At my most powerful I was heavier than (84kg vs 80kg) I am now but I was only 6% (I don't know what i am now but it's not 6%) body fat and seriously aerobically fit with a PB of 38 m 19 s for 10k on a flatish course. Weight is a function of many things, body type being particularly important.
Quote from: JamesD on March 15, 2010, 05:38:34 pmQuote from: Sloper on March 15, 2010, 04:58:01 pmIt's been a number of years since I looked at the evidence but as I recall, when analysed with control for training the results weren't significant. The long term health affects are as I understand it, unknown but had some significant risk factors eg massive increase in excretion http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1327657 also http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/creatine.htmlfor 99.9% of climbers a good balanced diet, low alcohol intake and plenty of aerobic exercise is the best base for training.I'm happy to be proven wrong, but would need substantive and substantial evidence.Next thing you are going to tell me that I just need to climb, weightlifting is pointless and does nothing for overall power output, supplements don't work, creatine is a myth, plyometrics are a northern energy supplier.........etc etc.I guess we should all just stick to steak and steroids because those are medically proven to work ja?No weight lifting isn't pointless, the amount of fat is and trust me I have a long, witnessed empirical evidence base to support this statement.At my most powerful I was heavier than (84kg vs 80kg) I am now but I was only 6% (I don't know what i am now but it's not 6%) body fat and seriously aerobically fit with a PB of 38 m 19 s for 10k on a flatish course. Weight is a function of many things, body type being particularly important. My point is simply this, for most people the gains from supplements can be achieved if not significantly surpassed by better training and a better overall diet.The increasing societal fixation with body image and weight is worrying and dangerous and when combined with a desire to 'improve' performance more so.Let's face it we are all, in the grand scheme of things punters and losers and to risk long term health for an ephemeral and meaningless number is just not worth it. Dieting and training are consequently for losers.Anyway, moving further from the topic anyone for a discussion of the philospohy of grades from a classical marxist perspective?
Quote from: Sloper on March 15, 2010, 04:58:01 pmIt's been a number of years since I looked at the evidence but as I recall, when analysed with control for training the results weren't significant. The long term health affects are as I understand it, unknown but had some significant risk factors eg massive increase in excretion http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1327657 also http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/creatine.htmlfor 99.9% of climbers a good balanced diet, low alcohol intake and plenty of aerobic exercise is the best base for training.I'm happy to be proven wrong, but would need substantive and substantial evidence.Next thing you are going to tell me that I just need to climb, weightlifting is pointless and does nothing for overall power output, supplements don't work, creatine is a myth, plyometrics are a northern energy supplier.........etc etc.I guess we should all just stick to steak and steroids because those are medically proven to work ja?
It's been a number of years since I looked at the evidence but as I recall, when analysed with control for training the results weren't significant. The long term health affects are as I understand it, unknown but had some significant risk factors eg massive increase in excretion http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1327657 also http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/creatine.htmlfor 99.9% of climbers a good balanced diet, low alcohol intake and plenty of aerobic exercise is the best base for training.I'm happy to be proven wrong, but would need substantive and substantial evidence.
A lighter climber can afford to climb with more momentum as their weight x momentum doesn't come close to the forces generated by a heavier climber with momentum. A heavier climber would need to climb much more statically (Nicole springs to mind) to reduce the effects of momentum.
I went from a very skinny 89kg, and just about being able to walk again (yes that is me looking skinny before all the jokes come
Unfortunately 200 kg deadlift at 112kg makes you strong overall but not in a strength to weight scenario. The thing people miss out of this equation is momentum. A lighter climber can afford to climb with more momentum as their weight x momentum doesn't come close to the forces generated by a heavier climber with momentum. A heavier climber would need to climb much more statically (Nicole springs to mind) to reduce the effects of momentum. Even on a campus board the heavier climber would have to lock the lower hold whereas a lighter climber could kip/flick a lot more which reduces the need for locking.So being light allows you more room to slap for a hold.
Quote from: JamesD on March 16, 2010, 10:05:58 amI went from a very skinny 89kg, and just about being able to walk again (yes that is me looking skinny before all the jokes comeNot joking at all but just wondering what your idea of skinny is? 89 kg is just over 14 stone so unless your super, super tall, that doesn't count as skinny in my book. Don't take that as a scathing remark, I'm just interested.FWIW I'm 5'11" and 61kg. I might be able to lose the odd kilo more without it becoming unhealthy but there is definitely potential for it to adversely affect my performance.On the thread topic I trained strength over this winter at about 64/65kg and have got down to 61kg over the last 5/6 weeks whilst working power endurance. From a small handful of outdoor sessions this year I definitely feel my climbing has taken a leap forward since last october but its hard to know how much of that is down to the weight and how much is down to the fact that I've trained quite hard over the winter.
Obviously with weather this can be a risky strategy in climbing, but I think breaking your year into alternating 3 month blocks of training and performance can really help with improvement.
Some may need to look at their diet and cut out, ahem, alcohol and coffee,
Quote from: Sloper on March 16, 2010, 01:09:39 pmSome may need to look at their diet and cut out, ahem, alcohol and coffee, I accept that drink is not good for training, but why is coffee bad?
Quote from: BB on March 16, 2010, 01:48:41 pmQuote from: Sloper on March 16, 2010, 01:09:39 pmSome may need to look at their diet and cut out, ahem, alcohol and coffee, I accept that drink is not good for training, but why is coffee bad?From memory caffine slows / prevents the uptake and metabloism of protein and some other stuff.
The smart caffeine users don't take it regularly; only as a performance enhancer before (3 hours) they need to... um, perform. It has very measurable results used this way (takes a week or two to detox from regular use first).
sorry sloper but a 39min 10k doesn't cut the mustard.most competant runners look to run 6min miles or less.which is around 371/2 mins.also doesn't caffine aid endurance performance or have they banned excess use just to stop people shoving stuff up their arses.
Besides if you want a really awesome stimulant stack, everyone knows its all about the choline/caffeine/ALCAR/Rhodiola Rosea homebrew shizzle....chew some nicotine gum shortly afterwards, and fly up those problems, literally