UKBouldering.com

Lose fat without losing muscle? (Read 38383 times)

Murph

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 653
  • Karma: +66/-0
#50 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 14, 2016, 04:17:58 pm
Incidentally, by my calcs: for a 75 kg person.
 (assuming 740 N required to move 1 mtr, or 740 J/mtr).

Kcal/mtr climbed = ~ 0.185kcal.

Or,

0.002467kcal/kg body weight.

I think.

How can this distinguish between jug hauling and crimping the life out of something?

I know what gets my heart beating faster -and that can't just be for fun...like my heart doesn't know how small the holds are...?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fultonius

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4315
  • Karma: +138/-3
  • Was strong but crap, now weaker but better.
    • Photos
#51 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 16, 2016, 06:30:52 pm
The human body is at best 25% efficient, so you burn 4 times as many calories as the work you've achieved. Plus climbing will burn a good chunk isometrically - I'd guess you burn more like 5 times your estimate, if not more.

Smaller holds mean more isometric contraction of stabilising muscles but I'm not sure the calorie burn will be much different.

Fultonius

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4315
  • Karma: +138/-3
  • Was strong but crap, now weaker but better.
    • Photos
#52 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 16, 2016, 06:48:31 pm
This study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6235814_Energy_system_contributions_in_indoor_rock_climbing

puts the range of KJ expended per metre climbed at between 7.2 KJ/m and 9.2 kj/m for 62.4 kg climbers (+-3.3). While in KJ, it's energy expended, so the 25% efficiency can be ignored.  Therefore, in calorie terms:

8.2 kJ per metre (average) equals 0.031 kCal/m/kg

So for me, a typical session might be 120m: - 283 kCal. Seems pretty reasonable.

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#53 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 16, 2016, 06:51:13 pm
So latest from today's watch calorie thingy is..

55min BM session (3 sets of 3 x 6 hangs) 231 'active calories burnt' 350 in total.

1:20 min 4.5km pram walk. 200 active calories and 350 total.


Fultonius

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4315
  • Karma: +138/-3
  • Was strong but crap, now weaker but better.
    • Photos
#54 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 16, 2016, 06:53:57 pm
I take it that's based on heart rate?

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#55 Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 16, 2016, 07:11:45 pm
This study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6235814_Energy_system_contributions_in_indoor_rock_climbing

puts the range of KJ expended per metre climbed at between 7.2 KJ/m and 9.2 kj/m for 62.4 kg climbers (+-3.3). While in KJ, it's energy expended, so the 25% efficiency can be ignored.  Therefore, in calorie terms:

8.2 kJ per metre (average) equals 0.031 kCal/m/kg

So for me, a typical session might be 120m: - 283 kCal. Seems pretty reasonable.

Thanks, this is the best thing about UKB. Someone will have an answer to almost any query.

The human body is at best 25% efficient, so you burn 4 times as many calories as the work you've achieved. Plus climbing will burn a good chunk isometrically - I'd guess you burn more like 5 times your estimate, if not more.

Smaller holds mean more isometric contraction of stabilising muscles but I'm not sure the calorie burn will be much different.

Yes, I hadn't considered efficiency, which was quite dumb of me. Looking through the American institute of Sports Med. Figures (briefly on someone else's pdf), Rock climbing looks to be one of the highest burning exercises. More than a moderately paced swim for instance. I want to get hold of that table, but it seems to tally with website I linked to above.

Actually, I'm mildly surprised at the contribution of the Aerobic system  in hard routes. I didn't expect it to be higher than the Alactic.
I assume this would not be true for a bouldering session though? So for a given time on rock (as opposed to session duration), assuming longer rests; there would therefore be less aerobic engagement?

All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
« Last Edit: December 16, 2016, 07:20:00 pm by Oldmanmatt »

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#56 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 16, 2016, 07:18:30 pm
I take it that's based on heart rate?

Heart rate, accelerometer and it's got at GPS - so distances will be accurate.

Interesting that my mean heart rate fingerboarding (Inc rests between sets) was 73 and for the walk 101. So must have had some heartbeat peaks during the BM session... anyway just some numbers to throw in the mix.

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#57 Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 16, 2016, 07:26:36 pm
Would I also be right in thinking, that given period of engagement (cumulatively) of Anaerobic systems, raises the metabolism for longer (in recovery) than a similar duration period of Aerobic system engagement?
As in, there is nothing to recover, within the Aerobic system; whereas both Anaerobic systems require the body to remanufacture/replace ATP/Creatine phosphate?


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

slackline

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 18863
  • Karma: +633/-26
    • Sheffield Boulder
#58 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 16, 2016, 07:51:03 pm
This study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6235814_Energy_system_contributions_in_indoor_rock_climbing


Whilst snagging a copy of this I found I have a copy of an earlier review article from the same journal which includes a section on "Oxygen uptake and energy expenditure" (as well as "Anthropometry", "Flexibility", "Aerobic Power" and a few other aspects)....

Watts PB (2004) Physiology of difficult rock climbing. Eur J Appl Physiol (2004) 91: 361–372
DOI 10.1007/s00421-003-1036-7

Available from the usual illicit sources of paywalled content.

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#59 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 16, 2016, 08:00:48 pm
Murky buckets, mon sewer!


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

Tommy

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 814
  • Karma: +97/-1
#60 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 16, 2016, 08:33:34 pm

As in, there is nothing to recover, within the Aerobic system; whereas both Anaerobic systems require the body to remanufacture/replace ATP/Creatine phosphate?


All muscle contraction requires ATP (and therefore the ability to maintain ATP - it's actually not quite as clear as "replace" as the muscle aims as much as possible to "maintain" ATP - even in exhaustive efforts the concentration barely changes).

Whether it's anaerobic lactic (or alactic) or aerobic there is always a requirement of ATP. Be good if we could have it for free though!

 

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#61 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 16, 2016, 09:43:27 pm

As in, there is nothing to recover, within the Aerobic system; whereas both Anaerobic systems require the body to remanufacture/replace ATP/Creatine phosphate?


All muscle contraction requires ATP (and therefore the ability to maintain ATP - it's actually not quite as clear as "replace" as the muscle aims as much as possible to "maintain" ATP - even in exhaustive efforts the concentration barely changes).

Whether it's anaerobic lactic (or alactic) or aerobic there is always a requirement of ATP. Be good if we could have it for free though!
Yes, poor wording on my part. My impression was that both Lactate and Aerobic systems route through the Mitochondria and (for want of a better word) stop, when you do. Where as the CP system takes up to 5 min to "recharge"?
So, a 0.5-1 min on/5 min off routine, with a cumulative exercise time of (say) 15 minutes, would burn more than a 15 min run (at similar intensity)?

That's a question not an assertion!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tommy

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 814
  • Karma: +97/-1
#62 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 16, 2016, 11:18:07 pm
As to what burns more in 15 mins comes down to how many motor units across the entire body were firing in each exercise (rate, force, rest etc etc) The cals used will be higher in a large muscle group, rather than a small muscle group no matter how intensely that forearm might be firing. It's just a size + contractile force question. A quad operating at 5RM needs more ATP than a forearm at 5RM. 

It's really hard to answer the specifics of your two scenarios unless you were able to get something like a METS value and even some of those numbers I'm never that sure about!

See http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clc.4960130809/full

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#63 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 17, 2016, 05:54:33 am
So... It's 4:30am.
And I've just woken up thinking about this.
Nothing wrong there, is there? (probably should have come off the Fluoxetine slowly as Largers said). However, despite a confused Retriever enthusiastically greeting me, I don't have a horde of kids asking me to fix things and no Mrs OMM trying to discuss bloody Xmas presents or nagging that I'm spending too much time on my pad.

I'd touched on METs earlier in the thread, but just referred to them as "factors", lazy of me because I know what METs are; sorry.

So, moving from badly phased questioning (and It was addressed to the UKB at large, not just you Tommy), to something more like positing an Hypothesis...

The closer to failure a given chain is exercised, the greater the number of motor units is engaged. So, 3 reps @ 80% 1RM could be said to be a MU (motor unit) factor of 3x80, or 240 MUf's.
(Yes, I just made that up, but I like the idea of MUfs).[emoji3]
Where as, 9 reps @ 20% 1RM would be only 180 MUfs.

Obviously, the more intense, lower rep exercise, burns more energy.
(I'm inferring a linear rate of increase in engagement, through the "all or nothing" principle as each MN fires, this I need to check).

For the first 30sec to one minute, of each of those examples, only the ATP/CP system is engaged; after which the Lactate cuts in. So essentially, our 24 MUfs @ 80% 1RM will be entirely within the ATP/CP phase.

Now, we know the ATP/CP system takes (up-to) 5 minutes to recharge, at a high metabolic cost.
(Question: does that ATP/CP recovery begin during the exercise, whilst the lactate sys is engaged and the exercise continues, or does it only begin after cessation of activity?)

I believe, the Lactate cycle will, essentially, stop when the activity stops.

( Question: I know that the Glycogen must also be replaced and I don't know the metabolic cost of that, but my impression is that the body's store would be replaced over a longer period and only at a slightly higher metabolic rate than at rest (?)).

So, I posit, that if we equalise the resistance to the 20% 1RM and equalise total reps and add rests to one; to give two exercise protocols:

1: 9 reps @ 20% 1RM

2: 3 sets of 3 reps @ 20% 1RM, WITH 5 minutes between sets.

Protocol one, despite moving a similar resistance, a similar distance to protocol two; has an increase in metabolic cost (over rest) only for the duration of the exercise, plus a single ATP/CP recovery cycle.

Protocol two, incurs a heightened metabolic cost for the activity period, plus three ATP/CP recovery periods and would have a greater Calorific cost than Protocol one.

Extending the Hypothesis to the activity of climbing, protocol one becomes Sport climbing and protocol two, Bouldering, WHERE THE CLIMBING IS OF SIMILAR DIFFICULTY and total distance climbed is equal.

So:

1: a nine meter wall of a given difficulty (x), climbed once.

2: a three meter wall of difficulty x, climbed three times, with five minutes rest between each.

I think, the later protocol would have a higher calorific cost and be more beneficial to losing fat, than the former.



Murph

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 653
  • Karma: +66/-0
#64 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 17, 2016, 10:51:27 am
No idea the answer but a few thoughts:

I doubt it's as simple as reps x %1RM. If it was then the same effort/energy would be required for 2x50%1RM as for 1x100%1RM. Given that performing the latter would necessarily be preceded by and followed by a lengthy rest. And a quick repeat would be next to impossible, whereas the former could be followed by 20 more reps....I just can't understand how the energy expended would be remotely comparable.

Supporting this is evidence from the concept 2 rower:

400 watts gives a pace of 1:36/500m.
500 watts gives a pace of 1:29/500m.
So a 25% increase in power output increases speed by just 7%.

No idea what a 20%1RM would mean for a climbing move. It's too abstract. I expect it's something a reasonably fit person could climb all day. And with little energy expended. Otherwise, when the wideboyz go on one of their 500 routes in a day challenges where they climb several vertical kilometers, they would burn a ridonculous amount of energy and would, quite literally, waste away in the space of a few hours. 

It's quite possible I've not followed something here though!

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#65 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 17, 2016, 11:26:54 am
Yes, I'm now ploughing through (ha,ha) Ploughman and Smith (3rd) and other sources, to see if I can find a recruitment curve on Motor Neurone activation.
I'm actually wondering if it isn't less efficient at lower loads, as the "all or nothing" principle (where all the Motor Units controlled by a given MN must fire, or none at all) would suggest over activation at around the threshold loads. Whereas 1RM should equate to ~100% activation.

I'm only using 1RM and a resistance exercise, as a example; because the energy required to move a given resistance is quantifiable over a given distance. It assumes a similar tempo between protocols.
When that assumption is carried over to climbing, I'm again assuming a similar tempo, but I'm not suggesting a relationship to 1RM or any particular value; only a calorific consumption ratio, which might be comparable to my notional MUfs ratio.
Of course, fatigue increases MU activation and increases calorie burn over time, which I also need to factor into the hypothesis.

The rowing analogy, is a fixed load with varying tempo, which might be different again.

Hopefully, I'm going to stumble across a paper that covers this ground or an aspect that I've missed that blows the whole notion.

More reading required!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fultonius

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4315
  • Karma: +138/-3
  • Was strong but crap, now weaker but better.
    • Photos
#66 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 17, 2016, 11:33:04 am
Maybe just spend all this time you're researching out running instead?  :shrug:


Or do a load of squats at the end of your bouldering session? 


I would have thought optimising your climbing session to make it burn more energy might impact the climbing gains?

Murph

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 653
  • Karma: +66/-0
#67 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 17, 2016, 11:48:46 am
No idea why I'm looking at this but the research has been done now so...

According to that same source, 100watts produces a split time of 2:30.

So, the rower who can produce a 6:20 2k (400 watt pace - no mere trifle!) would have a 20% threshold of c10:05. I know someone who recently beat 6:20 and how hard he had to work to train for it and then deliver. I'm reasonably confident he could produce 10 minute 2ks all day long.

In other words, if you are going to do 3 moves then rest then do 3 moves again - and time is in any way limited - then make sure those 3 moves are not the sort of thing you could do as long as you can stay awake. Can't really think of a good reason to do 3 easy moves repeatedly tbh unless it's to show the wife how it goes...

Just seen your reply - keep ploughing on!  ;D

Murph

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 653
  • Karma: +66/-0
#68 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 17, 2016, 11:52:14 am
Maybe just spend all this time you're researching out running instead?  :shrug:



:rtfm:



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#70 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 17, 2016, 12:14:14 pm
Maybe just spend all this time you're researching out running instead?  :shrug:


Or do a load of squats at the end of your bouldering session? 


I would have thought optimising your climbing session to make it burn more energy might impact the climbing gains?

[emoji12]

Sorry, it's not for me, per se.
I'm a PT, so I write exercise programs for others and I'm thinking in terms of optimising for weight loss, but using Bouldering as the activity; because it's far more interesting than general gym work for clients (mine, anyway).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nibile

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 7991
  • Karma: +743/-4
  • Part Animal Part Machine
    • TOTOLORE
#71 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 17, 2016, 02:26:31 pm
I'm thinking in terms of optimising for weight loss, but using Bouldering as the activity; because it's far more interesting than general gym work
Unfortunately, it's also far less effective (if we mean weight loss in terms of fat loss).

Murph

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 653
  • Karma: +66/-0
#72 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 17, 2016, 05:43:53 pm
Not that I'm an expert but....absolutely what nibs said. If weight/fatloss is even remotely an issue and time is limited (as it is) then bouldering isn't even remotely a good way of achieving it.

Compound exercises and a 500 cal/d deficit. That's the most sensible long term plan for most people who aren't a million miles from target.

Short term, bigger deficits are available but they should be short term for all the hormone deficiencies and longer term rebound risks etc.

And fatter untrained people can clock up bigger, even much bigger, deficits before going catabolic because a unit of fat can be utilized by the body at a certain rate. Its not clear exactly what that rate is, but it sort of makes sense that there would be a limit. Think I've seen something quoted on Reddit saying either 22-31cals/lb/day. So if someone was hugely overweight then of course they could have a bigger deficit for longer. There's even a study reporting what happened to a fat bloke who didn't eat for a year. [spoiler]he leaned out[/spoiler]

Oh, and there's a ton of other factors too like how individuals react to exercise stimulus by compensating with wriggling less the rest of the day. Different people are different apparently. The ranger study really backs this up.

Basically track the food and be sensible. And for long term results don't go mad short term. But maybe not over Christmas :)

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#73 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 17, 2016, 05:51:14 pm
Rowing might not be the best comparison as the main increase in effort as speed increases is overcoming drag/friction.. which loosely speaking increases at the square of velocity...

Murph

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 653
  • Karma: +66/-0
#74 Re: Lose fat without losing muscle?
December 17, 2016, 06:22:33 pm
Rowing .....loosely speaking increases at the square of velocity...

That C2 link uses a cube function (watts=2.8/pace^3)

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal