This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
You hear a lot of people talk about their 'fighting weight' - basically meaning the ideal weight for them to be at for their chosen discipline or sport. How do you go about calculating or beginning to understand what this might be, without delving into expensive consultation with dieticians and sports scientists. Or is it something that you just learn from experience and you just 'know' when you achieve it?
In reply to iamaclimber:
Surely if you're not fat and you're climbing a lot you're at your fighting weight? Carrying fat up a cliff is obviously not helpful. If you climb for a regular workout rather lift heavy weights and eat a ridiculous amount then there's no reason you'd be lugging up extra muscle.
I would suggest that the idea of calculating and then achieving an ideal weight is basically bollox. If you climb a lot and eat a good diet then your body will reveal its ideal weight by itself.
Surely if you're not fat and you're climbing a lot you're at your fighting weight? Carrying fat up a cliff is obviously not helpful. If you climb for a regular workout rather lift heavy weights and eat a ridiculous amount then there's no reason you'd be lugging up extra muscle.
I would suggest that the idea of calculating and then achieving an ideal weight is basically bollox. If you climb a lot and eat a good diet then your body will reveal its ideal weight by itself.
In reply to iamaclimber:
Following the guidance from Dave Mac in 9 out of 10 and further detail in Racing Weight by Matt Fitzgerald the key measure is body fat % and male climbers should aim for sub 10% and be careful at 5%. Measuring body fat % is tricky. If you can seek out a sports lab with a fancy expensive impedence machine that is ideal but alternatively think about previous lows and take a critical look in the mirror. If your ribs are sticking out already seek other ways to improve.
Following the guidance from Dave Mac in 9 out of 10 and further detail in Racing Weight by Matt Fitzgerald the key measure is body fat % and male climbers should aim for sub 10% and be careful at 5%. Measuring body fat % is tricky. If you can seek out a sports lab with a fancy expensive impedence machine that is ideal but alternatively think about previous lows and take a critical look in the mirror. If your ribs are sticking out already seek other ways to improve.
In reply to shark:
Yes, I guess 10% is a good thing for all guys to aim for unless they are very skinny or very muscular.
Yes, I guess 10% is a good thing for all guys to aim for unless they are very skinny or very muscular.
In reply to iamaclimber:
To help beginning to understand; The adage pinch an inch is adequate or a step further would be body measurements; http://fitness.bizcalcs.com/Calculator.asp?Calc=Body-Fat-Navy - this will define your lean mass albeit only useful as a guide. Add the 10% prescribed above and go from there.
> How do you go about calculating or beginning to understand what this might be, without delving into expensive consultation with dieticians and sports scientists.
To help beginning to understand; The adage pinch an inch is adequate or a step further would be body measurements; http://fitness.bizcalcs.com/Calculator.asp?Calc=Body-Fat-Navy - this will define your lean mass albeit only useful as a guide. Add the 10% prescribed above and go from there.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I walk about 20-30 miles a week and cycle/gym three times but if I don't stick to a rigid diet regime my body keeps telling me it wants to be 30 stones. Some people can just leave it to nature and some can't. I had a chat with a doctor who does various expeditions and he said don't bother with BMI as they are set for too narrow a range of body types. His advice was basically not to bother too much as long as you are within a stone or two of the accepted height for weight, being fit was far more important than being thin.
> I would suggest that the idea of calculating and then achieving an ideal weight is basically bollox. If you climb a lot and eat a good diet then your body will reveal its ideal weight by itself.
I walk about 20-30 miles a week and cycle/gym three times but if I don't stick to a rigid diet regime my body keeps telling me it wants to be 30 stones. Some people can just leave it to nature and some can't. I had a chat with a doctor who does various expeditions and he said don't bother with BMI as they are set for too narrow a range of body types. His advice was basically not to bother too much as long as you are within a stone or two of the accepted height for weight, being fit was far more important than being thin.
In reply to Clarence:
Presumably however your doctor had in mind health rather than climbing performance.
jcm
Presumably however your doctor had in mind health rather than climbing performance.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
No we were talking about mountaineering in general but it isn't a million miles away from climbing.
No we were talking about mountaineering in general but it isn't a million miles away from climbing.
In reply to iamaclimber:
Interesting bits in the previously mentioned racing weight book, It basically suggests trial and error to find where you peak at, with fat %age as a starting point. don't forget excess muscle weighs more and can affect your "fighhting weight" for a given route, it may be that you want to get super thin then bulk up again or similar! If you're keener than me anyway, I just like the books, planning a new regime, then sitting down to a pack of those Triple chocolate cookies morrisons have started doing...
Interesting bits in the previously mentioned racing weight book, It basically suggests trial and error to find where you peak at, with fat %age as a starting point. don't forget excess muscle weighs more and can affect your "fighhting weight" for a given route, it may be that you want to get super thin then bulk up again or similar! If you're keener than me anyway, I just like the books, planning a new regime, then sitting down to a pack of those Triple chocolate cookies morrisons have started doing...
In reply to Clarence:
I think in the context of this thread, mountaineering actually is a million miles away from rock climbing...
I think in the context of this thread, mountaineering actually is a million miles away from rock climbing...
In reply to iamaclimber:
I'm a personal trainer and nutrition coach. Message me if you need any help or specific questions mate.
Basically, sort your diet out and eat clean foods. No fancy / fad diets. With regular training your body will settle at a 'set point' where it is happy. This is different for everybody.
Sitting at 10% body fat or below is quite difficult for some body types and takes some serious dieting. Personally, mine is around 12% and at that I weigh 100kg!
From there you can manipulate things and put protocols in place to drop body fat.
The majority of men sit at 12-15% and women 18-23% (I think).
Genetics play a part.
Personally I work with different athletes and body builders who want to get to around 5%. But this is very difficult and simply not necessary or optimal for climbers
I'm a personal trainer and nutrition coach. Message me if you need any help or specific questions mate.
Basically, sort your diet out and eat clean foods. No fancy / fad diets. With regular training your body will settle at a 'set point' where it is happy. This is different for everybody.
Sitting at 10% body fat or below is quite difficult for some body types and takes some serious dieting. Personally, mine is around 12% and at that I weigh 100kg!
From there you can manipulate things and put protocols in place to drop body fat.
The majority of men sit at 12-15% and women 18-23% (I think).
Genetics play a part.
Personally I work with different athletes and body builders who want to get to around 5%. But this is very difficult and simply not necessary or optimal for climbers
Post edited at 21:28
In reply to iamaclimber:
fighting weight is something you learn.
an example is a friend of mine from when i used to compete is strongman competitions, when he started competing he pretty much weighed in right at the top of his weight class (90kg) following year he ended up having to diet for about 2 months to drop about a stone for the nationals. finally he realised his fighting weight wasn't really 90kg but the next weight class up (105kg). now he compete at the same weight as he trains (dropping a few pounds is ok but dropping a stone just left him weak)
fighting weight is something you learn.
an example is a friend of mine from when i used to compete is strongman competitions, when he started competing he pretty much weighed in right at the top of his weight class (90kg) following year he ended up having to diet for about 2 months to drop about a stone for the nationals. finally he realised his fighting weight wasn't really 90kg but the next weight class up (105kg). now he compete at the same weight as he trains (dropping a few pounds is ok but dropping a stone just left him weak)
In reply to iamaclimber:
when i was fighting (a good few years ago ) fighting weight was basically described to be in the right catagory where you felt comfortable with speed but where your power was maximised, ie you wouldnt want to be slimming down massively and feeling lethargic and slow also you wouldnt want to put the extra few pounds on and be lacking the power of other people at that level not been climbing long but pressuming if i drop a stone (which is definitly needed) and can keep 90%of my strength i should be able to climb harder , planning to try it in practice in the new yr
when i was fighting (a good few years ago ) fighting weight was basically described to be in the right catagory where you felt comfortable with speed but where your power was maximised, ie you wouldnt want to be slimming down massively and feeling lethargic and slow also you wouldnt want to put the extra few pounds on and be lacking the power of other people at that level not been climbing long but pressuming if i drop a stone (which is definitly needed) and can keep 90%of my strength i should be able to climb harder , planning to try it in practice in the new yr
In reply to Clarence:
>I walk about 20-30 miles a week and cycle/gym three times but if I don't stick to a rigid diet regime my body keeps telling me it wants to be 30 stones
Said someone who never studied physics ever.
>I walk about 20-30 miles a week and cycle/gym three times but if I don't stick to a rigid diet regime my body keeps telling me it wants to be 30 stones
Said someone who never studied physics ever.
Some good answers here, I'll just add some background on the physics and biology side
1) your body size will dictate how much food you need to maintain a set weight, defined by your energy needs for a particular body shape (I am tall and need to eat an awful lot to maintain my fairly slight figure, around twice what my wife eats.. that increases dramatically if I do lots of sport, while my weight does not)
2) ignore BMI if you're in the bottom or top 15% of height - the figures stop working (I am a 6'5" stick but BMI puts me on the boundary of obesity)
3) weight increases logarithmically, as does the power needed to move it. A body which is 10% taller and broader is 40% larger in mass and therefore needs 140% as much food to maintain. The muscle needed to lift that weight (say, your arm) needs to be 40% more powerful.
4)a pound of human body fat is roughly 8000 calories, and while certain food types are more readily stored, in theory you could get fat eating 300 lettuces every day (and get very ill as well)
Back to your OP, it's all about power to weight ratios.. I vaguely remember Amir Kahn having a ridiculous one (he sparred with heavyweights but actually was quite small), but this is why ants can lift 100x their own bodyweight with almost no energy and we can just about lift maybe 4 times if we're in the world's strongest man competition and eating 5 chickens and 50 eggs a day.
Personally I am much happier with a higher body fat content (15-20%), without it I find that when illness (colds, flu, stomach bugs, etc) hit, without a decent reserve because I'm naturally gangly, I get very ill - likewise, I am not a climber, but I will go out for days at a time into the mountains - that needs real reserves.
My mum (who worked in public health for 30 years) summarised it as "as long as you can never pinch more than an inch, you're doing fine". As for tuning it beyond that, I have had (very short) periods of wash-board stomach but later realised that I'd rather have a spare type, even if it's only half an inch.
1) your body size will dictate how much food you need to maintain a set weight, defined by your energy needs for a particular body shape (I am tall and need to eat an awful lot to maintain my fairly slight figure, around twice what my wife eats.. that increases dramatically if I do lots of sport, while my weight does not)
2) ignore BMI if you're in the bottom or top 15% of height - the figures stop working (I am a 6'5" stick but BMI puts me on the boundary of obesity)
3) weight increases logarithmically, as does the power needed to move it. A body which is 10% taller and broader is 40% larger in mass and therefore needs 140% as much food to maintain. The muscle needed to lift that weight (say, your arm) needs to be 40% more powerful.
4)a pound of human body fat is roughly 8000 calories, and while certain food types are more readily stored, in theory you could get fat eating 300 lettuces every day (and get very ill as well)
Back to your OP, it's all about power to weight ratios.. I vaguely remember Amir Kahn having a ridiculous one (he sparred with heavyweights but actually was quite small), but this is why ants can lift 100x their own bodyweight with almost no energy and we can just about lift maybe 4 times if we're in the world's strongest man competition and eating 5 chickens and 50 eggs a day.
Personally I am much happier with a higher body fat content (15-20%), without it I find that when illness (colds, flu, stomach bugs, etc) hit, without a decent reserve because I'm naturally gangly, I get very ill - likewise, I am not a climber, but I will go out for days at a time into the mountains - that needs real reserves.
My mum (who worked in public health for 30 years) summarised it as "as long as you can never pinch more than an inch, you're doing fine". As for tuning it beyond that, I have had (very short) periods of wash-board stomach but later realised that I'd rather have a spare type, even if it's only half an inch.
In reply to alexgoodey:
'a pound of human body fat is roughly 8000 calories'
That's not entirely accurate.
'a pound of human body fat is roughly 8000 calories'
That's not entirely accurate.
In reply to iamaclimber:
If you eat a palaeo-diet, i.e. no processed foods at all (don't touch wheat, most pointless thing ever - that includes bread and cereals! Substitute it for oats), good lean meats, get in all your fruits and veg every day and are in the gym or at the climbing wall at least 5 times a week, every week, while keeping up your cardio then you will find that your body weight will balance out, I think someone mentioned this above. For me, I reckon once you hit that 'balance' then you are there or there abouts for your fighting weight. I am 6'3" and sit at about 8-9% body fat content, about 76 kg when in 'balance' but if I miss a good number of sessions at the gym then I will drop about 4 kg, so it is a pretty fine line. To get any definition in your core you need to drop to roughlyunder 7% body fat to put it into perspective.
If you eat a palaeo-diet, i.e. no processed foods at all (don't touch wheat, most pointless thing ever - that includes bread and cereals! Substitute it for oats), good lean meats, get in all your fruits and veg every day and are in the gym or at the climbing wall at least 5 times a week, every week, while keeping up your cardio then you will find that your body weight will balance out, I think someone mentioned this above. For me, I reckon once you hit that 'balance' then you are there or there abouts for your fighting weight. I am 6'3" and sit at about 8-9% body fat content, about 76 kg when in 'balance' but if I miss a good number of sessions at the gym then I will drop about 4 kg, so it is a pretty fine line. To get any definition in your core you need to drop to roughlyunder 7% body fat to put it into perspective.
In reply to Nick Harvey:
you cant just make a comment like that without some elaboration otherwise its null
you cant just make a comment like that without some elaboration otherwise its null
In reply to owena:
Can so. I did. But...
One lb is 454 grams. Convention says 1gram of fat equals 9kcal. Apparently human fat is about 87% lipid (or triglycerides), so that gives us 454 x 0.87 x 9, which equals 3,555kcal. Roughly.
Can so. I did. But...
One lb is 454 grams. Convention says 1gram of fat equals 9kcal. Apparently human fat is about 87% lipid (or triglycerides), so that gives us 454 x 0.87 x 9, which equals 3,555kcal. Roughly.
In reply to Lamb:
Uuurgh.
> I am 6'3" and sit at about 8-9% body fat content, about 76 kg when in 'balance' but if I miss a good number of sessions at the gym then I will drop about 4 kg, so it is a pretty fine line.
Uuurgh.
In reply to Lamb:
Abs on skinny guy are like big tits on a fat chick.
> I am 6'3" and sit at about 8-9% body fat content, about 76 kg when in 'balance'...To get any definition in your core you need to drop to roughlyunder 7% body fat to put it into perspective.
Abs on skinny guy are like big tits on a fat chick.
In reply to Littleslip:
Really? That's interesting. I've been monitoring weight and body fat % by using the electronic scales at the gym for the past year and have always doubted their accuracy to be honest. According to these, my body fat percentage is around 23%, which sounds very high to me. I'm no whippet, but am reasonably slim (I'm 171cm and weigh about 68Kg). I regularly run, swim, cycle and climb so not exactly idle.
> The majority of men sit at 12-15% and women 18-23% (I think).
Really? That's interesting. I've been monitoring weight and body fat % by using the electronic scales at the gym for the past year and have always doubted their accuracy to be honest. According to these, my body fat percentage is around 23%, which sounds very high to me. I'm no whippet, but am reasonably slim (I'm 171cm and weigh about 68Kg). I regularly run, swim, cycle and climb so not exactly idle.
In reply to FrankBooth:
My scales have two settings - normal and athlete. On the first I am around 16% and the second around 11%. I am prob nearer the former, but it goes to show they don't really mean much in terms of an absolute figure, just for tracking change. My gran came out at 80% fat or something ridiculous (and she isn't fat) but don't think they can compute that she is 90!
I would say the majority of men SHOULD sit at 12-15% but there is no way they do!
My scales have two settings - normal and athlete. On the first I am around 16% and the second around 11%. I am prob nearer the former, but it goes to show they don't really mean much in terms of an absolute figure, just for tracking change. My gran came out at 80% fat or something ridiculous (and she isn't fat) but don't think they can compute that she is 90!
I would say the majority of men SHOULD sit at 12-15% but there is no way they do!
In reply to Nick Harvey:
Sorry you're quite right, I was remembering the wrong figure from a dietary manual which used almost exactly the figures you gave.. but in the context of weight loss with an example giving the 8000 calorie/p.d. loss to lose 30lbs in 30 days.
Sorry you're quite right, I was remembering the wrong figure from a dietary manual which used almost exactly the figures you gave.. but in the context of weight loss with an example giving the 8000 calorie/p.d. loss to lose 30lbs in 30 days.
In reply to Nick Harvey:
I asked Rebecca Dent, a sports dietician/nutritionist who works with the British climbing team, about this. She said they don't measure their athletes' body fat percentage and go by skin caliper results instead. They measure several places on the body and an athlete should aim for a certain range somewhere under 100mm in total, I can't remember exactly. She seemed to think the body fat percentage results given by scales are pretty useless, I've been told similar things by friends who work in medicine.
I asked Rebecca Dent, a sports dietician/nutritionist who works with the British climbing team, about this. She said they don't measure their athletes' body fat percentage and go by skin caliper results instead. They measure several places on the body and an athlete should aim for a certain range somewhere under 100mm in total, I can't remember exactly. She seemed to think the body fat percentage results given by scales are pretty useless, I've been told similar things by friends who work in medicine.
In reply to Brendan:
The caliper effectively measures body fat percentage anyway and its distribution around different parts of the body?
The caliper effectively measures body fat percentage anyway and its distribution around different parts of the body?
Aye, exactly that. Scales are mildly interesting that's about it. Mine will be well off today. Whisky has dehydrated the crap out of me.
In reply to Lamb:
Yeah, I think that's right. I think her point was that scales aren't that accurate.
On a separate note, she mentioned a couple of climbers she worked with had had long-running health and injury problems and when they were tested they found their body fat percentage was way below the recommended level. Not a problem for most folk, I know, but it might be worth thinking about getting properly tested if you're on the skinny side already and trying to lose weight.
Yeah, I think that's right. I think her point was that scales aren't that accurate.
On a separate note, she mentioned a couple of climbers she worked with had had long-running health and injury problems and when they were tested they found their body fat percentage was way below the recommended level. Not a problem for most folk, I know, but it might be worth thinking about getting properly tested if you're on the skinny side already and trying to lose weight.
In reply to Brendan:
Yes they are just a rough measurement, interesting though.
Not losing any weight don't worry! Use to do a lot of road racing and at the end of a racing season I was down at 60 kg - so I am currently a fat bastard up at 75 kg!
Yes they are just a rough measurement, interesting though.
Not losing any weight don't worry! Use to do a lot of road racing and at the end of a racing season I was down at 60 kg - so I am currently a fat bastard up at 75 kg!
In reply to iamaclimber:
Depends what your trying to acheive. I used to box at 9 st 7, was around there when I was climbing regularly..... was at my strongest in the gym at 12st 7, currently 11 st 11 and feeling quite strong.
Depends what your trying to acheive. I used to box at 9 st 7, was around there when I was climbing regularly..... was at my strongest in the gym at 12st 7, currently 11 st 11 and feeling quite strong.
In reply to Brendan:
Somewhere up above, shark mentioned the Racing Weight book by Matt Fitzgerald. One of the big things I got from the introduction was that the optimum "Racing Weight" for an individual is something that is learnt from experience - he talks about people learning their optimum weight by knowing their results when above OR BELOW that weight.
Reducing body fat as low as possible is not recommended. Here : http://running.competitor.com/2010/09/features/racing-weight-how-much-shoul...
> On a separate note, she mentioned a couple of climbers she worked with had had long-running health and injury problems and when they were tested they found their body fat percentage was way below the recommended level. Not a problem for most folk, I know, but it might be worth thinking about getting properly tested if you're on the skinny side already and trying to lose weight.
Somewhere up above, shark mentioned the Racing Weight book by Matt Fitzgerald. One of the big things I got from the introduction was that the optimum "Racing Weight" for an individual is something that is learnt from experience - he talks about people learning their optimum weight by knowing their results when above OR BELOW that weight.
Reducing body fat as low as possible is not recommended. Here : http://running.competitor.com/2010/09/features/racing-weight-how-much-shoul...
> All runners perform best when they are near the bottom of their healthy weight range. There is such a thing as being too light, of course. You won’t run well if you’re undernourished or if you don’t have enough body fat to support basic health.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...