UKC

Has anybody picked up on this? Basically these guys have been researching climbing athletes causing themselves long term damage by not ingesting sufficient calories to feed their expenditure, and apparently they feel there is a serious issue and are not receiving support from the IFSC. Doesn't particularly affect me, but I thought someone here will be.

https://www.planetmountain.com/en/news/climbing/climbing-has-a-red-s-proble...

In reply to beardy mike:

Would be interesting to know what actions they were recommending should be taken.

In reply to Luke90:

Agreed. Not an easy one for the IFSC to deal with. 

Would actually argue these doctors should aiming their concerns at the professional coaching community under whose watch these athletes are potentially harming themselves. 

In reply to beardy mike:

I suspect this is very difficult issue to tackle. Competition climbing is a sport which leans towards a certain body composition, that's clear to anyone who's ever watched any type of competition climbing. Now I'm not saying all top athletes are suffering from eating disorders (many are no doubt perfectly healthy and just naturally of the body type/shape/size/weight etc that is advantageous in climbing), but there is clearly tremendous pressure from all sorts of angles to do anything possible to get ahead, including trying to hit the 'right' weight or size. 

I don't know the specifics here, but clearly IFSC not taking this seriously enough, if two senior medical staff see fit to quit over the issue (presumably having made recommendations that are being ignored) that is big problem. 

And obviously climbing isn't the only sport with such an issue, just thinking about similar things occurring in gymnastics, athletics, swimming etc. Elite sport as a whole just seems to prioritise performance over health.

In reply to Phil79:

I guess any sport in which carrying your weight is particularly important, participants will feel under pressure like this. I think it just so happens that the two doctors involved just happen to be involved with climbing, not that they are saying it's the only sport it happens in.  

My missus is a PT, particularly with respect to Menopause and she's been on a fairly interesting ride recently in terms of understanding how the health and fitness industry strongly promotes a certain brand of fitness. An absolute focus on calories in vs calories out, neglecting macro nutrients present or any other benefits the food might have for example. Suggesting using ultraprocessed powders rather than real food. And she is very aware of an older client base which is being trained by mainly young males who have little to no knowledge of how an older females body might vary from a young males. This to me is just an extension of the pressure placed on people by a society which is obsessed with physical performance and beauty, and the need to be the best at something. And coaches who live vicariously through the pain and efforts of their athletes. I'm certainly not saying all are like that or even most, but I have little doubt that there will be some who are regarded as"go getters" who will put undue pressure on their guys and gals...

In reply to beardy mike:

Interesting that they were both part of the IFSC medical commission, not just outsiders looking in, gives it more weight.

That said as an outsider looking in it seems relatively obvious there is an issue. Two years ago Stasa Gejo came out and basically said that there is a problem and that the IFSC needs to do more https://www.8a.nu/news/stasa-gejo-talks-eating-disorder-part-2

In reply to beardy mike:

Mina did a great article on RED-S a few years ago: https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/relative_energy_deficiency_in_...

In reply to plyometrics:

If it's come across as if I'm sceptical about whether the IFSC could/should be doing anything, that isn't my position at all. I was genuinely curious about what the doctors were recommending rather than trying to support the IFSC by suggesting that it's difficult to deal with. I'm sure it is tricky but the doctors clearly feel they had workable suggestions for improvements. It's hard to judge without details but I'm more inclined to trust the doctors. Their motivations seem more likely to fully align with protection of athlete wellbeing than the IFSC's.

Could well be that coaches were supposed to be under scrutiny in their proposals, who knows. But what power would the doctors have over the coaches without the backing of the IFSC anyway? I don't think "what about the coaches" is a valid criticism of these doctors. The doctors were on an IFSC committee, so the actions and policies of the IFSC were what they were in a position to influence (or at least should have been). And noisily stepping down seems like the appropriate response if they weren't being listened to on an important athlete wellbeing matter.

In reply to beardy mike:

Yes absolutely agree. Just seems to be a fundamental problem in much of elite sport, where 'performance' is ultimate goal, and health of participants is secondary at best. And one that's so difficult to counter as the many of the athletes themselves will (either willingly or reluctantly) do things that they probably realise aren't in their best long health interest in order to win. Same with doping, steroids, drug use etc.     

In reply to beardy mike:

Thanks for posting this. I have been to a few climbing medical conferences run by Volker and his wife, and he helped me a lot on my sports medicine MSc. Can reassure you that RED-S in climbing is very well know in the fairly small medical community interested in climbing, and at last years conference it was big on the agenda. So it’s a real shame to see that they felt they had to resign over IFSC inaction, that’s a big loss to the federation. It would be interesting to know the  full details as they definitely had some vague guidelines on eating disorders for athletes and coaches, but maybe their policies weren’t far reaching enough. Hopefully this is a wake up call for what is a sleeping giant of a problem in sport climbing! 

In reply to beardy mike:

This has been an elephant in the room on the competition climbing circuit, pretty much forever.

Whilst it’s good to see that the medical professionals involved are taking it seriously, it’s extremely disappointing to see the governing body not taking heed.

There has been more personal testimony coming out in recent years (Katy Brown, Beth Rodden, Kai Lightner, Mina) but very little “official” response.

Have been shocked at coaching articles such as this https://www.mountainzone.com/blogs/performance_training/2006/03/optimizing-... .  I know Eric Horst is a god in the coaching world and who the hell am I to be critical, but the body fat levels for women he is suggesting are optimal, are very, very low.  Don’t know much about male body fat percentages.

Also this https://www.trainingbeta.com/how-to-lose-weight-climbing/ by Neely Quinn.  I know she issues a half-arsed caveat (whatever) and that if you find walking to the crag hard or lose your period maybe eat a bit more.  If it’s got to that stage, you are already in trouble.

Not entirely sure where I’m going with this other than it’s something I’ve had a bee in my bonnet for a long time about it, it is damaging to climbers, it’s obvious what the problem is but not at all obvious what to do about it.

I am actually very glad my three offspring have never shown anything but the most fleeting interest in competition climbing as it does not appear to be a very healthy environment.

On an entirely different tack, I’m very interested in the work Beardy Mike’s wife is doing re menopausal women.  There really is naff all out there at the moment.  Anything aimed at the older climber/runner or whatever, is written with male physiology in mind, and anything aimed at older woman seems to be centred on not gaining weight, keeping your hair, skin and nails nice and maybe going for a gentle walk or doing a little yoga - grrr.

In reply to Sealwife:

The male percentages are pretty damned low too. That said, he's certainly not the only one using those numbers - they're pretty common. I mean I know I'm at the upper limit for a healthy male and I'm at 24%! Quite how I would get to the figures he's talking about I don't know, and I'm eating a well balanced diet with very little in the way of processed food, moderate amounts of high starch carbs etc. I think you'd have to be incredibly careful/obsessive with your diet...

Have PM's you about the other stuff...

In reply to Phil79:

I listened to an interview with Volker Schöffl from last year, he reckons half of the top world cup competitors are

(Interview in German here: https://binwegbouldern.de/dr-volker-schoeffl-ueber-essstoerungen-im-kletter...)

From the same interview, apparently climbers at the Olympics last year had the lowest measured bodyfat percentage of all athletes.

In reply to Luke90:

In the interview with Dr Schöffl that I mentioned in my previous comment, he says the IFSC has a process whereby letters recommending healthcare interventions are sent to the coaching organisations of competitors who are at potentially unhealthy weights. Currently based on a BMI threshold. National organisations, who do not want to risk losing half their top competitors, proceed to ignore these letters. I assume this is why he has resigned.

Regarding BMI by the way, because people will immediately start moaning about what a crap measurement that is: Dr Schöffl also addresses that issue. It's the best currently available easy & cheap measurement. Bodyfat percentage would be better, but convenient & cheap methods are unreliable, and reliable methods are expensive & inconvenient. He says this is an area where promising research is ongoing but not ready yet.

In reply to AlanLittle:

Yikes. I naively thought it would be much lower than that. 

In reply to Phil79:

He's a doctor and doctors do tend to dramatise health concerns a bit. But he still has a better idea of what he's talking about than any of us do.

In reply to Sealwife:

I haven't read it yet myself, but the book Next Level by Stacy Sims was recommended to me by someone at the gym. It's specifically about training at perimenopause and onwards and appears to be aimed at people who are already very active and in training, rather than those in need of encouragement to do a bit of light exercise. It's on my reading list for the summer!

In reply to beardy mike:

It’s a problem in a lot of sport. Some well known examples in Athletics, particularly but certainly not exclusively in US College women’s endurance competition. Mary Cain is a well known example.

In reply to shuffle:

Thanks for that recommendation.  I’ll definitely give it a read

In reply to beardy mike:

I think the male figures are consistent with what's considered healthy by the medical community but the female figures are not.

I do know one female climber who was praised by a male coach for being at the lower limit stated there, when she had (unknown to the coach) just started therapy for the eating disorder that got her there.

In reply to beardy mike:

I would naively like to believe that this isn't that much of a problem in climbing when compared with, say, gymnastics. Thinking about it though, I've read books written by climbers who were at the top of the game in the 80s and they talk about deliberately not eating much to keep their weight down ahead of an important first ascent / first flash attempt etc.

In reply to Ciro:

I think (although I’m no medic) that the male figure quoted could be considered a healthy target range for a male athlete, but the healthy range for a male allows a lot higher and that’s an important distinction.

In reply to Hovercraft:

Yeah sorry, I wasn't very clear - what I meant to say was that the lower limit quoted for men wasn't unhealthy, whereas the lower limit quoted for women definitely is.

In reply to beardy mike:

The IFSC have released a very flimsy statement:

https://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/news/1004-ifsc-statement-athletes-h...

Basically a combination of "It's up the national teams to enforce" and "we did it in 2022, it wasn't quite right, so we didn't do anything this year"? is how I read that - which is an odd excuse. Something's better than nothing surely.

In reply to beardy mike:

Thanks for highlighting this here. Obviously extensive discussions on t'other channel.

https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,30296.50.html

In reply to beardy mike:

I personally feel that the whole debate has a tone of catastrophe, accusation and a desire to scrutinise and police these young athletes' bodies (particularly women's bodies).

My only contribution here is that whatever the extent of the problem, an approach based on care, kindness and mutual support feels much more humane that the finger pointing and "you must subject yourself to all manner of examinations or else" approach... It might not be the immediate overnight change that some people are looking for, but fundamentally care and solidarity for the people involved should be the priority, which means respecting their autonomy, not trying to take it away.

In reply to C WitteR:

Whilst I can see where you're coming from in terms of a supportive environment, I'm not sure that's going to work. For a few of reasons:

1) Athletes are competitive. Their entire life revolves around winning, and with the pressures of being selected to participate at an elite level, people will do anything they can to get an edge. Particularly if there is a large population in their respective country who participate in their sport. If something isn't against the rules, then someone will do it - eating less and having the lowest body fat percentage you can isn't against the rules.

2) The governing body needs to make it explicit that that type of behaviour is unacceptable for the obvious reasons. They need to lead by example. As a body if they employ a professional to investigate the effects of something, then you would have thought they would make sure they implement their suggestions, seeing as they just paid a load of money to someone to make recommendations on best practice.

3) Athletes are also subject to pressures from their coaches who are in turn under pressure to keep funding so they can keep doing what they are doing

I think fundamentally what I'm trying to get at, is that from the outside it's very easy to think of all of this in terms of it being gentlemanly, honourable etc. and that the athletes are almost passive bystanders. In reality I think it will be a complex push pull of all sorts of factors which will be extremely difficult to pinpoint and fight against. So your options to push back against it are going to be pretty limited...

In reply to beardy mike:

I take your point: without rules that aim to protect athletes, there is likely to be pressure to under-eat to perform. I'm not against using rules to protect people, but I do think they should be drawn up thoughtfully and carefully, with the well-being of these young people at the centre rather than being conducted around a discourse of "cheating".

I also think it's easy to end up dehumanising people or judging them. I remember a previous discussion on this topic descended quickly into "look at her! She's blah blah!" mudslinging and accusations, etc. It left me feeling awful.

All best,
C

In reply to C Witter:

I'm just a bit puzzled where you get that the discourse is around cheating? Can something even be cheating if there isn't a rule stating what is and isn't permissible? Take boxing for example, there are weigh ins to ensure that the competition is fair. It's an accepted part of the sport. Why could something similar not work in climbing?

In reply to beardy mike:

You're completely right, in a literal sense; that doesn't mean that the implication isn't there that people are doing something underhand in order to win.

In reply to C Witter:

I didn’t read anything like that implication. I don’t think anyone has suggested it’s underhand or duplicitous. It’s about competitors being allowed (or encouraged) to do things that are damaging to their long term wellbeing for the sake of winning and there apparently being no meaningful safeguarding system in place.

re: weight categories though, I don’t see how it would work in climbing. It also introduces its own pressures e.g. making weight in boxing is an unhealthy game itself, with larger/ taller fighters shredding off weight with diuretics to make weight and then swelling up for advantage in the ring etc. You can imagine a taller climbing doing pretty unhealthy stuff to make a lower weight category but have the advantage of reach etc.

I don’t know what the solution is, except to try and educate people to make sensible decisions with a view to the wider enjoyment and longevity that climbing offers. This doesn’t necessarily fit with performance focus though, so I guess that’s where a strong system of scrutiny comes in to make sure competitor health is the number one priority.

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

My analogy was only meant to be a loose one. Maybe a minimum fat percentage would work? Seems to be more or less what they are suggesting...

In reply to beardy mike:

In an interview last year Volker Schöffl said there's currently no method of measuring bodyfat percentage that's cheap, convenient and accurate, so BMI is the least bad option currently available. He did also say there's promising research ongoing.

In reply to beardy mike:

I just picked up on this VLOG by Magnus Mitbo talking about his motivations for leaving professional climbing - sounds very much like this is where he was... 

youtube.com/watch?v=G0fO6r6SJxo&

In reply to beardy mike:

And here's an article about similar in swimming. I think its a pretty universal problem across all "elite level" sports......

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-64826840

In reply to AlanLittle:

DEXA is surely the only way? BMI is going to be a waste of space with athletes. Climbers are by definition not that light; they're strong. The important bit is body fat percentage, not how heavy you are compared to your height

In reply to George_Surf:

You appear to have missed the "cheap and convenient" part of the requirement - Schöffl was talking about testing on site at events

The perfect is, as they say, the enemy of the good. Schöffl wants some form of safeguards in place, even if they're based on a blunt instrument like BMI, rather than doing nothing for years until the perfect solution comes along.

In reply to George_Surf:

This is about doing something (after a decade of procrastination) rather than nothing. BMI is absolutely fine as a simple metric to use to ensure that athletes who are putting themselves at serious risk are not able to compete. This would both hopefully give them a reason to gain weight but also demonstrate to others that adopting this strategy has a negative consequence (other than the long term health effects). It is obvious which athletes should not be competing and I am sure they would be under the BMI limits suggested. Yes there would be some athletes who would be above the limits and potentially still have RED-S etc but it would be a start. 

In reply to Pushing50:

At about the time we had annual health checks, and were starting to monitor athlete health, there were all sorts of different measures by different national federations. Italy for eg had one where competitors had to have a certain BMI in order to compete. Crude, and not always going to be correct, but at least they had thought about it. It does seem that everyone knows they should do something, but nobody wants to blink first, and so imho it should come from the IFSC (and UIAA for ice climbing), as they can impose it from the very top.

In reply to Ian W:

Absolutely. The IFSC have to take the lead and for some reason appear to be refusing to do so hence the resignations. Given that the athletes (including Janja the ultimate poster girl) and the doctors are demanding this in increasingly strident terms what is the politics or hidden agenda that stops the IFSC acting? I’m genuinely puzzled - why not just do the right thing?

In reply to Pushing50:

Absolutely agree. at olympic level, the political gains for the IFSC, and the moral high ground gained by being one of the first sports to act decisively should be worth it; however i can see in some ways why they wont; very very difficult to convince national federations and various coaches, when the glory of medals - in all sports - seems to trump anything else, including health and welfare of athletes.

In reply to Pushing50:

I'm sure Mina said that her BMI was in a normal healthy range.

In reply to Jenny C:

But that is the trap the IFSC may be falling into. Yes a BMI limit wouldn’t have diagnosed her but if it stops the athletes who are clearly unwell (and there are some of them) then it will still be useful. And it can be improved year on year. But doing nothing sends a very negative message - and is against the wishes of majority of the athletes 

In reply to beardy mike:

T shirts now available..........

https://ifsc-take-red-s-seriously.myspreadshop.ch/all?fbclid=IwAR1_CeHahs0k...

In reply to Pushing50:

True, but you also run the risk of organisations claiming they are doing all they can by monitoring BMI (which we all know is incredibly unreliable in athletes) and totally failing to even recognise that others may also be at risk.

In reply to Jenny C:

To be honest, it sounds like the organisations don’t care enough about it to even pretend they are doing anything. It sounds like the IFSC requests for a medical assessment of an athlete go straight in the bin.

In reply to Jenny C:

But the problem (and the reason for the resignations) is that the IFSC and some country federations (not all to be fair) are not even doing that (measuring BMI)! I think athletes would be happier if there was at least a firm BMI limit which was enforced. That has to be the first step to then an even better system in future. And the thing about BMI being unreliable is very unhelpful to keep repeating in this context. Yes BMI is rubbish for rugby players and weight lifters. But for climbers (and anyone else) - if your BMI is under 18 as an adult an alarm should be going off. 

In reply to Jenny C:

So would you use the well known and universally acknowledged drawbacks of BMI as an excuse for doing nothing until the perfect solution comes along? 

Kyra Condie and Staša Gejo (iirc) are a couple of other top athletes who've talked publicly about having problems with dieting down to weights that were unhealthy for them even though they were still above some arbitrary BMI limit, and I can't imagine Dr Schöffl doesn't know that. But do you let the fact that you can't (currently) help everybody stop you from helping some people?

Unfortunately the only in depth interview I'm aware of with Dr Schöffl is in German, but believe me he's well aware of BMI's limitations, and if he says it's good enough to use as a better than nothing solution until something better comes along, then I think he knows what he's talking about. 

https://binwegbouldern.de/dr-volker-schoeffl-ueber-essstoerungen-im-kletter...

(If somebody wanted to run that through transcription & translation they might get something usable out of it. Or not)

In reply to beardy mike:

The queen has spoken: https://www.instagram.com/p/CvNdC2TM3Mf/

In reply to all:

I don't understand why we're still talking about BMI. 

Whilst dexa scanning at competitions is impractical, a skinfold caliper test would be quick and easy to administer (in private by medical staff) and gives a pretty reliable estimate of body fat percentage, whilst being a highly repeatable way of athletes ensuring they remain within a healthy (and therefore competition compliant) body fat range.

In reply to Ian W:

I believe they have had a legal letter from the IFSC and have had to stop.

a bit like the recent BMC debacle why don’t the IFSC release a statement explaining what their reasons are and what their plan is. It may be like the BMC issue that once all is explained most people are satisfied. 

In reply to Ciro:

Please stop saying this as it just plays into the agenda of organisations like the IFSC of doing nothing at all. BMI is not perfect but its a LOT more perfect than doing nothing at all. Start proper BMI screening (including bans from national and international competition if you are below certain limits) and then improve your system from that point on. I don't disagree with your point on skinfold testing but have BMI as a trigger level then do further tests on athletes who trigger (which is what Volker Schoffl wanted to be happening). 

In reply to biscuit:

Sounds pretty likely. Rather than address the issue it's easier to shut them up.

I suspect that Marco, the head, probably has a certain air of vafanculo. From what I remember he doesn't take criticism or suggestions very well.

In reply to Ciro:

Dr Volker Schöffl disagrees with you about skinfold calipers giving consistent & repeatable results

In reply to AlanLittle:

I’ve heard Janja say this before about skeletons, and whilst I get the intention, I think it’s actually a bit of a nasty phrase, and as said above people with Red-s can also look healthy.

In reply to lhayes:

I wouldnt get too hung up on her choice of words; English isn't her 1st language......

In reply to lhayes:

I think the use of shocking language is probably an expression of frustration when the authority responsible for safeguarding is refusing to respond or introduce even basic safety measures for the people in its care. Eating disorders are of course not always directly visible, but when you have senior medics from the IFSC leaving in protest against a lack of action for a problem they believe is entrenched and certain climbers who look like they could be very unwell it’s not so hard to connect the dots. In this case focusing on the use of the word ‘skeleton’ as the problem is really ignoring the elephant in the room imo. 

In reply to Jimbo C:

This certainly has been a problem in gymnastics in the past - and I'm not naive enough to think it's gone away entirely. However, the difference there is that the governing body have taken steps to raise awareness and to promote healthier working practices around eating, weighing athletes, and body size. They've also changed the code of points in such a way that it no longer favours waifs. You can see the result of this - if you look at footage of Olympic or World Cup gymnasts from the late '80s or early '90s, and compare it to elite-level gymnasts from the last 10 years, you'll see that physiques have changed entirely. This is particularly noticeable in the women.

Of course, the gymnastics governing body and British Gymnastics have a lot of other issues that they haven't been dealing with - but that's not the point of this thread.

In reply to beardy mike:

I was at the recent Youth Climbing champs in IMST.  I was actually quite impressed with how the young athletes looked.  The podiums and especially the winners were all very healthy looking.  Strong, athletic and powerful.  I would say in the Janja mould.  Some were obviously slight in build but not unhealthy looking.  Unfortunately the most strikingly obvious worrying athletes belonged to team GB.  The same GB team who do not have their own facilities/arrangements for BMI measurement and rely on a piece of paper from the competitor saying they are of appropriate BMI.  It could be written in crayon for all they care.  Its a box ticking exercise done at the last minute before a comp.

1st step for Team GB should be affiliation with a healthcare practice that can independently asses an athletes fitness to perform and meet the minimum requirements set by the IFSC.  This should be paid for by the athlete/parents and should have zero input from coach or parent or team GB.

In reply to beardy mike:

There is also this scenario;

Dear Mr Scolaris,

Since the imposition of certain physiological requirements on climbing competitors, my client, previously very successful, has been banned from entering your competitions. His / her earnings potential has been significantly reduced................there is no evidence to suggest my client was unhealthy.......no agreed health indicator...........unreliable test methods.........future earnings potential...................we calcualte you owe us $1,000,000.

Yours,

Sue, Grabbit, and Runne.

Lawyers to the stars.

In reply to Ian W:

With a follow up letter from athletes coach.  It is foolish to assume they do not have a financial investment in these athletes.  How many coaching setups are there in the UK alone who run successful business models based on having high performance athletes on their books.

Dear Mr Scolaris,

Since the imposition of certain physiological requirements on climbing competitors, my client, previously very successful climbing COACH, has been unable to coach athletes in your competitions. His / her earnings potential has been significantly reduced................there is no evidence to suggest my client was ignoring unhealthy athletes.......no agreed health indicator...........unreliable test methods.........future earnings potential...................we calcualte you owe us $1,000,000.

Yours,

Sue, Grabbit, and Runne.

Lawyers to the stars.

In reply to Ian W:

I can see that being a possibility. Would a judge award in the athletes favour though if the safeguards are in their own interest? I think they'd have a hard time...

In reply to beardy mike:

I know Ian Dunn has picked up on this. He talked to us about it during Development Coach Training.

In reply to beardy mike:

"Dear IFSC legal commission,

My client is over the age of 18, and is fully aware that their dietary and training regime risks compromising their health, but they feel they can control the potential issues, having taken expert advice on the subject, and furthermore are happy to take these small risks in pursuit of their dream of olympic glory.

How dare you attempt to limit their participation and try to impose your unproven theories on my client.

Yours,

Sue Grabbit and Runne LLP

In reply to Ian W:
“Dear Tour de France organiser,

My client is over 18 and fully aware of the risks of taking anabolic steroids and regular EPO doping. However, having taken expert advice, they feel it’s worth it. How dare you try to limit their participation and pursuit of cycling glory etc.

Yours, 
Mr Armstrong’s representatives”

I don’t have any experience in legal issues but you seem to be arguing that this is the main reason for lack of action from the IFSC. Surely it’s up to the governing body to set participation rules. If people don’t like them they don’t have to participate.

If there is legal challenge for the well established fact that malnutrition and EDs are bad for your health then the independent medical professionals and safeguarding procedures you have in place are your defence. A poster above suggested that gymnastics is moving in this direction and a quick Google suggests there have been no legal challenges from previously successful participants, so there must be good practice that can be followed. In fact, looking at gymnastics it suggests that poor safeguarding at this stage leads to a time bomb of accusations and bad publicity down the line as former competitors whistleblow on their experiences. 

In reply to Ian W:

The rules are that a low BMI is a trigger for a proper medical assessment, rather than triggering a ban itself. That’s been the case for years so they obviously aren’t worried about getting a letter like that, nor would a letter like that be factual in the event of a ban. The issue appears to be that the IFSC don’t bother enforcing the rule and just wrote it in for appearances sake. 

In reply to Qwerty2019:

GB Climbing have not approached this issue in a serious or robust way. As you say it has been treated as a box ticking exercise. That’s why you observed what you did in Imst. The IFSC has let everyone down on this but it doesn’t mean National Federation’s need to be just as bad.  GB Climbing should use some of its £1.2 million funding to do something world leading on this. That would be a way of actually providing something of value to the athletes. 

In reply to AlanLittle:

Unfortunately the only in depth interview I'm aware of with Dr Schöffl is in German...

There is an interview with him by Alex Megos and Christophe Hanke on Youtube at 5pm this evening.

In reply to Pushing50:

Another advantage of using BMI is that it is simpler to administer further down the competition chain, to build awareness for competitors (and parents, at junior levels)

In reply to stp:

youtube.com/watch?v=w0Ev_b6w3GY&

worth a listen esp. re BMI 

In reply to stp:

Yes. Not as in depth as the one from last year, but it gets the key points across for the English speaking audience