good rest, boulder). So I guess I took advantage of my strengths to send, avoiding my weaknesses (and that window shrinks as the grade progresses: an 8a+ is possible, but maybe needs two months or more, an 8b is still possible, but maybe needs one year or more). Maybe we can express the result in portencage, as the Boulder Calculator. Let’s say: 95-100% 7c, 80-5% 7c+. 60-75% 8a, 30-45% 8a+, 10-25% 8b. Finally, I guess the more unbalanced the climber’s abilities, the wider the spectrum in harder grades.
It’s clear I have to train my CF. I will start with the pyramid protocol at 80, 70, and 65. Thank you so much!

Reply
1. Jędrzej
  June 1, 2026 at 7:28 pm
  
  Thank you for sharing the results and your thoughts. Based on everything you’ve described, I think your interpretation is largely correct.
  
  What stands out to me is not so much the estimated CF value itself, but the fact that you were unable to complete the 24 repetitions of the CF test despite having a very respectable peak force. That combination usually points to a large gap between maximum force production and force sustainability.
  
  Your description of the climbing you’ve historically gravitated toward also fits this picture very well: hard individual moves, good rests, short cruxes, and avoiding long continuous sequences. Over time, that tends to reinforce strengths while allowing aerobic limitations to persist.
  
  The encouraging part is that this is often highly trainable. If your assessment is correct, there may be considerably more potential to unlock by improving force sustainability than by continuing to chase higher peak force numbers.
  
  Personally, I would spend some time focusing on low-intensity aerobic finger training. In particular, you may want to look into AC-AR repeaters, which are designed specifically to improve force sustainability and local aerobic capacity in the forearms.
  
  Keep in mind that one test never tells the whole story, but based on the information you’ve provided, improving your aerobic base appears to be the most logical next step.
  
  I’d be very interested to see how your CF responds after a few weeks of focused training.
  
  Reply
Jordi Schröder Bosch
September 8, 2025 at 7:15 am

Thanks for the great resources!

I did the test with a 17mm edge (83kg) with my right dominant hand, finding that my CF/PL is around 35% (PL = 59.7 and CF = 21.4; W’ = 1171kg*s)). This would suggest that I should work on anaerobic/aerobic endurance (I did not have the courage to do the 10 min test you suggest in your latest video).

Out of curiosity, I did the same with active curls, since I was going to use the CF number there to do the repeater exercise you suggest in one video to work on endurance. I have not trained active curls much, so I was expecting to see much lower numbers. What surprised me, is that the imbalance between PL and CF completely changed here. For my left (non-dominant hand), I had a PL of 31.4 and a CF of 18.44kg, with the CF/PL being well above 50%, which would suggest to work on max strength.

How should I read this? Does this suggest to work on max strength for active curls and endurance for passive ones? Or would that be too mechanical an interpretation of the results?

Thanks for your time!

Reply
1. Jędrzej
  September 9, 2025 at 8:36 am
  
  Hi Jordi,
  
  Thanks for the results – any such data is interesting for me. Yes, it is evident that you haven’t worked with active curls before, because the ratio between active to passive PL is 52%. The standard would be 80%. That means that you have a big passive strength potential, that now needs to be converted into active strength, so working with active curls can go a long way for you! Regarding CF, I’d need to look at the creenshots from your tests, to be able to say more. Can you send them over to me via email? Thanks!
  
  Reply
Russell Wu
July 30, 2025 at 4:41 am

Thank you for this article, I found it very useful and a great alternative to the complete test.

My testing results only make sense when I enter the SUM of tindeq peak force tests for my R and L hand as my Peak Load and the AVERAGE of critical force test values for my R and L hand, other combinations create results far outside my current climbing range. I found this to be unintuitive and not explained in the article, is this the way the calculator is meant to be used? Also does using PIMA or HIMA matter as long as it is consistent across the peak load and critical force tests?

Thanks in advance for any reply,

Reply
1. Jędrzej
  July 30, 2025 at 7:33 am
  
  Hi,
  Could you please send me your results over email? I need to take a look. The calculator is calibrated for one-arm HIMA, meaning passive pulls. With PIMA, you typically get a result that’s about 20% less (but it differs between individuals).
  
  Reply
Iván García
July 19, 2025 at 9:21 pm

Hi! Just wanted to point out that the pocket depth of the Tindeq V-Rings is 19mm, not 20.

Reply
Luke
March 9, 2025 at 8:39 pm

Jędrzej great article. For someone who has just got a Tindeq Progressor and now I can not worry about guessing weights to warm up with, I done some research on what tests to conduct to work as a foundation/baseline value to improve on and this article was incredibly insightful. Although a few questions, to someone very new to rock climbing training:

Q1) ff-CF = finger flexor Critical Force. MCV-7 = 7 second maximum strength. W’ = ????. PF/PL = Peak Force / Peak Load. What does W’ stand for?
Q2) “Test proposed by Lattice Training in 2019 is conduct MVC-7, then calculate 80%, 60% and 45% of MVC-7 and perform three separate tests with those respective loads.” The test I understand but the ‘perform three separate tests with those values’ I am unsure on. Can you explain further or direct me to the reference?
Q3) 7/3 repeaters. Is that 7 (sets of) x 3 (second holds) repeat between rests?
Q4) Can this CF test be done using pick up tools or must it be a hang?
Q5) PL/PF test, what is meant by ‘put as little load as possible on your feet. Strong climbers may need to use an additional loan to avoid lifting off.’ Is this by wearing a harness and adding weight to it, or by holding something such as a kettlebell in one hand?
Q6) Table 1 provides a rule of thumb to help decide what to train. In Table 1 is “CF/PF > 50%” means CF divided by PF is greater than 50%. 50% of what?

I plan to undertake the 4 min CF test in the near future, to act as the testing phase before working out a (loose) training programme.

Cheers,
Luke

Reply
Bern
January 5, 2025 at 9:57 am

Hello, great article. You wrote that based on W’ you can calculate the load for the 7/3 repeaters, but you don’t go into detail about what would be the best approach to doing that. Can you elaborate that?

Reply
Alex
July 10, 2024 at 8:21 am

Hello!
Thank you so much for your research in the field of rock climbing.
If you have time, could you tell me how you got the table “Table 1: Critical Force vs. maximum finger strength training criteria”?
Is it just an idea? What were your arguments/thoughts when creating this table?

And the second question.
Are you familiar with this article?
Jiri B, Jon, Thomas J, Patrick B, Andre F. Measuring critical force in sport climbers: a validation study of the 4 min all-out test on finger flexors. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2024 Apr 26. doi: 10.1007/s00421-024-05490-7. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38668851.

I started measuring CF using Tinder Progressor.
If I understood correctly, the creators of Tinder Progressor used CF calculation algorithms from the article “An all-out test to determine finger flexor critical force
in rock climber”.

However, in the above article, it seemed to me that this algorithm is being questioned.

Do you think this new data can affect anything?
I have a feeling that the calculation algorithm is not very fundamental if we are talking about the training process and observing trends in CF changes (rise or fall).
The main thing is that the same calculation algorithm is always used.

However, if we are interested in the CF/PF value, then it is very important to calculate CF objectively and correctly.

Therefore, I began to worry a little about defining CF using Tinder Progressor.

What do you think about all this?
Best regards, Alex.

Reply
1. Jędrzej
  July 10, 2024 at 9:11 am
  
  Hello Alex, thank you for the questions and for pointing me to the article. Indeed, I also believe that the 4-minute all-out test significantly overestimates the CF. It’s something that I noticed a while ago, and for this reason, when I set endurance training sessions, I intuitively reduce the load to 75 – 85% of the CF measured with the Tindeq. What I find very interesting about the article is that they managed to correlate the mean end force of the last three contractions well with the real CF. For example, if I take one of my recent measurements, my measured CF is about 25 kg (mean of the average of the three last pulls). However, the mean of the minimum force of the three last pulls is 21 kg, which is about 85% of 25 kg, and this is the setting I use for my training. I think I could probably complete the 720-second test at 21 kg, but definitely not at 25 kg. So yeah, the article is correct.
  
  Regarding the table – as written in my post, it’s a rule of thumb based on my experience and the results of the climbers I tested. If your CF is above 50% of your PF, then either your PF is low or your CF is quite high. In either case, it’s better to focus on your finger strength. If your CF is below 35% of your PF, then the opposite is true – you’re either super strong or your endurance is terrible – it’s better to develop endurance.
  
  Reply
  1. Alex
    July 11, 2024 at 9:03 am
    
    Hello!
    Thanks for your reply.
    
    I still have some questions.
    With your permission, I will ask them. Maybe you can help me figure it out?
    
    1. I don’t really understand what the algorithm for calculating CF in Progressor is.
    Do they take the entire set of points with force values on the last three “7-second presses” and calculate the average force value?
    
    2. And how do the authors of the article calculate the CF value? I didn’t really understand what “mean end-force” means
    In this case, they only take points from the peak maximum to zero, i.e. they discard the starting points: from 0 to the maximum?
    
    In other words, if you look at Figure 1. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380128960/figure/fig2/AS:11431281239322310@1714269206151/Illustrative-example-of-the-all-out-test-Red-dashed-line-represents-critical-force-CF.png) , then it is not very clear to me how the value turned out to be about 23 kg (red dots) and 20 kg (black dots).
    
    Do you have any ideas on this?
    Best regards, Alex.
    
    Reply
    1. Jędrzej
      July 12, 2024 at 10:08 am
      
      I think they detect the time instant when the pull ends, which means that the force abruptly starts to fall off and treat it as the “end-force”, which is about 20 kg in all the pulls. Then they use this as a “start-force”, and in this way they consider all the points between the “start-force” and the “end-force” for calculating the mean values. So, for the 3rd pull from the end you would get a mean value of roughly 20kg + (27 kg – 20 kg)/2 = 23,5 kg. You would get roughly the same for the last but one pull, and for the last pull it would be something like 20kg + (25 kg – 20 kg)/2 = 22,5 kg. And then they calculate the average, which is 2*23,5 kg + 22,5 kg = 23,17 kg. But I’m just guessing. I suppose it’s best to ask them directly.
      
      Reply
Philip
June 11, 2024 at 12:41 pm

That’s a great article!
Just got my Tindeq and did a PL and CF test. With the following results (just right arm on 20mm edge):
PL: ~49 kg
CF: 29.44 kg

Which resulted to 8a climbing level. This is quite spot on. I climbed 8 8a routes on the rock so far and no 8a+ yet. Also, this confirms that I have quite low finger strength compared to my endurance.

Reply
1. Jędrzej
  June 11, 2024 at 1:06 pm
  
  Thanks for the feedback! I’m glad the algorithm works!
  
  Reply
  1. Philip
    June 11, 2024 at 10:00 pm
    
    My wife also tested it in the evening. I can’t remember the numbers right now, but it resulted in 8b+. Her max grade is 8a+.
    
    But she always had strong fingers and flexibility + upper body strength is her weakness. If you like I can send you her numbers the next time she tests.
    
    Reply
    1. Jędrzej
      June 12, 2024 at 5:54 am
      
      Sure, that’d be great. It’s also possible that she has good endurance – women often have high Cf/MVC ratio.
      
      Reply
      1. Philip
        June 12, 2024 at 11:19 am
        
        The numbers were:
        BW: 50kg
        PL: 42kg
        CF: 27.74kg
        on the 20mm edge of the V-Rings from Tindeq.
        
        As a remark: We don’t hangboard a lot and also got the Tindeq quite recently. So I suspect the numbers will be higher if we get used to the testing procedure, even without getting stronger. If you like to collect data (I do as a fellow engineer), I can give you some updates over the next months. But maybe not in form of spamming your article with comments 😉
      2. Jędrzej
        June 13, 2024 at 7:21 am
        
        Hi! Thanks for the data! I think her CF is very high compared to max strength and that explains the calculation result and her high performance on the rock.
Lucas
November 21, 2023 at 9:23 am

Hey Jędrzej,
i don’t understand your Table 1…. CF and PF are to different things (especially the numbers after testing). How can be 50 % of CF be in the same column as 50% of PF. ?
Or how should i unterstand the criteria for training?

Reply
1. Jędrzej
  November 21, 2023 at 10:53 am
  
  Hi Lucas,
  
  Thank you for the question. It’s about the relationship between the measured CF and PF. If your CF is low compared to your PF, then you should train endurance, and if your CF is high, like above 50% of your PF, then you should focus on finger strength. Does this answer your question?
  
  Reply
Maček
September 2, 2023 at 8:19 am

Hi there
Great article, thank you!
I am wondering if the measurement with a lifting from the ground- setup is equally useful as the overhead setup?

Reply
1. Jędrzej
  September 2, 2023 at 9:16 am
  
  Hi, thanks for the question. I can’t say if the results of the two different tests can be compared directly. Probably not. However, such a lifting test can definitely be helpful. There are some things to keep in mind though:
  
  – Are you fixing the Tindeq to the ground (all-out effort), or are you lifting a certain weight?
  – Are you just flexing your fingers, or are you pulling with your back?
  
  The best thing to do would be to run a test in all possible configurations and compare the results.
  
  Reply
  1. Maček
    September 4, 2023 at 7:53 pm
    
    Hi, thanks for the reply.
    I guess to really be able to compare results I will have to use the same setup.
    Traveling for work, I do the 100% resistance, fixing the tindeq to a fixed object type of training. A pull up bar can´t be found all the time, so sometimes it´s a handrail, a pole, or simply sling over the shoe. So angles are very different and it´s hard to track differences. Tindeq is still helpful inside a session of course.
    For tracking progress I will have to define a testing setup at home.
    
    Regarding flexing fingers vs. pulling with the back – what is more helpful in your opinion for building strength as well as stronger connective tissue?
    
    Reply
    1. Jędrzej
      September 5, 2023 at 10:09 am
      
      Hi,
      
      Pulling with your back is not optimal because you could even injure yourself. Try flexing your fingers to incorporate elements of active recruitment into your training routine.
      
      You’ll find more information in this article
      
      Reply
Darko Naumoski
August 23, 2023 at 6:59 pm

Hi Jędrzej,

Have you tried Tindeq CF with a portable hangboard and two arm hanging instead of one arm? Not surr how much that setup will be doable and comparable though.
How would that turn out compared to the method where we measure max hang, 80%, 60% and 50% to calculate?
Would this be different setup not comparable or should it more or less reflect the same and have similar outcome?
I would like to test the Tindeq setup with two arm hang portable fingerboard setup to measure CF and then repeat the classical measurements and see how much it would differ. Hope to find some time in the following period and get back with results 🙂
Cheers,
Darko

Reply
1. Jędrzej
  August 23, 2023 at 7:54 pm
  
  Hi Darko,
  
  Thanks for the great question! I have yet to try the Tindeq two-handed. What I did is I measured the left and right hand separately and averaged the results. I guess this should be similar to doing it with both hands simultaneously, but I haven’t confirmed it yet.
  
  Regarding comparison with the 80%, 60%, 50% method, the CF result should be similar – again, you might need to average the result for the left and right hand. However, I expect the curve for the Tindeq all-out measurements to be much steeper – it’ll converge to CF faster. The Tindeq measurement takes 240 seconds, and at the end of the measurement, we most likely reach CF. In contrast, it’s not uncommon to be able to do 7/3 Repeaters for more than 240 seconds at 60% MVC-7 if we measure with the “old” approach.
  
  Still, I’m sure that the all-out Tindeq measurements curve will differ depending on the endurance capability of the tested climber. Drawing meaningful conclusions from the Tindeq measurements is surely possible once the right methodology is applied.
  
  That said, I would very much appreciate it if you could send me your results once you complete the tests.
  
  Thank you very much for your ongoing support over the years – it means a lot 🙂
  
  Cheers,
  Jędrzej
  
  Reply
  1. Darko Naumoski
    September 7, 2023 at 11:43 am
    
    Hi Jędrzej,
    
    I am following up with results as promised 🙂
    Disclaimer: Please take into account the multiple variables and error points that can significantly skew the end result.
    To name few: hangboard setup, edge, familiarity/novelty of testing/training method, correct form and detecting form failure, proper timing, pacing effort/max effort on each rep and many more.
    
    Now that I got that out of the way, lets have a look at the results, and add some context to better understand.
    
    1. Classical approach with MVC-7, 80%, 60%,50% hangs on ~20mm Beastmaker 1000 edge (fairly polished due to overuse and no maintenance. Please brush the holds on the hangboard. Everyone will benefit, incl. you 🙂
    CF result 43.6kg.
    
    2. Tindeq approach: portable hangboard, 20mm edge, Tindeq 24 reps all out max :
    CF result 35.88 kg.
    
    My takeaway:
    – use any preferred method to establish a baseline. Train with purpose and then repeat the same method to see if there is progress.
    – climbing is too complex to be narrowed down to only one number, but it can be a good indicator in which direction to take your training for improvement.
    – the setups are very different, and many other variables can skew the results. As I mentioned in the intro.
    – fatigue, rest, stress, recovery from previous sessions can have a major impact even on same method test.
    
    What are your thoughts?
    
    BR,
    Darko
    
    Reply
    1. Jędrzej
      September 8, 2023 at 11:28 am
      
      Hi Darko,
      
      Thanks for the results! Great job 🙂 Yes, the two methodologies are difficult to compare. I tried to divide your results by half to relate them to one-arm all-out tests; the result was 7b. Close enough, but not the same.
      
      I agree – one needs a set of benchmarks. It could be two-arm testing, one-arm testing, hanging, or active pulling. Then you try to monitor and improve them consequently.
      
      Hangboard training needs to be accompanied by regular climbing – this way, you can apply the improved strength and endurance and integrate them into your performance. Otherwise, you’re just weightlifting without a purpose.
      
      Reply
      1. Darko Naumoski
        September 16, 2023 at 12:25 pm
        
        Climbed my first 7C indoor boulder. It is a commercial gym and does not compare to outdoors, but I guess it can be a good indicator.
Félix Bamrounsavath
August 18, 2023 at 2:07 pm

Hello! 2 questions…

1) Do you use results from single arm testing or do you use an avg of both arms? Or maybe I should do the CF test with both arms?

2) Should I do the test pulling with my whole arm or only flexing the fingers – isolating the finger flexors muscle like Tyler Nelson advocate?

Ty for the great content!

Reply
1. Jędrzej
  August 18, 2023 at 3:17 pm
  
  Hi Félix,
  
  I’m glad you like the site!
  1) You can try both approaches. I think averaging could be more accurate – for example, my results differ significantly between the left and right hand. I even considered including an averaging option in the calculator, but I figured it would make it too complicated.
  
  2) You should lean into the hold as if you wanted to hang in it with your arm engaged. This is explained in the Lattice Training paper and in my article. Of course, you may try doing the same exercise concentrically, but the results will have a different meaning.
  
  Thanks for the questions!
  Cheers,
  Jędrzej
  
  Reply
Fred Vionnet
August 13, 2023 at 9:03 am

Hi, thanks for sharing your experience and work for free. As a coach, I’m using the Tindeq for a few months in France, and your article helps me a lot.
Fred

Reply
1. Jędrzej
  August 18, 2023 at 3:09 pm
  
  Hello Fred,
  Thanks a lot for the positive feedback! There’s still a lot to discover! If you can, please let me know if the algorithm is accurate for your climbers!
  
  Cheers,
  Jędrzej
  
  Reply