UKC

The Tokyo 2020 Olympic Champion asks: 'Do we want to raise the next generation of skeletons?'

'I said it before and I'll say it again. Malnutrition and RED-S in climbing needs to be tackled ASAP. Preventing athletes and our sport in general from further damage should be in all of our interest and on top of the @ifsclimbing agenda.'  

An overview of the eating disorder and RED-S (Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport) epidemic in climbing following the resignation of two IFSC Medical Commission doctors and criticism from athletes.

Read more

Thanks for this article keeping this important issue in the news, and to the athletes and doctors continuining to pressuring the IFSC for improvement. Being cynical, one wonders how long a President needs to be in post to have the experience to get their organisation to act appropriately on such issues.

Honestly, I'm pretty surprised it's as low as 16% with amenorrhea. I would not have been surprised to hear that this affected 50% or more. I would be quite interested to see how that compared with a percentage for finalists. Is it more of a problem for those at the very pinnacle of the competitive field? Or do these most famous athletes have fewer problems with RED-S because they have more medical professionals around them pushing back against unhealthy or dangerous training and eating regimes?

Was interesting to read that the rationale behind favouring power and dynamism rather than realistic climbing (boning down on tiny crimps) was alleged to be down to an effort to favour stronger rather than lighter athletes... I'm not entirely sure I believe that. I would have thought that a major reason for this shift was down to an effort to broaden the appeal of competition climbing as a spectator sport (you only have to look at the inclusion of speed climbing to see this is a major driver for the IFSC).

Overall I'm happy to see the IFSC being called out for not looking after their athletes health. I would have thought there was enough money in the scene by now to fund professional doctors of various flavours for this effort to protect competitors health.

It will very likely be higher than that since it was a self-selected survey and some people suffering with these issues would not necessarily want to disclose this, even in an anonymous survey (the paper acknowledges this). 

New statement from the IFSC: https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2023/08/ifsc_releases_further_statement_on_...

Regarding the change in style, it's a bit of both I'd say. Natural progression in route setting and influence of boulder on lead resulting in the need for momentum/weight on power-based moves that are more fun to watch.

That explains a lot. I basically read the article pretty quickly and didn't look at the references at all. I habitually lie on forms where random companies ask me for info they have no use or need for under the aegis of personal data protection - I see no reason at all to trust not only the character but also the competency of someone I don't know and their entire organisation. I can only imagine how much stronger the motivation to not declare health issues is when the consequences of any kind of data leak is likely to be the suspension of your career and life passion.

Hmm... I'm not sure what you mean by "natural progression" here. To some extent I can buy into the evolution in lead route setting where, while moves have become ever more powerful and hard to read, many of the moves are still climbing moves (maybe even most of them, I've not counted). But when it comes to the bouldering, I find it hard to believe that combination dynos have taken over for any reason other than spectator enjoyment. And don't even get me started on the time limits

(and yes, I'm a grumpy, old, fat, hasbeen trad climber, so don't be expecting me to move with the times!)

A common problem in sports medicine is that there is a significant conflict of interest. The medics will be employed by the team, not the athlete. As such their primary job (from their employers perspective) is to get athletes back competing as fast as possible, which doesn’t always align with keeping athletes healthy longer term. If a medic isn’t getting athletes back in action fast enough, or is giving medical advice which impacts short term results, then they are likely to get sacked. The athletes themselves also often don’t want time off or to make changes that might reduce current performance (both because of personal competitive drive and the worry that they’ll be dropped from the team if they aren’t fit). So the medics often face pressure from all angles to sacrifice athletes long term health for short term results.

E.g. Rugby has a significant problem with opiate addiction because chucking tramadol at people gets them back on the pitch faster than giving them time to rest and recover properly. 

Things are slowly changing for the better I think in most sports, but ultimately athletes are often seen as a disposable commodity. If they break after a few good seasons they get dropped and replaced. Historically there hasn’t been much interest in what happens to them after that. 

they generally provide better separation for scoring on number of attempts to top, as there’s something to learn in the movements, as opposed to old school boning down problems which don’t 

Hmm.... I can hear the intuitive logic of this but I'm suspicious about its veracity. When it comes to outdoor problems or routes, there is a significant separation between the top athelete's redpoint or project grade and their flash grade on both boulder and lead. And the number of combination dynos outdoors is so small that they can be effectively ignored. If top climbers didn't learn anything from their initial attempts, their flash and project grades would be expected to be almost the same.

Yup, all very true. I remember all the stuff with Lance Armstrong and Michele Ferrari (different thing but still driven by performance/wins first with everything else secondary mentality).

I guess maybe what I would hope is that doctors and other training professionals would still at least act as a moderating influence on unhealthy eating/training practices relative to having only managers and sponsors supporting the athlete, even if the doctors motivations _are_ split between performance and health.

Tbh, I kind of expect that after a few years at the top of a sport, and this really applies to almost all sports, a competitors body will have permanent damage and the real balancing act is deciding how much damage you are willing to risk living with for the rest of your life while you are chasing your competitive goals between 18 and 35 years old. Skiing, football, tennis, climbing, boxing, rugby (as you said), etc. etc. - they all take a permanent toll on the body.

Yes but you only get 4 minutes, not as long as you like. I would think that the grade of boulders people can flash outside and those that they can achieve in 4 minutes are more similarly aligned. 

I suspect that climbing (provided ground falls are avoided!) will take less of a toll than most of the others you mention. Also, you've got to balance that out with the health benefits of an active lifestyle. Folk like Dave MacLeod, Neil Gresham, Steve McClure (along with countless others) are going to be significantly healthier than the majority of the population, even if they do end up with tendonosis in the fingers/elbows.

I suspect they do have something of a moderating influence, but not enough for the aggregate influence to be more positive at the highest levels than it is for recreational climbers.

I've started to have a real problem with all professional sports. It seems accepted as routine that athletes will have surgery due to injuries they've sustained doing their job, so that they can continue to do the job. This would not be accepted in any other line of work. I don't know what can be done about it but it does disturb me. 

3 things:

1. BMI is trash at higher weights - it makes no sense for determining if an individual is overweight, and has never been considered relevant in black people or Pacific Islanders. However, it does a decent job of identifying dangerously underweight individuals. as much as I hate it as a tool for anti fatness and moral panic around larger bodies, it’s decent for finding those lowest weight individuals and ifsc is disingenuous for not admitting that, imo.
 

2. the issue I see more is that many many people experience all the symptoms of anorexia except low weight. A screening tool related to bmi or janja finding super skinny people gross, is that you can ruin your body through disordered eating and starvation while looking like a perfectly normal weight person, especially if you have been restricting food since childhood which is exactly the situation we are talking about.

3. If the ifsc were to take up all possible screenings and restrictions, say they disqualified or added weight vests to athletes who were determined under weight, what is to stop another league of competition from arising under the banner of “we want to see the best and most dedicated climbers compete and will not restrict participation based on weight.”? What makes the ifsc the only game? If climbing competition became profitable, someone would do this, no? Is there any reason they couldn’t?

1.Yup

2. That’s well recognised in the discussion around this, but challenging to address. Implementing an imperfect screening while working on more robust strategies is still a move in the right direction. 

3. Maybe, but I’m not sure the publicity would be great for an organisation whose USP is that they don’t care about their competitors having serious eating disorders. Has that happened in any other sport that has implemented health-related or other restrictions or changes? I’m not aware of a pro-doping alternative to the Tour de France being set up, or a rugby organisation that advertises itself as “we encourage you sustain endless head injuries and promise to never do anything about it”. Why would anyone jump ship to this new alternative unless they knew they were going to fail medical checks elsewhere, and how many people are going to watch such a competition knowing that it is actively seeking to enable disordered eating?

I have always assumed that a reason towards 'modern' style boulders as opposed to very small crimp problems would be less injuries, and less long term damage to fingers, and I think it's a good and genuine reason.

There is also only so much you can do with crimpy problems before they get very samey.  And crimpy problems also favour the very light ....

I might not have made it clear before, but I'm not advocating small-crimps-only routes or problems. There are lots and lots of types of hold and move combinations to choose from that are absolutely nails hard without being a pure test of crimp strength. The crux of Change with all that hideous shoulder and body tension is on crimpy holds but (while I haven't climbed it) it doesn't look like the ability to crimp harder is what is going to lead to success there. The crux of Silence has basically nothing at all to do with crimps. I'm pretty sure if you load up a video play list of hard routes and boulder problems, you wouldn't find yourself short of crazy moves that look cool, are very hard and do not rely on crimping strength for success.

If you set the crux of Silence as a boulder problem, without knowing it's real most climbers would say 'this isn't realistic!'

Hahaha, I love the irony in taking Dave MacLeod as your first example after mentioning avoiding ground falls!

I agree with your point but I'm not sure how valid is to compare choosing elite sport with choosing sitting on a couch watching mind-numbing, spirit crushing game shows, stucking junk food into your mouth. If you did a moderate amount of sport, achieved an average level and ate a fruit and veg rich varied healthy diet, I think you'd be healthier at the end of the day than either an elite athlete or a junk food sofa barnacle.

I don't know how injuries typically compare across the sports I mentioned, I just reeled off a few where I knew there was a lot of evidence of permanent damage. I think you'd need to spend a lot of time online scraping data to make a pronouncement with any certainty.

I also think the athletes chosen from climbing (Macleod, McClure etc.) come from an outdoor Trad/Sport background. That's not to say they don't/can't climb indoors or succumb to similar injuries, but a competition athlete who is consistently being exposed to insanely hard, dynamic and pressurised climbs will have much more of a toll.

Again that isn't to say that these climbers are destined to be injured, it just is a fact that competition climbing is more intensive than outdoor trad, even if you are climbing at the very top level.

Well, the decision to have surgery will be made ultimately by the athlete. But surely you've got to admit there's a difference between pushing physical limits which by definition is the nature of elite sport, and doing a 'normal' job; it doesn't seem realistic to compare the two with similar expectations. When you walk the tightrope between training hard and overtraining, it's inevitable that sometimes you'll end up on the wrong side. 

I can think of 3 females and 1 male currently competing at a high level, that so clearly have an eating disorder of some kind. 

It's obviously a massive issue. Eating disorders in general, have been talked about a lot by pro climbers once they exit the competition scene. 

It's hard to say what the answer is here.

Part of me wonders if just set minimum weight for a given height for men and women. If they're under that weight, don't stop them from competing, but require them to put weight onto their harness. 

People would soon raise their weight if the options are useless ballast, or useful muscle. 

Of course, this then sets a 'target' weight that might be below a lot of competitors current weights, which could cause issues with them then trying to reach that weight. So rather than a minimum, in the eyes of some it then becomes a maximum, and we cause a bunch of other issues. 

It's a minefield of an issue. 

Why do people keep making the IFSCs lack of action easier by making these sorts of arguments? We seem to have a situation where the vast majority of athletes and the most expert doctors are all demanding something be done and the IFSC is not doing anything (and lying in the process it now appears). As Volker Scoffl is now saying loudly this disease - anorexia or RED-S whichever term you choose - kills people. So why don’t we all just get on side and help shame the IFSC into action. Because this isn’t just relevant to the elite. Every elite climber with an obviously too thin physique is a potential role model for others to copy 

The solution is straightforward and already done by many countries. Set a BMI lower limit and don’t let athletes compete for your country if they’re below it. Job done. Sure you won’t pick up the borderline cases but you’ll exclude the athletes you reference. For sure everyone will then bulk up and work the other side of the power/weight equation 

Well, no. Young people, in a high pressure environment which they've often been in since childhood, making the decision to have surgery after their body's been broken doing their job? Doesn't sound much of a choice to me. I have problems with professional sports in general pushing people that hard. That the strongest and fittest are knackering their bodies doesn't seem right. 

Why is this only being discussed in relation to competition climbing, people on this thread keep suggesting climbing on real rock is even more suited to a low B.M.I so why is their not percieved to be a problem with this among the elite outdoor climbers?   

How on earth would you regulate that? In competitions, rules can be put in place. 

What's the alternative? Andy Murray could have pushed himself less hard, played less tennis and avoided surgery (perhaps), but also wouldn't have won any grand slams.

I think that's where I'm heading, that the damage professional athletes suffer makes the whole thing unethical. 

This thread is about a leading female athlete calling out the international organising body for competition climbing, of which there is no equivalent for outdoors. I think that disordered eating is just as rife in our unregulated outdoors sector (for example, Mina's article was my introduction to this topic) but there isn't the same level of international organisation to hold accountable (though on a national level, the BMC should be doing more) 

Seeing Will excited about chocolate biscuits in the BoD video was a refreshing change. Especially when other top climbers have lived by such bonkers rules as only eating on alternate days...