UKC

Interesting pilot study out that suggests climbers diets don't meet energy requirements...

https://twitter.com/flowstone_coach/status/1137347073857282048

Incidentally, the thread with Rebecca Dent (nutritionist) on Dave Macleod's recent 'fast' promoting negative energy balance as beneficial for 7 days is also interesting...

https://twitter.com/Rebecca_Dent/status/1138028847780286465

So, does climbing have an eating problem? Should Dave Macleod be promoting this kind of fad diet, with no evidence to back it up when he is a role model for young climbers? It does potentially put young climbers (or any climber I guess) at risk of RED-S. 

Dave explicitly says on numerous sources that he is not promoting his diet choices and actively encourages people to do their own research before undertaking a modified diet approach.

I find diet/nutrition interesting but the more I watch/read, the more confusing it can be. So much contradiction. And I'm not sure what DM should do really. Potentially some negative effects. I recall an interview with Neil Gresham. I think they were pretty explicit. This works for us. But they didn't promote it per se. How does this compare to other sports? And how does this influence others? Would be interesting to see the evidence. 

But putting it on twitter is promoting his diet choices in my opinion.

Its an interesting topic, especially with RED-S hitting a few headlines for young runners. There is (in my opinion) this perceived benefit of being 'light' as a climber. Makes sense, but when does 'light' become too light. Chris Webb Parsons is an interesting example. Since changing to cross fit as a sport he is really critical of how unhealthy he was trying to maintain his physique as a climber, whereas now as a cross fitter he feels much healthier and stronger as a result. Would be interesting to see how the change in his body shape will have affected his climbing.

How does this compare to other sports? And how does this influence others? Would be interesting to see the evidence. 

Forgot to reply to this point. If a top footballer went on twitter and stated they were fasting for 7 days I imagine the response would not be positive regarding healthy eating

I would guess the same. But perhaps we need to stop guessing and use good science. So many health problems in the modern world that seem to be caused by the bad diet/nutrition science of the past. Does current advice from nutritionalists come from good science? I watched a BBC program the other day and it seemed to be loaded with suspect advice from a presenter and bad wording from the nutritionalist who's views were rooted in the same bad science that's led to the current trend of low fat/high sugar produce.

But I'm no expert. I read articles and watch YouTube. Who to believe? 

True - there is almost to much out there to filter through, so we rely on 'experts' not really always knowing whether there is evidence to support their claims or not! 

I'm not sure *climbing* has an eating problem: society more generally creates eating problems, and climbing is a place where they are reproduced. And the reasons for this are complex, immensely varied and potentially involve everything from patriarchy to the family to the culture industry to specific institutional cultures (including training cultures). Dave McLeod is able to hold his own, so I don't think I need to jump to his defence; but neither do I think it's fair or useful to try and offload this on him or to make this a debate about him. If people are genuinely interested in opening up space for a greater debate about eating disorders, that's really good (and... it has started to happen, no?), but that's not the same as trying to publicly shame McLeod by spuriously attributing causality between young athletes' disordered eating and his videos - cos there's nothing scientific about drawing that conclusion...




 

That study looks pretty crap, even for a pilot. It doesn’t appear they’ve done any actual testing of basal metabolic rate and energy used during training sessions so to say their test subjects are under-eating is just licking a finger and waving it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. 

Personally I’m interested in Dave Mac’s keto fast experiments and I do find the idea that this is somehow going to inspire dangerous eating habits in youths to be unlikely. It seems that some people are using Dave Mac and other’s dietary choices which are proven to be effective (although are not going to be for everyone) to beat their own drums louder. 

I’m not sure he was promoting what he was doing to others as much as experimenting on himself. 

I'm waiting for criticism of fasting in Islam and/or Lent, promoting RED-S.

Dave is experimenting for himself and narrating it online, he is not promoting anything as far as I'm concerned. He's just adding knowledge to a topic. 

It is ignorant and way too simplistic to say fasting is bad. Fasting can upregulate repair mechanisms in the body for a start.

99% of nutritional science should be more realistically called "science". It's one of the worst areas of scientific research there is. Almost every study is bollocks.

My experience is that many, many climbers have a mindset of either guilt i.e. 'Oh I just ate a flapjack, it's terrible - should have had a celery stick instead' or worse holier than thou i.e. 'Ever since I switched to celery sticks from flapjacks I've lost 2KG and strength is great'. 

The first usually spoken by perfectly healthy individuals who are already reasonably lean who would be far better off cracking on with a bit of strength training and maybe having a protein shake after climbing to help recovery. 

The second is far worse because it's almost always uttered by people who are already very thin and clearly aren't meeting basic nutritional needs. 

I recently had to have a very blunt conversation with a friend (woman) who is already strong and lean but who admitted to me that 'sometimes I'm hungry and I don't eat anyway'. She's 170cm and weighs 65KG - someone had told her that 55-57KG would be a 'good weight'. Thankfully she's since started eating more, feels stronger and now agrees that it was a really bad mindset. 

Just at the weekend I spoke to someone who expressed the opinion that 'every climber has an eating disorder hiding away somewhere'. 

The same story is everywhere. The local youth group at the climbing gym is rife with it - girls who are tiny and thin saying they 'have to be careful what they eat to stay light' and lads who are trying to fuel strength training sessions with carrot sticks. The same kids will then comment in surprise on how much more power I have than them whilst simultaneously criticising the fact that I've eaten a couple of chocolate cereal bars during my session. 

In my opinion climbing as a sport has a massive issue with food and engendering eating disorders in impressionable people, both children and adults. When training hard and recovering we need fuel, not fasting. It's fine to want to eat healthily and have a good power to weight ratio, but that is achieved by fuelling appropriately and training hard, not starving yourself. 

I have massive respect for Dave and his achievements, but in this situation I think that he's perhaps accidentally promoting a diet choice that for most people would be a very negative choice, and I'd be quite happy to say that to his face. 

I think all these n1 experiments are amazing especially when showing really interesting findings that contradict conventional "wisdom" and "science".  When you start adding all the outliers together and adjust that its extremely unlikely and difficult that collusion is taking place, our beliefs and what we though were true begin to be questioned.  This can be good or bad depending on how much someone takes personal responsibility for doing their own research and drawing conclusions that benefit themselves.

Now I don't know much about the scientific method, but is stunning that there appears complete lack of interest from research to answer these n1 experiments.  Some interesting reading  on the state of research - https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/08/24/john-ioannidis-aims-his-bazooka-nutrit...

Not sure why Rebecca thought she should respond in a critical way without any backing research?  Dave's update was related to a planned fasting experience and she's a nutritionist with no expertise, credentials in fasting protocols, unless I'm mistaken?  If Dave was talking about eating then a different story. I've never heard of eating disorders resulting from fasting in the climbing community?  Why did she try and link the 2 issues when its much likely that calorie restricted diets over many months and years is most likely the cause?  Is planned fasting even a preferred form of weight control by people with with eating disorders when compared to calorie restriction, bulimia, etc.?

Not sure why Dave would post on a social media thread and open himself up for attack.  If he feels great and has no health/body fat issues; if other people feel great and no health/body fat issues; then what's the problem.

BTW, a planned fast isn't not the same as calorie restriction as there are distinct different metabolic processes that happen in each scenario.

Honestly, I think that basically anyone in any sport* that has reached a mature level (like, it wasn't invented yesterday, and there is a large group of professionals competing to be the very best in the world) is going to be doing damaging and unhealthy stuff if they really want to stand a chance of breaking into the best-of-the-best group. It's going to be a combination of chronic or acute body damage caused by either under-eating and/or over-training/exerting.

While I believe that there are practices that are not-so-bad and practices that are considerably worse and some people will be lucky, some people will have genetically more robust body tissue, etc. etc. , I don't believe that anyone in the top follows the path to an optimally healthy body. The people at the top have histories of injuries that read like a medical encyclopedias, I watched some of the latest bouldering cup event and between the athletes grimacing and clutching at body parts that were barely holding up, the preponderance of support tape all over and the disturbingly regular chat about athlete's injury history by the commentators, it's pretty clear that aiming for the top of the sport cannot be done in a healthy way. And just remember, these are the guys and gals who _didn't_ suffer a career ending injury on the way up the ranks, for each person in the finals, how many young hopefuls ended their careers prematurely through injury?

*I'm talking about sports where strength and/or endurance are the primary factor in success really, not chess, darts, curling, etc.

There's a few points I'd raise here:

This is not exclusive to climbing. If i had £1 for every person (usually women), who hitch a ride on the Weight Watchers binge & starve cycle, I'd be very rich. The fact that marketing has a foothold in the diet industry is telling - as is the seasonal nature of dieting (New Year and Summer), and that dieting is even an industry. 

Dave advocates appropriate training and nutrition. Always. Please do not conflate fasting and starving as it confuses the discussion. 

We could have this discussion about a real fad diet like veganism. But fasting? What makes a lion hunt?

Do you mean ‘perceived’ benefit in that, all other things being equal, there is a marked benefit to climbing performance in being lighter? 

It’s quite obvious looking at CWP that he’s not going to be climbing anywhere near the same grade with his current body composition. All that muscle is good for CrossFit, not so good for hard bouldering. He’s one example where he gained his body composition for climbing in an unhealthy way; where there are many other examples of top performers who have a healthy diet, and a lot who have managed to improve their body composition and reduce their weight by eating more than they were previously, but eating the right things at the right times. 

Actually I'd have to say this is the second time that I'm aware of that Dave has published content detailing some kind of fringe diet which represents a poor long term choice for the vast majority of climbers. The first time was keto, and it's honestly incredible how wide that went. I live in Germany and have met plenty of climbers here discussing how they 'should be trying keto' because Dave has done it. Clearly keto works for an outlier group as a longer term choice but for most climbers it's mostly only appropriate as a short-term intervention to drop some body fat. Even in that scenario it is better to simply restrict calories to a reasonable degree (let's say 10-15% deficit on the basal metabolic rate as a baseline) and time intake of simple carbohydrates around climbing to allow decent training output. The large majority of climbers would have far more success with this than struggling with the whimsy of keto. 

As mentioned before I have massive respect for Dave and his achievements and do not want this to be construed as any kind of attack or degradation - I simply find it unfortunate that people have interpreted his personal dietary choices as applicable to all, which is very likely not how he meant it - I'm sure Dave is far more interested in sharing the process. We wouldn't all try to train like Ondra, and we shouldn't all try to eat like Dave. We're all individuals and need to discover the best option for us which usually isn't a fringe diet or extreme dietary restriction.  

If we were talking about the considered use of half day or single day fasts as part of a short term intervention to manage body fat, or sparingly in the long term to allow maximum fuelling of training whilst managing body composition in a sustainable way, then I'd be inclined to agree. A seven day fast, though? I can't honestly see the benefit to any athlete (or any person, for that matter) of purposefully starving themselves for a straight week. Again, Dave probably has his reasons for doing this but hasn't deigned to publish them and lays no disclaimer by his post meaning any impressionable climber could easily construe 'Fasting is good, the longer the better'. 

Personally I would say deciding not to eat for a week in the hope of achieving an overall beneficial effect on the body is delusional. Very happy to be proven wrong but I'd love to see it studied in a properly scientific way and have the results published with a decent test size as opposed to an n=1 test group on social media with no context and no biometric testing. 

It would be interesting to see some studies, or whatever?

This goes into the topic in some considerable detail and is well worth a listen: https://soundcloud.com/climbsci/09-ketogenic-diet/?fbclid=IwAR3_g2tCchrZUbZ... 

Dave was a decade late to the keto party and fasting. It's not whimsy and there are variations such as cyclical ketogenic diets and targeted ketogenic diets. They are strategies or tools. If people see tham as prescriptive and necessary to climb as hard as Dave, that is not Dave's fault as that is not what Dave is advocating.

Agreed up until the last half of your last sentence. Keto and fssting are not fringe. They're preficated on sncestral eating patterns. You assume modern Western diets and eating patterns are 'normal'.

Agreed that 7 days seems long. I also agree with the idea impressionable climbers could easily construe 'Fasting is good, the longer the better'. But it is the same with any athlete (amateur or pro), who refuses to deload their training or who thinks more is more. You cannot blame Dave for the ignorance or foolishness of others.

Thanks. A long one. After 3 hours of YouTube on fructose I hope it's okay for the layman.  

Although I have to say, the effectiveness of advice on calorie restriction does contradict some of what I've seen. Off climbing now, but I'll post some links later. 

Thanks MischaHY - you put across much more eloquently what I was trying to say!!

On a slight tangent, it is suggested that Dave has a "duty" and a "responsibility" towards those who read his posts. Does he? So what if he is famous. why does he have a duty whereas I, for example, could post whatever twaddle I want? many times more people will read his posts than mine of course, but why does that saddle him with a "duty?"

Exactly this. The criticism of Dave reminds me specifically of those outside of climbing who criticised Honnold/Free Solo for encouraging the 'reckless' pursuit of free-soloing.

Seems to me like there is no reason to expect the optimal diet for climbing performance would necessarily be long term healthy or optimal for non-climbing fitness.

The problem with climbing is that often it comes down to moving your body weight through fingers on poor holds.  You can't get the full benefit of large muscles because finger strength and friction to the hold are the limiting factors so reducing body weight is more significant.

I think we're on the same page, broadly speaking. 

I'll say it again abundantly clearly for the crowd: I don't think Dave is trying to get anyone else to do anything. He's just sharing his process. 

Personally I consider the total elimination of any food group, especially a whole macronutrient, to be a fringe diet.

You're absolutely right that world over there are all sorts of diets on the go formed by culture, crop availability etc. This is why I personally advocate that people start with moderation and as broad a diet as possible, and only eliminate things if they present a clear issue. 

I've previously had extensive gut problems which meant I really *had* to commit to extensive elimination dieting (milk products, soy, oats). It sucks. Eventually I fixed it with a daily probiotic supplement and I cannot express how wonderful it is to simply eat a broad range of food without worrying that I'm going to be sick for days after. This has left me firmly of the opinion that elimination diets are a bad idea unless you absolutely have too.

And until the advent of agriculture and the beginning of more 'modern' diets, humans rarely lived to be older than 35. Just saying.

Absolutely wrong. Outside of war, animal attack, accident and medicine, our ancestors (once they got beyond 5 years of age), lived to a ripe old age - well in to their 70s and later. Conversely there are examples of settled agriculture causing issues of famine through drought/crop failure, insect plagues etc... in a way that more agile populations (Hunter Gatherer), could adapt to. 

I'll admit to being by no means an expert in this area, however a quick scan for data shows pre neolithic revolution life expectancy at 15 to be 30-35 years (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fajpa.1330300314) and that the agricultural revolution brought a significant, if delayed, increase in life expectancy (http://hdl.handle.net/10419/80105). Admittedly, this does not necessarily indicate the dietary change to be a causal factor but I do think that the oft-cited argument of "our ancient ancestors did things this way so it must be right" can be incredibly flawed.

I'll recommend this GurvenKaplan paper: 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2007.00171.x

If you go to an old cemetery you'll see from the gravestones that infant mortality is high. This heavily skews mortality averages. However, once past 5....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/

Interesting. Although the second article you linked to, talking about a Victorian diet, literally spells out improvements in agriculture as the reason for improved health 

"How did this brief nutritional ‘golden age’ come about? How was it lost? And could we recreate it? One key contributory factor was what used to be called the Agricultural Revolution"

and talks about how they're increased activity levels required more calories

"calorific intakes were approximately twice ours".

Hardly an advert for hunter gathering and/or fasting.

I'll bow out of this discussion now, rather than get enrolled in an exchange of random research articles on UKC!

My view is that as a sponsored climber you effectively taking a form of payment for your public profile. If you take the money i.e. upside of high public profile you also have to be prepared to take the downside which is careful consideration of what you are posting and consider the impact you have a role model.  

Conversely, if a company wants to use Dave Macleod as a tool for advertising, they have to accept the person he is. Unless they set conditions on his sponsorship, Dave's background means that his nutrition and training are a critical area of his work and he has also historically shared important aspects of his life and work.

I'd say that his nutritional research and practice are a key part of "Dave Macleod" and if you want to use him to sell your products, you'd better understand this.

NB I know nothing about the Dave beyond what I see on his blog and videos. His presentations have always been quite balanced and after watching them I haven't felt an urge to do 7 day fasts or to solo F8c.

Then read the first article again!

I've articles relating to this.

I've posted both these articles on UKC previously over the years. I used to be well in to the whole nutrition gig and have collected a wealth of articles. But UKC is a tricky medium to discuss on. I too will bow out.

I'm no marketing expert but I really respect Dave MacLeod for his achievements, his excellent advice on head game and strength. The diet piece has done a 180 certainly since he wrote 9/10 Climbers so he must of climbed Rhapsody while eating carbs so there is hope for carbs addicts yet  The nutrition is a tiny bit of what he does. Who know sponsors think - that's is good exposure or please stop being somewhat controversial! Their opinion is probably as spilt as the opinion here.

But its not about what they think. It's about the influence he has and whether these posts are leading those who are more easily influenced into a unhealthy eating habits. And if he has a duty to consider that impact. I believe he does have a duty being a sponsored climber. It's a fine line too close for me call...

Should he stop fasting, never talk about his own nutrition or drop his sponsors?

What about those who are easily influenced and go on to injure their fingers from campusing/dead-hanging before they're conditioned for it?

Should we ask Dave to remove those fingerboarding articles?

Or perhaps these are all advanced techniques to target performance, and we should thank Dave for sharing his research/experimentation, trusting that most UKC'ers will approach these advanced techniques with appropriate caution?

I’m trying to sit on the fence  

My feeling that the full vlog when he posts it will be interesting. It will also add the context  and balance which insta and Twitter posts miss. And allow the message “don’t try this at home kids” to be communicated.

It's certainly NOT a technique I'd recommend to kids!

These are worth watching. Not climbing specific and nothing about keto. But you seem to think that recommending a calorie restricted diet is a good idea. There's a lot in there but it does make the recommendation of a calorie restricted diet to appear to be pointless and meaningless. Obviously that's an oversimplification.

youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFyF9px20Y&t=4101s

youtube.com/watch?v=zcMBm-UVdII&

I had post from Shauna Coxsey on my FB page the other day about how excited she was over some new Red Bull thing that was going on, whilst wearing her RB hat and posing for a selfie with a can of RB.

To be honest i'm more concerned about that affecting the dietary habits of impressionable climbers than Dave Mac.

Just on that note alone - glucose can be readily made by the body from both fat and protein (gluconeogenesis) - that means it's not essential, he's not actually eliminating anything from his body.

It’s pretty much what I do for cycling. I manage to maintain a decent weight and still have the energy for performance, without being susceptible to illness. That’s my n=1 experiment. I think there’s a lot to be said for common sense when the science is so conflicting. 

Haha sugar science is ace when you check out the effect on the brain. Some good watches there although I've been there already funnily enough - I wrote a Lit review on sugar and the effects of the different industries on our diets when I was in Uni. 

What I view as the most moderate and effective is a general calorie restriction with specific carbohydrate timing. This basically can be structured as the further away from exercise you are, the more complex the carbohydrates you're consuming should be. In effect this means morning or evening should be whole grains, colourful vegetables etc whereas 5 minutes before starting a climb should be sugary carbs, ideally a 50/50 balance of glucose/fructose from what I understand. In reality this can be a cereal bar, a couple of sweets etc - the important point being that the body can access this very quickly and will make use of it directly. 

On a personal note this works very well for me - meals mostly composed of proteins, colourful vegetables and complex carbs with specific sugary carb snacks during training sessions. I'm very happy with my body composition right now but since December I used this to drop 7KG body fat nice and steadily. I had some fat to lose due to long-term illness that is now resolved and this method worked very well and was extremely simple to maintain at my current body weight because I simply started eating more of the same food, leaving me with no lifestyle change other than that I'm not hungry anymore. 

I should also probably point out that I've learnt the vast, vast majority of this from Tom Herbert (https://useful.coach/) who is a bottomless pit of nutrition knowledge and is well worth a follow on insta/facebook. https://www.instagram.com/usefulcoach/ https://www.facebook.com/usefulcoach  

Yes, but far less effectively than simply providing the body with glucose to use  

His podcast climbsci is really good about nutrition as well

It upregulates to provide the necessary amount. It's evolved. I wouldn't really question it.

Totally agree for normal life but for performance sport (which is what we're discussing) it's definitely a more effective tactic to provide the body with easily accessed glucose. 

Yeah I actually linked one of them above funnily enough! 

I've never had any success. And what I've read does view it as ineffective. It doesn't address why people overeat. Changing the balance of what you eat, in regard to leptin and insulin, seems to be a better approach. But I'm not aware of any studies that would back that up. If calorie restriction is simple and effective advice, why do we have so many health problems due to diet?

I listened to that Keto podcast. Didn't really understand the science but it does appear to say that the jury is still out on keto. There is 'strong conjecture' that other diets might be more effective and inconclusive studies. And I didn't notice any comparison with calorie restriction? Still need to listen to the last half hour, got back late. 

Yeah this is the thing, everyone is so personal. Have you done the whole hog with detailed calorie logging, sticking solidly to targets and maintaining a decent exercise volume throughout? I have to say I'd be very surprised if this had no effect whatsoever. Making sure your diet is comprised of decent whole foods ideally mostly prepared from fresh is a massive part of it for me. We're getting a bit tangential here though... 

I've always been decent weight, or more than decent. Dealing with hunger, rather than thinking in calories, has been the key to keeping my weight reasonable.

I'm not generally a believer in common sense. For example, a study shows that a group eating a lot of dietary fat accumulate a lot of body fat, have heart attacks due to fat accumulating in the arteries. What does common sense tell you? It seemed to confuse a lot of smart, and otherwise scientific people. And my generation is still heavily prejudiced by growing up with the diet advice at the time. It can be pretty hard to get a full fat yogurt in the US, the shelves are loaded with low fat. 

Yes, definitely. This is why i follow a Targeted Ketogenic Diet!

Restrictive diets can work for me in the short term. But the constant tends to be, if I get hungry I'll eat. I won't maintain the discipline.

The point is, have you considered you might be in the minority? And a calorie restricted diet might be bad advice for the majority, in the sense that it's not effective?

There's a world of difference between what works for you, which I think is Dave Macleod's message, and what you're saying. 

I don't get it. Do you maintain it, or not? Spending some time hungry is an unavoidable part of effective weight loss, and is just something that has to be accepted as part of the process. Really not meaning to sound like a dick here by the way but I think it's important to actually be clear on that point. A reasonable weight loss is something like 500g/week. If you don't maintain it then there won't be any clear effect. Restricting caloric intake isn't nice and you have to be disciplined - you can't say it doesn't work for you if you haven't maintained the protocol, if see what I mean? 

If you literally cut your portion size at each meal by around 1/5th you'd already be hitting the right deficit assuming you've got relatively balanced meals.  

Honestly, I'm sure that I'm not. I'd be absolutely amazed to find someone who stuck to a calorie deficit and ate mostly whole foods and didn't lose weight progressively. I understand that it's not the easiest thing to do but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. 

I think this is plain wrong. At least for me. And I'm not sure we should be talking about weight loss generally. I prefer body composition.

That's exactly what I mean. If nobody sticks to it, it's ineffective advice.

Maybe if they stick to it. What if 90% fall off the wagon? Blame the people, or try to understand why they can't stick to it and modify the advice? And I agree about the whole foods. But I think your initial advice was just about a specific range of calorie restriction and carbs. I wasn't sure how that would be good advice for the majority of climbers. Especially when people generally have such a hard time keeping the weight off, and everybody 'knows' they could just eat less. I was wondering if it was based on any studies because it did contradict what I'd been looking at recently.

Here's the problem; if you were going to enter one of those "Man Versus Food" challenges where you had to eat as much as possible, what would you do to prepare? You'd skip breakfast of reduce portion size (eat less), and perform some exercise to work up an appetite (do more).

So the very things people advise us to do to lose weight (eat less, do more), is the very thing we'd do to compel ourselves to eat more.

This is why reframing the weight loss debate outside of calorie restriction (in terms of food quality, fasting, body composition etc...), is a superior strategy for some.

I personally don't see one worse than the other. Both are looked up to as role models in climbing and should take some responsibility for what they are promoting whether its a high sugar stimulant energy drink or fasting/starving yourself for 7 days. 

Its not a dig at either athlete - I respect what they do and I do appreciate people do need to take responsibility for what they see/read in social media and not just imitate, because it is what Shauna or Dave do. But they are in the spotlight. And people will imitate what they do. And people should also question what they do.

I just wanted to start the conversation on climbers diets - I watch a youth team train regularly at our local wall and they are obsessed with not being too heavy. Particularly the girls.

Thanks for all the comments though - I've enjoyed reading the discussion !

Actually based on what successful competitors do, I'd spend a week or so eating a really large volume of lettuce in order to get my stomach nicely expanded and ready to handle a huge meal without loading on calories...  

I actually think this is poor advice. Eat less, do around 50% less BUT crucially maintain the relative intensity of activity is a more appropriate method as I understand it. Basically keep training stimulation similar but reduce overall volume whilst in deficit. 

This is a good point and I agree wholeheartedly. 

This thread started in the context of performance nutrition for people who are training hard. If someone has the discipline and drive to stick to a structured training plan, they'll stick to a well-structured nutrition plan as well. 

This is a great point which I think relates to what I said just above and is maybe why we've been bouncing around in that awkward 'not quite in agreement' space. Everything I've been saying has been in the context of people who are already capable of sticking to a training program that is at times going to cause them discomfort and disrupt their usual rhythm. If we're talking about the general population then we absolutely have to consider the broader spectrum of human psychology and accept that most people aren't as willing to actively introduce discomfort or broader changes into their lifestyles. I must say I'm a very goal driven person with a lot of discipline when it comes to training and it still took a long time to build up those good habits and incorporate them into my diet long term. 

To clarify, I'm talking about an applicable nutrition strategy for people interested in maintaining or altering their body composition in the context of high level climbing/training. From this respect I'm more interested in what is 'most effective' long term rather than what is the easiest for the weaker willed (again putting it bluntly, I genuinely mean it in a kind way!). 

You're right, I could have been more thorough in that second post and specified exactly what I meant. For me a crucial part of getting a handle on things was eating whole foods as much as possible and cooking every meal from base ingredients. I'd say 95% of what I eat is home cooked from raw ingredients with the remainder being bread or the occasional meal out. 

The thing is as I mentioned in one of my initial posts: 

^^ Maybe you're an outlier, but I think it's far more likely you simply need to be more disciplined with yourself. 

As a parable, there's plenty of people who think of themselves as writers, but can't bear the idea that writing feels like 'work' - so they just don't write. Likewise, there's plenty of people who like the idea of dropping a few kilos, but don't like that the process isn't comfortable. Some will decide it's worth it, and they're the ones who will be successful. 

Must say I'm enjoying the introspection this conversation is causing. 

I was obviously being a bit tongue in cheek. But it's an important conversation to have and always good to hear thoughts.

I coach a youth squad, and adults, and have transitioned a few from young kids to teenage/adult competitive climbers where body image, nutrition and exposure to social media become more important and influential. So far we've never had any issues. I think I know why but find it very interesting/worrying that you are seeing/hearing almost the opposite. A coach may be unaware of this. I certainly don't think I know everything that's going on with the kids I work with. Maybe have a word with the coaches? 

Sounds like you're doing a great job! 

This is what I've done recently at my local after feeling a bit uncomfortable. Hopefully the coach (who is excellent) can schedule in some nutrition theory sessions smooth things out a little. 

I was sitting on the fence on that comment. I said it was too close to call...

And I’d never advocate the removal of any articles or vlogs. But I do think that care needs to taken when posting on social media platforms such as insta and Twitter when you’re in the public eye that you’re aware of the impact. That throw away 1 liners about fasting is easily construed as about weight loss for performance. He’s gone on to explain on Twitter this isn’t the case but people only absorb what they want and easily miss nuances... as you did! 

True to an extent. It started with criticism of what Dave Macleod has been saying on social media, and how that would have a negative effect on others. It's not in doubt that Dave Macleod trains and climbs hard.

The only thing I challenged was the assertion that the majority of climbers would be better off on diet X than diet Y. I'm not sure the majority even like structured training, or have ever entertained the idea. I would guess it's a small minority.

I suspect the answer, if you don’t want to lose weight by running a calorie deficit (which takes a modicum if discipline) to not get fat in the first place. 

This post resonated because i don't fast or manipulate my carbs for particular performance goals. I've used both strategies for well over a decade merely as a means to health and effortlessly maintaining leaness it to middle age.

Since we're talking about weight loss, that's not even an answer, let alone the answer. Do you even know what the question is?

Same here - I eat one meal and day. I went back to three meals a day about a decade ago and then didn't like it so stopped after a month or so. My body went back to being hungry at "mealtimes". It took about a month before the hunger went away and I'm back to one meal a day. 

I also 'fast' for the odd day here and there (effectively a 48 hour fast). 

The only exception is if I'm doing a big walk in the hills and I need to load before I do it otherwise I bonk quite badly

Tim

I don’t know why you’re being so obtuse. You can’t lose weight without eating fewer calories than you expend. If you can’t do that the only answer is not to put the weight on in the first place. If you want to lose weight, suck it up and do what you need to do.

All you want to do is moralise. And I'm not interested. Have a conversation with someone else.

I’m sorry if reality gets in the way of your feelings. 

I wouldn’t be so sure about this- calories in food is a measure of energy expended when burned, not the amount of energy the body absorbs. It is entirely plausible some foods could be eaten in excess of calorific requirement but still be absorbed less than 100% leading to a deficit...

Additionally important to note that hunger is a function of blood glucose levels, hormone release and some mental factors, not of calorie intake/expenditure ratio (although that may have some impact on the above)

Hi Yanis, 

I think your view is quite a dated one isn't it? General idea seems to be that firstly, absorption varies a lot. You might eat a lot of calories, but they won't necessarily be available to metabolise. Secondly, not all calories are used by your body in the same way. 100 calories from refined sugar will have a very different effect than 100 calories from protein. 

This chap seems to make decent videos, easy to understand. One about your metabolism:

youtube.com/watch?v=dt1DOJXAXFg&

That should make losing weight easier. Countering that is the way your body reacts to calorie deficit (studies have shown that people tend, on average, to lose half what the energy equation predicts (500 kcal per day deficit leading to a 1lb per week weight loss is what’s predicted IIRC)). Whether the calories on the packet of crisps is equal to the calories your body burns is kind of irrelevant to the overall point, which is output needs to exceed input in order to lose weight. I’ve lost over a stone since Christmas by calorie counting despite already being pretty skinny, so I know it works. The psychological aspects of over-eating and weight loss are a whole different matter. It’s easier for me because I’m motivated by my sport. 

"output needs to exceed input in order to lose weight" is an incorrect statement. I'm not saying the reverse- ie im NOT saying "if output exceeds input you wont lose weight", of course that is true (law of conservation of energy etc). What I (and others) are saying is that there is no simple law which ensures that calorific deficit is a necessary condition of weight loss. It may well be the condition which is most common for people, and one that works for you, but there are other conditions which lead to the same result, and to negate their existence is ridiculous. There are well documented hormonal conditions which result in severe catabolism in spite of calorific surplus. Whether or not this has relevance/applicability to losing weight for sport.... that is a sensible topic of debate. 

Why do people make weight loss and subsequent maintenance of weight such hard work?

My experience with occasional climbing and bouldering partners has shown that it's usually the ones who are heavier than would normally be seen as ideal for climbing, telling me how great their weight loss/maintenance programs are. Clearly that's not the case.

Limiting your calorific intake and/or increasing calorific expenditure will result in weight loss.

There are many ways to achieve this, some more  healthy than others but I'm sure that long term adjustment of eating habits and consumption of fresh, healthy foods rather than processed, in conjunction with regular exercise is the best way.

I'm not going to paste up links to support my opinions, I'm sure they're out there but the reality is, if you dispute the above then you're not really ready for the long term plan, only for another 'fad' diet.

Probably because the subjective experience of following the same program is different for different people and yet most people insist on enforcing their N=1 experiences as objective fact. 

Absolutely couldn't agree more.

It’s funny, at a cafe stop on the Sunday cycle club ride a couple of the heavier blokes who struggle on the hills said to me “Course you’re naturally skinny, you don’t have to worry about your weight” while they were eating a fry-up and I was eating a banana...

But my “n=1” experiment is relevant to the vast majority of the population, whereas the points you are making a relevant to a very slim (pardon the pun) minority. There’s a danger in being quite dim while trying to come across as clever. 

Why do some people struggle with their weight and others don't? The answers do seem to be out there, I posted a few links higher up the thread. Or just do a bit of Googling.

It's a rhetorical question, maybe I should have said 'I don't understand why some people make weight loss and subsequent maintenance of weight such hard work'.

Now I'm confused

So you do understand? The rest of the post didn't seem to explain.

I don't think anybody is anyone is saying that a diet which results is weight loss is breaking any fundamental laws of physics. But maybe using a fundamental law as dietary advice isn't very helpful?

Worth being open to new ideas.

"I don't think anybody is anyone is saying that a diet which results is weight loss is breaking any fundamental laws of physics. But maybe using a fundamental law as dietary advice isn't very helpful?"

Why isn't it helpful, so many seem to be blinded to this fact? 

Well educated people are subjecting themselves to fasts, no carb diets etc etc in the belief that it's going to be the magic key. For an eating plan to work long term it has to be sustainable, not eating carbs for the rest of your life isn't a very exciting prospect for most, it's also often hard to do. 

It would seem to me that the diet that follows what would be considered a 'normal' eating plan and lifestyle is most likely to work, like putting more colour on your plate, cutting down on simple carbs, not eating a dessert, eating smaller portions etc etc are all more likely to work long term than fasting for however many hours a day, or cutting out carbs completely and turning up at the Works drained of energy but expecting to pull hard and put a good session in.

Driving home? Don't pick up that chocolate bar at the petrol station.

Going out with the lads for beers? Don't, stay at home, work out, go for a run if you must.

We all know this basic stuff, surely, it's just that many of us don't want to make that change. It's not dietary advice that's needed, it's the willingness to make the changes and the willpower to stick with them.

Because I don't think stating it will make them any less blind. They know it and it doesn't help.

They're looking for a magic bullet. Because they don't understand why they can't lose weight.

Is this a straw man anyway? Do no carb diets exist?

People are getting fatter overall. So maybe the 'normal' isn't working, or everybody's idea of 'normal' is different. The diet of many people is leading to health problems. That's bad for everyone.

Seems to contradict what you said above. You seem to be saying calories in/out is useful dietary advice. Now you say dietary advice isn't needed? But fundamentally this doesn't offer an answer. It just points the finger. And it hurts us all at the end of the day.

OK, I'll give you that, it was poorly worded, people need to take notice of basic dietary advice and act on it. 

Why is it hurting us all?

Sorry, I think 'good advice' is probably a bad way to put it, and we're talking about different things. I think I'm trying to discuss what would be a good strategy regarding diet. To give us a healthy population. Or to maximise climbing performance.

The cost of a sick population.

And who wants to see friends and family, even dare I say it strangers, suffer?

Obviously I'm not just talking about climbing performance. If it just means we all climb a few grades lower, there isn't the same problem.

I'm coming from a position of having being a fatty in the past, struggled to lose it. Even now being a keen climber I've struggled to keep the weight off at times and keep up my energy. So I take an interest and thought I understand what was happening. But a lot of what I've learned in the last couple of weeks has been new to me. So I would hazard a guess that a large percentage of the population are ill informed. The diet industry won't help them. The mainstream media appears to be uninterested, or even misleading.

If you don't mind me asking, how much weight did you lose, over what period and how did you do it?

I don't mind anyone asking, but I'm not young anymore so there's a long history of weight loss and gain. Most recently, i.e last few years, I've lost body fat (and sometimes weight but not always) by eating less carbs and more fat. But it's too hard to isolate factors because my life can change dramatically from one year to the next, so my eating patterns have varied a lot. Sometimes the same strategy seems to work, sometimes not. Making sense of it all is hard work. I didn't understand the fundamentals that drive appetite and why my body burns fat, or stores it. But I hope I'm getting a better idea.

So, roughly speaking, we're singing from the same hymn sheet, I think.

Having been through it yourself, do you have any tips, or is it still a minefield?

Understand the fundamentals of your metabolism. Then you can apply these fundamentals to your lifestyle.

Things that seem important to me are leptin and insuline. But that's mainly about appetite and fat storage. You need to consider nutrition too. Not that I claim to have a great understanding, it is a minefield but it doesn't seem to be so complex that the majority couldn't learn it easily. The hard thing to do is find reliable sources. I've linked a few that seem okay to me. In that they correlate with my own experience and make some sense of other conflicting advise and experience.

And not everybody is the same. So don't expect to try and follow somebody else's diet and achieve what you want.

Looking at our taxi drivers in our town, mostly Muslim, it's not a good way to lose weight.

I've not been through it myself, and consider myself pretty lucky that I can just about eat anything (or at least what I want and not put on weight). My weight has gone up in steps at various periods in my life, I could do with losing a couple of stone, probably, I'm 5'10 and weigh 13st. 4lb (84.4 kg) so 11st. would mean easier climbing and cycling.

Anyhow, a few of my mates are overweight by quite a bit, I've notice they all tend to eat very quickly, so much so that for the same meal I'll be halfway through, when they're finished. They tend to snack a lot too.

Keep misreading this thread title as "Training and eating Dave Mcleod".