UKC

I climb (on a good day) about 6a+ Indoors
By the end of the year, I want to lead 7a, to keep up with my 12 year old.
I weigh 76kg, am 5'7" and am therefore obese, based on current NHS guidelines.
Should I
1) Lose a stone in weight or
2) Do an extra session a week at my local wall

Clearly these are not exclusive options - I aim to do both! - but I wondered which approach would give the biggest improvement in climbing performance?

In reply to charliesdad:

It very much depends where the weight is situated. if you have lats like a bat, tiny legs and biceps like Arnie then I wouldn't worry. However, if you have stick like arms, sloping shoulders and a massive gut then I would think about a diet. I suppose a third option might be that your weight is evenly distributed. If this is the case then you should take up ice climbing.

In reply to charliesdad:
Both.
Weight is important in climbing, you simply dnot need to be as stong if your light. Technique is too. But you can get away with less technique if your light and have stamina. Strength and stamina come with training lots.
7a is achievable to most climbers. Just need to climb lots and if you can put the odds in your favour, by loosing weight, climbing with better climbers, picking your routes, getting the head sorted (lead all the time and get happy falling on lead, if leading is the goal)


Ah forgot, climb hard climbs! Messing around in your comfort zone will be ok, but if you constantly push yourself then you will be forced to try hard, hold small or difficult holds, use new technique, hone old technique etc.

In reply to charliesdad:

I'm also 5'7" but weigh over 90kg however I still manage more than 7a... put in more effort

In reply to charliesdad:

Mrs Alx weighs the same as you and is 5"2. She boulders 7A-7B. Try harder!

In reply to charliesdad:

More likely


And learn some redpoint tactics, don't just try to onsight everything.

In reply to charliesdad:


You don't mention how many sessions a week you're doing at the moment, which makes it a lot harder for anyone to speculate on how much improvement you'd get from an extra one.

In reply to JIMBO:

I'm crushed...will try and "man up"!

In reply to charliesdad:


Getting to 7a is the easy bit. Keeping up with a 12 year old that already climbs 7a - that's going to be hard.

In reply to charliesdad:


I'd say it's impossible to say because there are so many variable factors to consider. How many times do you go at the moment is a key one. If it's 5 times per week the extra one won't make much difference. But if you only go once a week you've doubled your training volume.

Another big factor is how you go about training. Turning up and doing routes at a wall each week will only get you so far. After a while you'll plateau. If you first recognize that and then secondly be smart about what you're doing you can continue improving. But a lot of people get stuck here it seems.

Another factor is technique. If you're fairly new to climbing you could make a big improvement here. If not then perhaps not. If you don't think about technique and how to improve then you won't improve as much.

I suppose what I'm saying is how much you improve from training really depends on you, how you approach it and what you do far more than just showing up at the wall one more time per week.

Losing a stone is no doubt far easier, and vital for your health anyway. It will also provide a big boost to finger strength. If you don't have a plan already I recommend 'Why We Get Fat' by Gary Taubes as an excellent read on diet.

In reply to charliesdad:

The NHS guidelines don't say you are obese, they put you in the overweight category and not by very much. They are also only rough guide as a number of other factors come in to play.

If you feel like you should lose some weight, lose it. It should help with your climbing, but climbing more is likely to have the biggest impact.

In reply to The New NickB: (and others)

Thanks to all for your considered responses. I only do 1 wall session a week, so doubling the volumes probably is significant. My son is "only" one full grade ahead of me, but I accept that chasing a moving target is going to end in tears -almost certainly mine! My body shape is probably best described as "rectangular", with wide shoulders and a fair bit of muscle; I'm carrying some fat, and could lose a stone, but losing two would require the loss of a limb...

In summary, I'll try the extra training and a diet, and report back if I beat my son to 7a😄

In reply to charliesdad:

Don't under estimate the technical improvement you'll need to get to 7a.

If you're serious you might want to consider a little coaching - a session on body conditioning to set you up with a suitable set of exercises with which to build your strength, especially your core strength and a technical coaching session every grade boundary to deconstruct and improve your technique .

As far as weight is concerned you shouldn't directly worry about this, but if you carry a bit of flab, just try mild dieting. If you keep a crude food diary for a week and then use this to remove superfluous food and then reduce your main meals calorie content a small amount (5-10%) then over the year this diet, with the exercise, will have a beneficial effect. If you drink alcohol remember this can contribute a lot.

Be on your guard about injuries, fingers, shoulders, elbows. You don't say how long you've been climbing. If it is less than a few years be extremely cautious about finger boarding or campus boarding, the connective tissue in your fingers takes a long time to adapt and will lag your muscular development - if you're new to it you could easily get stronger and blow your fingers early on and then your chances are gone.

Unless you have some significant latent talent your chances of catching your son are, basically, negligible because the target will move faster than you can keep up (and if you try too hard you just injure yourself). But there is fun to be had trying.

In reply to stp:

Possibly a bit off topic, but many nutritionists and dieticians don't think much of Taubes' work - including Rebecca Dent (https://twitter.com/Rebecca_Dent/status/820385532727459840)

In reply to planetmarshall:

James Krieger has demolushed the insulin hypothesis as has Alan Aragon. Stefan Guyenet has crushed much of the recent flap about sugar.

In reply to planetmarshall:

In a way though that's natural and what one would expect. Someone comes along with different ideas to the established order and it's usually the experts, those with the most invested in the existing ideology, who will be the last to change their minds. And Taubes is not a lone voice. His analysis seems congruent with other contemporary experts like Stephen Phinney and Jeff Volek, not to mention the very long history of low carb diets prior to the 1980s.

In climbing Dave Macleod and Neil Gresham have both experimented with ketogenic diets and have had favourable results as have many others.

Couldn't get much from the twitter link though I have looked at Climbing Nutrition in the past which also has a more conventional approach. In the end though experts disagree and I think you just have to try things to see what works for you. The value Taubes work for me is that it's different to conventional advice on diet that most of us all know already. And it's also very well researched.

In reply to stp:


Actually that's pretty unusual, and well known examples such as Galilleo, Einstein, Wegener etc are somewhat subject to confirmation bias. Those who challenged the orthodoxy but were then forgotten about because they were plain wrong are far more numerous. That doesn't stop them publishing a book or going on lecture tours, of course.

Which category Taubes falls into remains to be seen, but certainly his scientific method can, and has, been legitimately criticized.

In reply to stp:


Dave's definitely been successful and I know he's done his research. He's been quite cautious in recommending it to others, though - and Taubes seems like a different kettle of fish. Of course I'll be the first to admit that nutrition is not my area of expertise - so I have to trust those for whom it is.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Well Taubes has made nutrition a significant part of his life's work having several books on the subject. Dave expertise is rather different.


Well I'm sure that's true for most of us. And the problem is the experts always seem to disagree.

In reply to planetmarshall:


He's open about the fact he's not a scientist but a scientific reporter. His method seems to be a meta analysis of other's data and to try to make sense of it and understand flaws that lead to some of the contradictory results. He seems open, honest, sincere and intelligent. All one could hope for really. But none that means he's necessarily right of course. Though I'd be surprised if he was wrong about everything.

In reply to planetmarshall:


No it's not, see Kuhn's paradigm shifts, or Lakatos' research program model, for example.

You make a fair point about many of those who challenge orthodoxy being wrong and thus forgotten (Lamarck, for example), but I think the point stp is making is that the fact that this Taubes chap is unpopular with the mainstream isn't a good enough reason in itself to discredit his research.

If his methodologies are flawed, as you suggest, then that's a different matter entirely. I will openly admit I don't know anything about nutrition so will stay on the fence!

In reply to alexm198:

Seriously off topic now, but I couldn't resist...


Ironically Kuhn's model was itself controversial, Karl Popper was one prominent, and severe, critic. The opposing view, and my own, is that true paradigm shifts are rare, and the dominant force that moves science forward are frequent, and smaller, revisions. I think this is especially true in the internet age where information, and misinformation, can be shared almost instantaneously across the globe.


Indeed, but 'extraordinary claims...' etc.

In reply to charliesdad:
I am overweight but I am strong and getting stronger....

I am between 5ft 8ins and 5ft 9ins.

I have big arms and legs including forearms and calves.

I am loosing weight to and can comfort get into my Medium Renegade harness whilst wearing a thick top.

I have some good technique.

Sav

In reply to planetmarshall:

Oh absolutely, I wasn't suggesting Kuhn had all the answers - that's why I mentioned Lakatos. Kuhn's model does accommodate "frequent, and smaller, revisions" too, though. That's just Kuhnian 'normal science', and, as you say, how science usually progresses.

Anyway, as you say we are well off-topic... Would be happy to discuss this further elsewhere without derailing this thread any more

In reply to charliesdad:

The guidelines I find sometimes can be incorrect due to muscle having more weight than fat, etc. I would look to cleaning up or leaning out if you have lots of excess fat but if not just keep concentrating on your climbing.

In reply to charliesdad:

im 105kg ,although not been out much i reckon i could 7's once i got my muscles firing right again