UKC

OK, everyone here will think me a bit strange now . . . . but anyway. I tend to keep a diary of the exercise I do (gym, running, cycling, etc.) with an approximation to the calories burned. I am at a loss though to guess how many calories a typical climbing session uses. I tend to climb VS outside so not overtly strenuous, inside I am climbing around 5b so maybe more physically demanding.

Has anyone ever calc'ed the calories they think the burn through at an evening at the wall or a day out on the crag (notwithstanding the walk in etc.)

In reply to JMB: I'd be interested in knowing this as well. My guess is that it isn't very many, because you can spend a lot of time standing still (belaying), faffing with belays, untangling ropes, reading guidebooks... and not very much time actually exercising!

In reply to JMB: Have you tried climbing with a heart rate monitor on? I use one occasionally cycling or running, and i guess that could work as a bit of a proxy measure for how hard you're working.

Alternatively, is there a way you could use height gain multiplied by your weight?

Simple physics says: energy required to move a mass m through a distance against an acceleration a is given by E = dma. When d is in metres, m is in kilograms and a is in metres per second squared then E is in joules. For example, if you weigh 70kg and climb 100m, the energy used is 100 * 70 * 9.8 = 68600 J = 16384 calories.

However, in a stupid piece of naming, the dietary Calorie (capital "C") is equal to 1000 calories (small "c"), so that's about 16 Calories.

That would be if you were 100% efficient at turning energy into height...

In reply to JMB:
It all depends on your weight.
On average though (according to my sister who is an incessant dieter) around 17 cal per min while climbing and around 9 - 11 when belaying or abseiling.
Obviously sitting in the climbing wall cafe stuffing flapjacks doesn't burn much off (unless you get someone else to buy them then the calories don't count).

Don't know why sister doesn't stop dieting and does some exercise instead!

In reply to Gareth Rees: Possibly you could use (body weight * height gain) as an estimate of work done on a 'climbing machine' in the gym or something, but in real climbing you can expend a great deal of energy and not move at all. eg, I once took an hour to (cleanly!) lead Kelly's Overhang - only 14m of height gain, but plenty of calories burnt

In reply to JMB:

I suppose it's impossible to get a good estimate, but bare it mind that it's not just the exercise. I certainly used a lot of calories just to stay warm whilest belaying at Windgather yesterday. It's surprising how much energy you body needs to survive in the cold.

Steff

In reply to JMB: An E1 is about the same as a good shag

In reply to Dave Stelmach:

Being a bit of an exercise geek I wore my heart rate monitor and it showed about 1000+kCal for 2.5 hours indoor climbing - top roping and leading. I'm 75kg

In reply to Wibble Wibble: Interesting. Was that pretty much continuous swapping of climbing with your partner, or was there quite a bit of chatting, sitting in the cafe, etc?

Would you say you were working hard on most of the climbs you did, or was there a big chunk of easier warming up & warming down on routes you found very easy?

Thanks

In reply to JMB:

It would be a trade off with technique.

The better your technique, the more optimised your movements would be, the closer to the basic principle of Energy = work done = Force*Distance

If your technique is crap, then add any figure you like to this.

In reply to Nick Smith:

No loafing and eating flapjacks, but swapping leads/belays equally, so I guess climbing for 50% of that time. Felt like I was working quite hard, in the 4a-5a range, but mostly the higher end.

In reply to Wibble Wibble:


I'm very wary of my hart rate monitor, having left it on for a day just to see how much I use 'doing nothing'. When it wrapped around the 3000kCal marker for the third time in the day, I thought 'hmmm...something wrong here'.

I even started a thread to see if anyone knew how the bloody thing might do its mad calculations. Unfortunately, I posted in DTP, so it's gone now.

In reply to Dave Stelmach: Doesn't even faintly resemble it in my book, but whatever turns you on.......

In reply to David Rainsbury: Depends what you're hanging out of!

In reply to JMB:

Really not very many, I suspect.

Have indeed worn HRM for days of climbing. Unless heart rate is above 130 or so for protracted periods of time, calorie burn is limited. Based on my observations of HRM, climbing is very much an interval, anaerobic sport, where pulse may rocket to 160+ for a few seconds in thrutching up some ghastly off-width, with ages then spent at pulse below 100. (So sh@gging/E1 analogy is not far wide of the mark....)

Suspect, hour-for-hour, climbing is less energy intensive than a decent (aerobic) stroll (when pulse averages 110-120 for most people). As best I remember, it's (very) generally estimated that running burns 800-1000 calories per hour, jogging/cycling/swimming 500ish, walking briskly 300-400 (all figs additional to standard metabolic calorie-burning). You almost certainly burn off more calories (and fat!) during your walk-in.

So...if it's weight loss you're after, suggest Scottish mountain routes rather than Bowles or Harrisons!

In reply to captain paranoia:

Hmm, the exercise calculator on the site I've recently started to use to monitor my food and exercise in an attempt to lose weight gives "Rock Climbing" as around 760 calories (kcal) per hour. I've assumed that this is for constant, strenuous movement, so I've been logging about 20 minute per hour spent "climbing" as actual climbing time...it feels about right (which is as quantitative as I'm going to get!).