Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 69 of total 69 in this topic |
johnr9q
Sport climber
Sacramento, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 25, 2007 - 09:42pm PT
|
Let's say you are a "normal" weight and you purposely lost 20 pounds, or so, to be able to climb harder. Does anyone have experience if this was effective or not?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2007 - 09:47pm PT
|
Hidetaka Suzuki made that happen. Me, I'd be dead if I lost 20 pounds.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2007 - 09:47pm PT
|
I'm checking in right now at 195. I'm 6'3".
I know for a fact that even just 10 pounds makes a huge difference. 20, if I could keep the muscle, would be an enormous improvement.
So if you're losing fat or trimming unneeded muscle mass(like huge quads), the more the better!
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 12:04am PT
|
I've done it about a half dozen times over 25 years. It's not rocket science. It doesn't matter what weight you are now - put on a twenty pound vest and see if it makes a difference. You can get skinny ropes, tiny wiregates, ultalight stoppers and cams - but don't kid yourself - all that sh#t means nothing compared to losing ten pounds off your ass.
|
|
jbaker
Trad climber
Redwood City, CA
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 12:15am PT
|
I need to lose 20. Again. Last time I did, I gained about 2 full grades. My technique isn't good enough to haul my fat butt up anything hard. I thought my move back to California would get the weight off. I'm getting back in decent shape, but the weight is putting up a pretty good fight.
|
|
murcy
climber
San Fran Cisco
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 12:33am PT
|
yes, i would climb harder. but you see, i'm using the extra weight for training.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 12:43am PT
|
I thought if you were light, you didn't climb hard.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 01:05am PT
|
One of Daryl's favourite remarks, used liberally on friend and foe alike, was "lightweight". It's possible that sometimes he meant it as a compliment. But I wouldn't bet on it.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 02:00am PT
|
nice one mimi
|
|
goatboy smellz
climber
boulder county
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 02:28am PT
|
Life is right
Until fright makes light of
Heavenly delights
|
|
Standing Strong
Ice climber
still decidering
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 02:35am PT
|
if you were at a "normal weight" and then lost 20 pounds and wound up underweight, you wouldn't be healthy.
|
|
Blowboarder
Boulder climber
Back in the mix
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 02:35am PT
|
I bet you'd climb harder quicker learning to use your feet better than you would dropping twenty pounds.
Unless you're already crushing v13's.
Then lose the phat.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 02:36am PT
|
I'll take that risk (as risks go...).
|
|
Ragz
climber
Tartarus, black hole of the internet
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 03:07am PT
|
Your ideal weight and fat-lean ratio varies considerably for men and women and by age, but the minimum percent bodyfat considered safe for good health is 5% for males and 12% for females. The average adult body fat is closer to 15%-18% for men and 22%-25% for women.
Athletes tend to be at low end of this scale due to the increased lean weight (muscle mass) of top athletes. While low levels of bodyfat seem to be related to improved performance, body composition alone is not a great predictor of sports success. A linebacker needs to have enough body mass (lean and fat weight) to generate high forces and avoid injury. Bodyfat amoung elite athletes vary largely by sport. There is little evidence benefit when men drop under 8% and women drop under 14% bodyfat.
The correct question should be, "if I loose 20 pounds, will it be muscle mass or fat?" Loosing 20 pounds may seem an intuitively good idea, but it may in fact, be detrimental. Only, if you maintain muscle mass while loosing fat will you climb harder.
Summary: Muscle density is 1.06 g/ml and fat density is (about) 0.9 g/ml. Thus, one liter of muscle would weight 1.06 kg and one liter of fat would weight 0.9 kg. In other words, muscle is about 18% denses than fat. A loss of 20 pounds on an average 170 pound indivdual equates to 12% of the total body weight. Not likely this will be ONLY fat. There will be lean muscle loss as well. Therfore, just loosing 20 lbs would not be a good idea. Steps need to be taken to preserve the lean muscle, then it may be possible. This of course would not likely be maintained for long, as the body would be too lean or below that 8% threshold.
Read more here John,
http://www.newstarget.com/011285.html
http://healthfitness.com.au/articles/weights/weightloss.html
|
|
davidji
Social climber
CA
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 03:53am PT
|
Nice Riley! If I were 175 I doubt I'd be cruising 5.12 thin crack. Unless gaining 30 lbs made me climb harder...
Losing 5lbs OTOH would make me climb harder. Whatever.
Losing fat isn't always so good. A couple of years ago my doctor told me to increase the intercellular lipids part of my bodyfat analysis. I got a little fatter in the process (& gained half a percentage point body fat), but my health improved, so that's OK with me. My bodyfat percentage was low for my age, but porky for a sport climber.
|
|
Todd Gordon
Trad climber
Joshua Tree, Cal
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 04:15am PT
|
Would you climb harder if you were lighter? Would you be richer if you had more money? Would you be drunker if you drank more beer? Would you be taller if you grew more? Would you be fatter if you ate more food? Would you be stronger if you lifted more weights? Would you get higher if you smoked more pot? Would you be poorer if you spent more money? Would you be more tired if you walked more miles? Would you get more tan if you layed out in the sun more? Would you go further if you biked more miles? Would it hurt more if you got more stitches? These are the kinds of questions that really boogle the mind, don't they?
|
|
RRK
Trad climber
Talladega, Al
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 09:38am PT
|
you will absolutely climb better. I climbed at 240-245 for a couple of years but was also lifting heavy and fighting 2 nights a week so had good power for a big-boy. I went on Atkins a few years ago and basically ate myself out of 30 pounds (seriously - I ate 15 porkchops in 2 days once and was consuming beef by the truckload while the weight was just falling off - great diet for carnivours-) To sum up the experience, my power-to-weight ratio shifted drastically in favor of power and I was climbing the best I have since I've been an adult. However my wife didn't like the new "skinny-me" and put me back on the Girl-scout-cookie diet. I'm back up around 225 now and performance has suffered. Another diet is apparently out of the question so I'm getting used to falling off of easy stuff (should be used to it by now - I've been doing it for 30 years) My advice - loose the weight
RRK
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 09:57am PT
|
Is this some sort of trick question?
|
|
johnr9q
Sport climber
Sacramento, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 26, 2007 - 10:23am PT
|
Good message Ragz. I should have added, in my first message on this topic, that it is important to lose weight properly. (eating and exercising properly) My second message, however, did point out the importance of losing fat while maintaining muscle.
|
|
Darnell
Big Wall climber
Chicago
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 10:24am PT
|
Fat Aid climbers untie, er, unite!
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 12:03pm PT
|
I dropped 20 this summer and was up a full grade.
Have dropped 7 more and back below where I started.
Strained shoulder. Lost some rotator cuff strength, combined with working on much harder stuff. Working on building up cuffs, keeping inflamation down, and recovering.
Four more pounds to target weight (and hopefully winning free dinner in New Paltz).
The mentioned body fat levels for women are way too low. Would cause hormonal problems that would result in a number of health problems including, at some point, bone density issues.
|
|
G_Gnome
Boulder climber
Sick Midget Land
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 12:43pm PT
|
Heck, I only weighed 112 when I did the Pirate. Seemed pretty reasonable at the time. Of course I had just watched Tony solo up and down the first half a couple times so I could get the sequence right. I could certainly use losing 10 pounds now days.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 02:08pm PT
|
Nice (if obvious) troll!!
Worthy of rc.com.
When I weighed 132 and was all muscle I could climb upside down along a roof that at 162 and all fat I can't even make the starting moves for.
BUT, when I was 132 and RRK was 245, I was the belay counterweight. Almost got launched into space without a rocket.
A slab master I know says that the extra weight helps keep your feet glued down on those slabs.
Normal adult weights in the US are way way high for my tastes. Every pound of fat needs three miles of capilaries, think what that does to your heart.
Whne I'm well I'll be aiming for 135 and I'm about 5'10, and that is not nearly as low as I could go, but I'm a little ecto.
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 02:24pm PT
|
I think I would be alarming looking if I lost 20 lbs. At my lowest weight, I was still more than that and got stress fractures in my feet in a road race b/c my weight was affecting my bone density. Good times. I might climb harder in the short term at 5'6", 100 lbs, but I don't think my health at such a low weight would sustain any improvements for long.
If Werner lost 10lbs off his ass there would be a vacuum in his knickers.
It's probably not a solution for everyone.
If I lost 7-10 lbs (and was actually training and climbing more than I am now) I would most likely climb harder in places like the gym and Indian Creek. In Yosemite and Joshua Tree I get foiled by technique and/or courage more often than lack of brute force.
|
|
johnr9q
Sport climber
Sacramento, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 26, 2007 - 02:25pm PT
|
dirtineye: Can you explain what you mean by the following:
Nice (if obvious) troll!!
Worthy of rc.com.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 02:43pm PT
|
If I lost 20 pounds, I would be 6'0" and would weigh 125 pounds.
I guess my parnter could winch me up easier.
|
|
Blowboarder
Boulder climber
Back in the mix
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 02:52pm PT
|
"Man, if I could get my feet to stick then I wouldn't blow off these crimps on this roof. I gotta find a better footwork sequence."
"Maybe more core strength too."
|
|
sling512
Trad climber
Chicago
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 03:37pm PT
|
I was 130, put on 10 lbs of muscle and now climb much stronger (obviously). Still in the 'normal' range. If I lost 20 I'd be dead!
-sling
|
|
G_Gnome
Boulder climber
Sick Midget Land
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 03:56pm PT
|
"If I lost 20 I'd be dead!"
Haha, everyone posting on this thread should post up their age too. I get the skinny ones are still pretty young. Not many skinny old guys (except Werner).
|
|
sling512
Trad climber
Chicago
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 03:59pm PT
|
G_Gnome, fair enough. I'm 29.
But I have good genetics in this respect. Norse in origin and my Dad could probably still kick my butt. (not climbing though, haha!)
-sling
|
|
Standing Strong
Ice climber
still decidering
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 04:47pm PT
|
i agree with blowboarder about technique! i've had people tell me how to put my feet and i was able to stay on things i was peeling off of. i just need more mileage and technique. when i'm done fixing up my truck so it runs without breaking, i am going to try to take a day course with a guide. and in spring, i'm going to c4 with my hexes clanging and hopefully climb till the roof comes off. i would still like to lose about twenty pounds but now that i'm more fit i'm much more confident in myself and more confident in my ability to progress as a climber. and i'm sick over all the time i wasted feeling bad about myself. i just want to climb a lot. unfortunately i can't afford to travel anywhere now but in spring, hopefully.
|
|
johnr9q
Sport climber
Sacramento, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 26, 2007 - 05:47pm PT
|
For some of you that say that if you lose 20 lbs you would die check out the following. http://www.calorierestriction.org/ these people claim that you live longer, and better lives if you stay about 15% under your "set weight". Your set weight is your normal weight, eating a good diet(non caloric restricted) and exerciseing properly (basically what most people would consider being in good shape). My set weight is about 170 lbs and I am 5'11". I am 62 years old but that really doesn't figure into the equation. So my set weight would be about 145 lbs and I would be pretty skinny and would really need to watch what I eat to maintain that weight and be careful to choose quality foods with the proper mix of Protein, Carbs and fat. For most people it is impossible to do.
|
|
sling512
Trad climber
Chicago
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 05:49pm PT
|
I have trouble keeping weight on. I have the metabolism that makes me lose weight just in the act of eating. People have always told me someday that'll change.... approaching 30 I figure it will some day. But calorie restriction sounds like slow torture to me! I imagine I'd feel sluggish.
-sling
|
|
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007 - 05:58pm PT
|
No--at a buck and a quarter, I do much better after the donut 6-pak; the munchies do have benefits.
|
|
aspendougy
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2018 - 04:37pm PT
|
Right, for slabs, extra weight is no big deal. But for a fist jam beyond vertical, try doing the same route with a 20 lb. weight vest. It was inspiring to see that YOUTUBE clip "Don Whillan's Last Climb". He had quite a gut, he was huffing and puffing, but got up somehow. Among the old guard in Yosemite, seems Mark Powell, Henneck, and Gerughty tended to be a bit on the portly side at times, but most everyone else was thin.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2018 - 04:59pm PT
|
Climbing is a light person's sport with two exceptions; offwidth and chimney climbing, and slab climbing.
|
|
thebravecowboy
climber
The Good Places
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2018 - 05:07pm PT
|
Hell yes I'd climb harder if I were Lightner.
agree with Grug. for some reason I favor offwidth and chimney climbing, and slab climbing
|
|
Tom Patterson
Trad climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2018 - 05:21pm PT
|
I've never been a "chunkier" guy, but I do know that I climb well, if not better, when lighter than my default weight. At least I feel like I do!
|
|
AP
Trad climber
Calgary
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2018 - 06:20pm PT
|
Climb harder if you were lighter?
Only if you get tatoos
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2018 - 06:28pm PT
|
The goal is never to climb harder.
The goal is to climb out of the shell ......
|
|
j-tree
Big Wall climber
Typewriters and Ledges
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2018 - 06:42pm PT
|
At 5'8" and 118lbs, I doubt I'd be a better climber at 98lbs
|
|
Stewart Johnson
Mountain climber
lake forest
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2018 - 06:44pm PT
|
Bridwell asked 'you want stronger fingers? lose ten pounds'
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2018 - 08:23pm PT
|
I couldn't help but notice that the aid climber in this Freedom of the Hills graphic is a chunker! Is this discriminatory?
|
|
mcreel
climber
Barcelona
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2018 - 11:19pm PT
|
Hah, hah, looking at that drawing, you can understand that 5.9 used to be hard!
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 - 06:22am PT
|
LOL mcreel.
The first guide book I bought is full of FA 5.8 A-1, FFA 5.9+ routes
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 - 06:31am PT
|
Someone has to test the protection.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 - 04:00pm PT
|
In offwidth climbing, it often helps to have a little meat on your bones to stuff into the crack.
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 - 04:26pm PT
|
My shodan test @ 26yrs old (30 years ago) I weighed 164 Lbs I now weigh about 184. that 20lbs is huge! On the other hand my ice pack is a monster. 16 screws, two 70m ropes, 13 draws,slings and screamers combined. 2 double length runners with a few extra biners, thread tool, ice tools, crampons, helmet, harness, belay parka, ultra light day pack for the parka and 3 extra pairs of gloves, roll of tape, two headlamps,knife and a bunch of packs of hand warmers. Serious load of sh#t. If I could lose the 20lbs off my gut and buy a whole rack of the new aluminum screws I would bet I could consider jumping up a few grades... Of course there is not much room with ice grades.....
I am solid leading 4+ and ocasionaly lead 5 on the good days. Follow 5+. It would be pretty awesome to be solid on 5 and doing the 5+ on good days.
|
|
caughtinside
Social climber
Oakland, CA
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 - 04:33pm PT
|
I bought some lightweight gear.
I still suck.
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 - 04:40pm PT
|
there is lightweight gear and lightweight gear. switching from 16 steel screws to 16 aluminum screws would make a difference in 2 ways.
#1. 16 screws is a sit ton of weight.
#2. Brand new screws go in slicker than cat sh#t on linoleum. The crux of many harder ice climbs is mental so getting the gear in faster and easier makes a huge difference. ...
|
|
caughtinside
Social climber
Oakland, CA
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 - 05:40pm PT
|
Well, Ice climbing is stupid.
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 - 05:49pm PT
|
Yes but it is fun.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 - 06:28pm PT
|
"Yes", or "of course" is the correct answer unless you are too thin which is a rarity these days. I believe the first post upthread was written by Jay Tanzer. Here's a pretty good screed I picked up (not mine):
"Fat Loss for Athletes
Losing body fat is often an issue for athletes and there are various and sundry (yes, sundry) reasons that they either want or need to do this. Clearly for the physique sports (bodybuilding, fitness, figure), it's an issue of appearance. For performance sports (everything else), losing fat or weight can often improve performance. Either the athlete can get into a lower weight class (if their sport has such) or they can improve their strength or power to weight ratio, improving performance.
I’d note, and this would be a topic for an entirely separate article, that leaner is not always better. Most sports end up having an ideal level of leanness where higher and lower levels aren’t consistent with optimal performance. Many athletes will over train or lose muscle mass and performance in the quest to get as lean as possible and this often does more harm than good.
Unfortunately, athletes often approach the goal of fat loss in an absolutely awful way. It’s altogether too often assumed that they should simply do what the bodybuilders do since bodybuilders are, at least for one day per year, the leanest folks of them all.
The problem with this mentality is that, fundamentally, the physique sports aren’t performance oriented (fitness competitions are sort of an exception since the fitness round does require quite a bit of performance oriented training). But bodybuilders and figure girls aren’t usually interested in performance per se, it’s all about looking good on stage. What happens in the gym or in training is only a means to an end in this regards. So some of the dietary and training approaches that bodybuilders would follow might not be appropriate for a performance-oriented athlete.
At the same time, there are clearly some good ideas that have come out of the physique sports; to say that individuals in those activities are competitive dieters isn’t far off and they have figured out a lot of good things (much of which modern research has subsequently validated). You simply can’t apply them wholly uncritically to every sport. I’d also note that some performance sports (women’s gymnastics and figure skating jump to mind) also have an aesthetic aspect to them; little girls are being judged on appearance and body in addition to how well they can fling themselves through the air.
In this article, I want to talk about how athletes of different sorts can go about best losing body fat without sacrificing (too-much) performance. The parentheses may seem odd but it’s not always possible to completely avoid performance (strength, power, etc.) loss while dieting down. As long as the reduction in fat or total weight is greater than the performance loss, the strength/power to weight ratio still usually goes up.
To avoid talking about every sport known to god and man, I’m going to subdivide sports into one of three rough categories (I’d note that I used the same three in my protein book and usually apply this scheme in some fashion in all of my fat loss books) which are
Pure strength/power: Think Powerlifting, Olympic lifting, throwing events, etc. These are athletes who do the bulk of their training as strength/power training of some sort and their sports don’t require endurance or metabolic conditioning outside of work capacity considerations to handle their massive training loads. The competition itself usually involves very little endurance component (unless you consider sitting on your ass for 3 hours between squat and bench while you eat sandwiches to require endurance).
Pure endurance sports: This includes cycling, running, swimming, cross country skiing and anything of that sort. Any sport where the majority of training is pretty much pure endurance style training (lower intensity, long durations) goes in this category. And yes, trust me I realize that many of these athletes also do stuff in the weight room and higher intensity interval work is done. I’m talking about the majority of training that they do. In competition, the events can actually vary pretty significantly in terms of duration and intensity. An hour criterium race for a cyclist is a very different event than a 5 hour stage race; same for a 5k vs. marathon in running. Regardless, the majority of training done in these sports is of the long-duration endurance type.
Mixed sports: And then there’s mostly everything else, sports that end up having to cover all of the bases with both a good bit of strength/power work (in the weight room or on the track sprinting) and metabolic conditioning (which can take on a variety of forms, I’ll talk about this a bit below). Football, basketball, hockey, mixed martial arts, boxing, wrestling, etc. all belong here. These are athletes that need high levels of strength/power (varying with the sport) and high levels of metabolic conditioning (which also varies with sport). Competitions usually require these athletes to express strength/power over and over and over again.
Of course, I’m sure there are going to be sports (Curling? Archery? Extreme Frisbee?) that don’t fit neatly into any of the above categories. Since I doubt they have the same requirements (outside of technical stuff) of the main three categories, I’m not too worried about them.
Simplistically, when I look at fat loss, I take 5 components into consideration in their rough order of importance. I’ll look at each below.
1. Total calories and the rate of fat loss
2. Protein intake
3. Fat intake
4. Carbohydrate intake
5. Training and how it can or should be changed when fat loss is the goal.
Yeah, I know. Cutting edge sh#t there. I’m only spelling it out so that I can look at each within the context of each of the types of sports I discussed above. I’d note that frankly components 1-4 (and especially 1) are the more important aspects when fat loss is the goal. All of the training in the world won’t overcome a diet that sucks. Ok, maybe ALL of the training in the world but you pedantic as#@&%es know what I mean.
1. Total calories and the rate of fat loss
As mentioned above, this is the single most important aspect of fat loss as far as I’m concerned. It’s usually pretty trivial to out-eat the calories burned from training and if you don’t control calories you’re not going to lose fat no matter what you do. And all of the weird macronutrient manipulations still don’t make a shit’s worth of difference if calories aren’t controlled so you can stop worrying about food combining, or not eating carbs after 6pm or whatever. With no exception all of those strategies only work to hide caloric restriction in the guise of something else. It’s still calories at the end of the day.
So the next question comes in terms of where to set calories. A typically generic recommendation used by bodybuilders is 10-12 cal/lb starting weight depending on metabolism (higher value for higher, lower value for lower) and this isn’t bad for someone doing fairly moderate amounts of training (e.g. an hour or so daily). But for athletes with very high caloric requirements this will be too low.
Many endurance athletes can have energy requirements up near 20 cal/lb, occasionally higher. Athletes who have to do a lot of metabolic work will have elevated requirements as well. Strength/power athletes can vary massively; Ol’ers have been reported to have fairly high caloric requirements but when you train 4-6 hours/day, even with low reps, this isn’t shocking.
Arguably a better way to adjust calories is to first determine maintenance calories (the number that will maintain your current weight) and then reduce it by 10-20% as a starting point (I’d note that fatter athletes can usually sustain a larger deficit than leaner). This should then be adjusted based on real world changes in fat loss and performance changes.
A reasonable goal for fat loss might be 1-1.5 lbs fat loss/week with no major reduction in performance. If an athlete is losing less than that, a further reduction in calories (or increase in activity, discussed below) may be needed. If an athlete is losing more than 2 pounds per week or performance is crashing, calories would be adjusted upwards by 10%. Eventually that sweet spot will be found. Note that as folks get lighter and caloric requirements go down, calories will eventually have to be adjusted down even further to keep fat loss going.
Finally I’d note that lighter athletes (women, lighter males in weight class sports) may have to be happy with half of that fat loss, 0.5-0.75 pounds per week. Yeah, I know, that’s only 2 pounds per month. Tough titty, don’t get fat next time.
2. Protein intake
After calories have been set, the single next most important aspect of a fat loss diet is protein intake as consuming sufficient protein is perhaps the single key to limiting (or eliminating) muscle and performance loss. It’s also where a lot of athletes not of the strength/power type * up.
Endurance athletes tend to overemphasize carbs as it is, they often get sufficient protein only by dint of eating so much food; when calories are restricted protein goes down and problems start. Females often seem to fear fat and protein altogether, living on starch. Performance craters.
Getting large amounts of dietary protein is one place that bodybuilders and other strength athletes have long been ahead of the curve, especially while dieting. As modern research has found that higher protein intakes have numerous fat loss benefits (including but not limited to sparing muscle loss, maintaining blood glucose at stable levels, blunting hunger, limiting drops in metabolic rate), bodybuilders can just give a hearty “We told you so” to the labcoats who said they were full of sh#t for so many years.
Of more interest, and seemingly ignored by most mainstream dietitians, protein requirements go UP when calories go down, yet most diets seem to reduce protein. Research proved that fact 30 years ago, why the RD’s haven’t caught on is anybody’s guess.
I recommend that pure strength/power athlete consume at least 1.4-1.5 g/lb protein. In some cases (usually athletes seeking extreme leanness) 2 g/lb may be required. I see no reason for more than this. Since, as you’ll see, strength/power athletes don’t generally have the high carbohydrate requirements of other athletes (although this depends on the specifics of the sport), they can ‘get away’ with more protein and less carbohydrates without hurting their training.
Endurance athletes, who could normally get by with perhaps 0.7-0.9 g/lb under maintenance conditions, should increase their protein intake to at least 1.2-1.4 g/lb while dieting. Given the often absurd caloric requirements for endurance athletes, this more than allows for sufficient intakes of other macronutrients to support training and recovery.
Mixed sport athletes have to ‘cover’ the requirements for both their strength/power and metabolic training and should use the high end of recommendations at 1.5 g/lb. Again, this can potentially go higher if extreme levels of leanness need to be reached. The problem, as I’ll discuss below, is that these athletes often need more carbohydrate in their diet and consuming too much protein tends to limit carb intake. This can hurt performance. So it becomes a greater balancing act. These athletes need to eat enough protein to spare muscle loss, while still allowing sufficient carbohydrate to maintain training.
3. Fat intake
You might be surprised that I put fat intake before carbohydrate intake but outside of setting up ketogenic (very-low-carbohydrate) diets, this is how I do things. The reason is this: very low fat diets tend to do negative things to hormones, on top of making the diet bland and tasteless. More often than not very low-fat diets leave the dieter exceptionally hungry which makes it harder to control calories. So before folk worry about carbohydrate, they need to take care of dietary fat.
Now, while I don’t generally like diets set up by percentages, fat intake is where I do exactly that. 20-25% total calories from fat is usually about right for most situations. Sometimes it may be a bit higher, it’d be a rare situation indeed where I’d take it much lower. I’ve sometimes used a rough intake of 0.45 g/lb and that’s a good starting point but issues of total caloric intake become a problem here and that can’t always be adhered to.
Of the total fat intake, the only requirement are fish oils. A minimum of 6X1 grams standard capsules (180 mg EPA/120 mg DHA) should be taken daily. This can be increased to 10 capsules per day for athletes who are either larger, simply want to, or have the calories to do it.
Beyond that, I don’t get overly hung up on fat intake. Research shows that both MCT’s and di-glycerides (in the form of Enova oil) can slightly increase fat loss during a diet but the impact is not massive, maybe a few tenths of a pound a week if that. Both fats do seem to help control appetite which might be one reason to include them in a diet.
4. Carbohydrates
So all that’s left is carbohydrate and this is generally where my diets will vary the most. Although it’s outside of the scope of this article (I have an article on my site at www.bodyrecomposition.com that deals with nothing but), the simplest comment I can make is that carbohydrate requirements can vary….a lot.
It’s also one place where following the lead of bodybuilders can get athletes into trouble. Recall from above that, for the most part, bodybuilding is not a performance sport, it’s an aesthetic one. Maintaining performance in the gym is purely secondary to coming in ripped. So carbohydrates are often removed completely from the diet to achieve this. Depending on the type of sport you’re talking about, this can either be workable or about the single worst thing that an athlete can do.
A pure strength/power athlete who’s dieting and doing repeat triples in the weight room or what have you may not need many (or any) carbs in their diet. As mentioned, bodybuilders often cut carbs down or nearly out to get to the pinnacle of leanness. Those athletes can often get away with a carb intake of perhaps 1 g/lb or even lower. Carb cycling approaches tend to be popular, common and successful, carbs can be higher on training days and cut down on non-training days to facilitate a larger caloric deficit and greater fat loss.
Endurance athletes typically have the highest carbohydrate requirements although even that depends on the type of training they’re doing. An hour spin on the bike doesn’t require that many carbs, a 6 hour ride may deplete glycogen almost completely. Carb intake here can vary massively. Maintenance carb recommendations for these athletes often approach 10-12 g/kg (4.5-5.5 g/lb or so) but this has to be cut back while dieting to some degree. If volume is high enough, an intake of 2-3 g/lb might work, a lot of it will depend on where calories are set.
Mixed sports athletes are generally going to have carb requirements somewhere in the middle. It’ll probably end up being higher than 1 g/lb on heavy training days but unlikely to reach the higher levels of endurance athletes. So you might see 1.5-2 g/lb as a rough average.
At the end of the day, much of the above discussion is moot. Once you’ve set calories, set protein and set fat, carbs will simply be what’s left. So that makes more sense, let me set up a sample diet for a 200 lb strength/power athlete with 15% bodyfat (170 lbs lean body mass) and with an estimated maintenance calorie intake of 16 cal/lb on training days. So his maintenance requirement is 3200 calories/day.
1. Set calories: 20% deficit. 3200 * 0.20 = 640 calories. 3200 – 640 = 2560 cal/day
2. Set protein: 1.5 g/lb lean body mass = 255 grams protein * 4 cal/g = 1020 cal/day
3. Set fat: 25% of total calories. 2560 * 0.25 = 640 calories / 9 cal/g = 71 grams
4. Set carbs: 2560 calories – 1020 calories from protein – 640 calories from fat = 900 calories / 4 cal/g = 225 grams. Just slightly over 1 g/lb.
Now, if his calories had to be lowered for some reason, he’d make the reduction from carbohydrate. So if he needed to take another 200 calories per day out of his diet, he’d reduce his carbs by 50 grams more to 175 grams. Hopefully you get the idea.
Those calories would be roughly spread across however many meals the athlete will be eating during the diet. Of course, there’s no reason that they have to be spread completely evenly, many people like to put more of their carbs earlier in the day or around training and slightly more fat and less carbs in the evening. It’s all fine.
On the timing issue, I strongly feel that at least some proportion of every athlete’s daily carbs and protein should come around heavy training sessions. A lot of athletes try to cut out those calories but I think it’s a mistake. It is usually done out of some misguided idea about GH release or fat loss; female athletes do it because they think they are ‘saving’ calories but all they are doing is hurting themselves in the long run.
Total fat loss will be mostly determined by the caloric deficit, insufficient calories around heavy training only hurts performance and recovery which is never a good thing on a diet. Carb cuts should therefore come mainly from meals not around training. Fat intake at those meals can be slightly increased as well.
Which isn’t to say that the same amount of pre/during/post workout nutrients would be consumed on a diet as when mass gains or performance improvements are the goal. Just that something should still be consumed around most workouts (low-intensity metabolic stuff being the major exception). If you eat too many calories around training, you don’t end up with enough at the other meals to stay full.
5. Training and fat loss
The final issue I want to discuss regarding fat loss for athletes is how training can or should be modified while dieting. Again, this is a place where a lot of people make mistakes and where (especially given the role of anabolics in bodybuilding preparation since about the 80’s) following bodybuilders can be problematic. I’ll come back to this below.
Once again, I’m going to address the three different general categories of athletes that I described in Part 1 of this series. Additionally, I’m going to look at training in terms of both weight room work (of any sort) and metabolic work (this includes both standard aerobic training along with intervals).
Weight training can, of course, be subdivided into several different categories. From very heavy, low-repetition strength or power work (5’s or less) to more bodybuilding oriented hypertrophy work (generally 6-15 reps) to higher rep, metabolic-style depletion work (15-20 reps or more, usually with short rest periods), weight training covers a lot of ground.
Is one best for fat loss? Of course not, they each have their pros and cons. One approach that is all too commonplace in the weight room (and this is an idea that came out of bodybuilding in the 80’s) is that heavy weights should be replaced by higher reps for cuts. While this certainly works when anabolics are present to protect muscle mass, it’s absolutely the worst thing that a natural athlete can do to maintain muscle mass.
Tension builds muscle, removing heavy tension overload causes muscle and strength to go away; not what most athletes want when they diet. Simply, if an athlete can only do one type of weight training while dieting, it should be a lowered volume (see comments below) of heavy work to maintain muscle. The caloric deficit and any metabolic work can take care of fat loss.
However, that doesn’t mean that higher rep/metabolic style weight training of various sorts (think barbell complexes, KB circuits, sled dragging might even fit here, and stuff like that) can’t have a use as well. Between the hormonal response, glycogen depletion (which increases whole body fat usage), and a somewhat larger calorie burn, these types of training can certainly enhance fat loss. But they should only be done in conjunction with a maintenance volume of heavy work. I’ll come back to this below.
In terms of other types of metabolic training (e.g. steady state cardio and intervals), the world seems to have subdivided itself into two distinct camps of late. As the idea that interval training is not only the best way to lose fat but (seemingly) the only way, the idea that low intensity steady state cardio can have any use for fat loss has more or less disappeared. Some are even claiming (wrongly I’d add) that steady state cardio can make dieters fatter. Apparently the four decades of bodybuilders who got contest lean doing nothing but low-intensity steady state didn’t realize that all of that cardio was detrimental.
Frankly, addressing this topic in detail is beyond the scope of this article. Within the context of the room I have here, I will only say that both intervals and steady state cardio can have their role depending on the specifics. The simple fact is that athletes can’t do high intensity training daily and most athletes will be training daily for fat loss. If every workout is high intensity, especially when calories are reduced, only bad things can happen.
A quick comment on volume and frequency of training for fat loss
Another idea that appears to have come out of 80’s era (read: steroid fueled) bodybuilding dieting is that volume and frequency of training should go UP while dieting. This is, of course, completely ass-backwards. Recovery is always hampered when calories are restricted, trying to increase the frequency of high-intensity training (e.g. weight training or intervals) is a recipe for disaster. If anything, the frequency (and especially the volume) of high-intensity work should be reduced somewhat when calories are restricted to avoid over training in the long-run.
Strength power athletes
The grand majority of training done by strength/power athletes is, of course, strength power training. Yes, some type of general prep/work capacity work is often done (sled dragging for powerlifters, extensive tempo running for sprinters, etc) but anybody who doesn’t have their head up their ass knows that long-duration endurance training is about the worst choice for these types of athletes because it stimulates adaptations in the muscle that are not conducive to maximal performance.
Put a bit differently, you show me a powerlifter or shotputter that runs and I’ll show you a guy who is not performing optimally. Show me one of those athletes who decides to start running for fat loss and I’ll show you one who just destroyed his performance.
Training for these athletes, therefore, must revolve around the same types of training that they are doing for their sport. As noted above, at least some volume of heavy training should be done while dieting to maintain current strength and muscle mass levels. However, research clearly shows that the volume and frequency of training can be cut back rather significantly.
Reductions in both of up to 2/3rds (so total sets and/or days of training can be reduced) are fine but ONLY if the intensity (weight on the bar) is maintained. So an athlete who was doing 6 sets of 3 in the back squat could conceivably cut back to 2 sets of 3 as long as he keeps the weight on the bar the same. If the intensity is cut back, strength and muscle mass will suffer. Again, some volume of heavy work must be kept in.
To that, other types of work to facilitate fat loss can be added. Barbell complexes or KB circuits could be used in the weight room to increase caloric expenditure, etc. (the complexes would replace the volume of heavy work that had been reduced) for example. Other types of GPP, sled dragging (with lighter weights and shorter rest intervals) and such would be another way of increasing caloric expenditure to hasten fat loss as well.
As mentioned above, strength/power athletes wouldn’t generally want to add a bunch of steady state endurance training as this will tend to harm leg strength. About the only exception to this is steady state ‘cardio’ that is so low intensity that it won’t cut into strength. I’m talking about things like brisk walking here, just very low intensity activity to burn a few calories. Big guys can burn a few hundred calories with nothing but that level of work which will add up over time without cutting into leg strength or recovery.
Interval training is a possibility here although I’d strongly suggest that a non-impact exercise method be used. Three hundred pound athletes plus sprinting equal joint injuries. As well, interval workouts of this type should be counted as a high-intensity leg workout. Trying to add a day or two of heavy lower body intervals to a weekly training schedule that already includes a significant amount of lower body weight room work is another recipe for disaster. Something has to give.
As noted above, weight training frequency can realistically be cut much further back than most think, one heavy leg workout per week will maintain leg strength for quite some time (athletes shouldn’t generally have to diet that long in the first place), allowing other lower body work to be done. Frankly, metabolic weight work of the barbell complex/KB/etc. kind may be a better fit for pure strength/power athletes.
Endurance athletes
In modern endurance sports training, there is not a massive amount of weight training done for the most part (although this can depend on the sport). However, for those endurance athletes who are lifting, the same suggestions as above apply. At least some volume of heavy work should be maintained but the volume and frequency should be reduced. This could conceivably be replaced by complexes, etc. but, in general, this probably isn’t hugely necessary as I’ll explain below.
As expected, the majority of training of pure endurance athletes is of the endurance type. And this actually gives them a fairly big advantage for fat loss. A trained endurance athlete can usually burn a significant number of calories without working very hard. Simply adding an extra 30 minutes of easy training per day can burn a significant number of calories without heavily cutting into recovery; this also allows the reduction in food intake to be less (e.g. burn 300 extra calories with low intensity activity and reduce food intake by a couple hundred to get about a pound of fat loss per week). Used properly, these types of easy aerobic workouts can have an active recovery effect as well.
As far as interval training goes, most endurance athletes do intervals at some time during the season. How much can be added to that when calories are restricted is pretty debatable. I’d expect most endurance athletes to be focusing on fat loss during a general preparation phase (when interval training is usually pretty low) and adding a bunch of high intensity training when the goal is lots of low-intensity volume is backwards. As noted above, simply adding a bit of volume daily with a slight reduction in calories should do most of the work for a typical endurance athlete.
Mixed sports
And finally we come again to the mixed sports, the athletes whose training invariably has to cover all of the bases in terms of both a fairly large amount of strength/power work along with a good bit of metabolic work.
In the same way that strength/power athletes can and should reduce their heavy training, mixed sports athletes looking for fat loss should do the same. Total volume and/or frequency of heavy work can be reduced significantly. This can be replaced by some metabolic type stuff of the barbell complex, KB, GPP variety.
Metabolic work for these athletes can vary massively but, depending on where they are in their season, some type of interval training or slightly increased volume of low-intensity work could reasonably be done to increase caloric expenditure. Like endurance athletes above, the likelihood of adding yet more interval training to an already heavy training load are pretty slim. Rather, adding slightly to the volume of work already being done may be the best approach.
When to lose fat
Although I didn’t list this topic in the original list in Part 1 of this series, a final issue of importance for athletes is when to lose body fat during the year. Bodybuilders and physique athletes have it somewhat simpler in this regards since they aren’t so performance oriented. And most don’t use any type of periodization in the first place. The simply focus on gaining muscle until a contest is chosen and then move into dieting at that time.
Athletes usually have an annual plan of some sort and may have specific competitions that they need to be prepared for. This means that fat loss and dieting periods can’t be chosen at random as it could potentially hurt their ability train or peak effectively.
In general, I think that losing fat should be the focus of any type of general physical preparation (GPP) phase. Yes, I know that they have gone the way of the dodo in modern sports training but most athletes still do some period of training when the volume is relatively higher and the intensity lower. Since maximum performance isn’t the goal, a small reduction in calories with a slight shift in training to facilitate fat loss is possible during this time.
"
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 - 06:45pm PT
|
Geez, couch, I lost three pounds reading that screed!
|
|
chainsaw
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 - 08:22pm PT
|
Eat fat foods and train your body to burn fat. Most of the elite climbers Ive known eat double doubles animal style with fries and a shake after climbing. It is the acquired ability to burn fat which keeps us from retaining it. And that ability comes from eating fat then burning it. This may seem like a vicious cycle -and it is! Like a dragon devours its own tail. For endurance this is especially important. When I train Im at 5'8" and 142 lbs. I drink a quart of half and half every day and eat pounds of ground beef with raw onions. Its basically high fat high protein. Im not the best climber but my endurance is hard to challenge. I climbed 8260 feet of 5.7 in three hours without stopping in the gym once. That also required 8260 feet of rappelling since it was on a forty foot wall. As for loosing weight to climb harder I will say this: if you are an average person who can barely do pull ups, lets say you weigh 160 lbs. you barely can do pullups. That means maybe by the sixth pullup you are getting about ten pounds of net upward thrust. Now loose ten pounds to achieve 150. You just doubled your net upward thrust by reducing your weight ten pounds. At the limit of exertion, when we are totally pumped and cant pull up anymore, that ten pounds makes a huge difference. Even more so when climbing on super steep upside down climbs where all body weight must be lifted at all times. When you cant rest by standing on top of footholds, the body's weight is a major factor. Not to mention that fat interferes with flexibility. So eat lotsa fat and burn it in the hot fire of a well heated forge. To quote a favorite line from "Enter the Dragon," "We forge our bodies in the fire of our will!"
|
|
caughtinside
Social climber
Oakland, CA
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2018 - 08:49pm PT
|
so if I climb 8000 feet of 5.7... then what?
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2018 - 07:24am PT
|
Yes.
Curt
|
|
jeff constine
Trad climber
Ao Namao
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2018 - 11:10am PT
|
Chainsaw you stopped to rap on yur 8000+' run. why did you not just down climb.
|
|
alpineblissed
Trad climber
The Town, CA
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2018 - 11:37am PT
|
absolutely!! i am working on losing my 20 lbs now...(5'7", trying to get to 115). i am 110% that that is my best climbing weight....intermittent fasting to get back down there...skip your dinner/wake up thinner~
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2018 - 12:45pm PT
|
When I got back into climbing a few years ago I weighed 205 lbs. at 6ft.
A few choice sessions in the gym and outside taught me the error of my ways.
I eventually got my weight down to 158 lbs.
It was like being born again. Even in a relatively untrained state I avoided getting pumped-- but nevertheless I felt a bit weak overall.
Some targeted training later my weight increased to 166 lbs. and I was stronger
My goal now is to get down below 160 and remain strong.
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2018 - 01:57am PT
|
At 6'00" I found that my most effective "fighting weight" was 160 pounds.
This is a Body Mass Index of 22 ("Normal" is 20-25)
Once I was down to 120 pounds (BMI 16) and I was really weak, without any stamina.
|
|
hooblie
climber
from out where the anecdotes roam
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2018 - 07:00am PT
|
yates 355 extraction harness, the helium weather balloons are on the way
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2018 - 02:18pm PT
|
I've always been skinny. I graduated high school 5'11" and 135.
And as one of my climbing buddies with a similar build used to say, we aren't ever going to have much in the way of upper body muscle mass so strength to weight ratio is going to depend on weight.
In my thirties I got on a healthy eating kick, or at least what I thought was healthy. Lots of salads, some meat, and regular consumption of protein powder. My weight dropped down to 140~145 region with, still limited, but way more muscle strength than I had leaving high school. Don't know what my fat content was, but the outline of my ribs was very visible. It was the period that my sport climbing peaked.
Climbing is a light person's sport with two exceptions; offwidth and chimney climbing, and slab climbing.
I might add another exception to that.
When I later moved my focus back more to multi-pitch and alpine, I decided I would do better weighing 10-15 pounds more. Maybe there is a way to micro-manage being both really lean and 18 hour climbing days, but if so, that was beyond me. Not running so cold was an added benefit for alpine starts and unexpected bivys.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2018 - 03:42pm PT
|
I tried the experiment in reverse; after gaining 30 pounds, I find it hard to even climb out of bed. Back in my better years and climbing at a reasonable for the day level (5.9--5.10+), advancing years and increased weight have combined to knock me down to 5.6 on a good day.
But now, after losing some 15 pounds, I am good to go again.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2018 - 07:03pm PT
|
A friend who was knocking on 5.12's door fifteen years ago headed south for his usual Spring month at Indian Creek. A bunch of his Seattle friends would take a week each and hang with him down there.
We arrived to start Week 3, and found things were not going well. Far from upping his game to 12, he was struggling on 11s.
Didn't take long to figure out what was going on -- about one day in camp with him.
He'd decided to "eat better".
Eat better? In addition to being a tri-athlete, the guy was a genius. Tech wizard. Retired wealthy in his early 30s. But his idea of "eating better to climb harder" was simply to cut down on food.
He was skipping breakfast, eating a single Balance Bar for lunch. Gobbling a box of Cheez-Its at the end of the afternoon's climbing. And then eating next-to-nothing for dinner.
All in the name of getting his weight down so he could climb harder. Yeah, right, genius indeed.
Once we arrived, and started cooking real food and pushing it on him, it only took about two days for him to start climbing harder. And the more calories we pushed into him, the harder he climbed. By the time we left at the end of the week, he was cruising 12s.
|
|
Majid_S
Mountain climber
Karkoekstan, Former USSR
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2018 - 07:14pm PT
|
laws of gravity is simple however,I would prefer to have a normal weight but climb harder.
|
|
skywalker1
Trad climber
co
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2018 - 03:01am PT
|
Food helps me climb better in addition with weight training. Seems counter intuitive but if I'm weight training and eating a lot (but well) the extra muscle mass helps. I do tend to gravitate toward long routes because of the views and liking "up". Regardless of how much I try I just cannot do harder 12's. So I just accepted that my body (6'2" -185lbs) and mind (below average IQ) is just better at being a long distance 5.10/11 climber that needs to eat a lot and have a little extra mass to finish respectfully.
S...
|
|
Todd Eastman
Social climber
Putney, VT
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2018 - 05:18am PT
|
Never fotget the restorative powers of a cheeseburger!!!
|
|
| Messages 1 - 69 of total 69 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!