[Pantontino]

I got into running a lot a few years ago when I picked up a bad finger injury (which I still haven't properly shaken).

I thought it would make my weight drop but it didn't really - I think I just ate more and built up the muscle in my thighs (I was doing lots of uphill and venturing into some proper fell running territory).

All of this coincided with some really strong winter seasons in Wales so I was doing a lot of winter climbing - the running definitely helped for that, but I did tend to pick up chest infections more often.

I do enjoy running, especially when my fitness level starts to rise, but the main problem for me is that it seems to reduce the flexibility in my hips (and I stretched religiously after every run). This has a very negative effect on my climbing; I really notice it on techy walls for example.

This year I haven't run at all, instead I just made sure there was no wine or beer in the house during the week. I lost a stone in less than two months and felt as strong as I was in my twenties. Plus my flexibility has improved.

[shark]

I rest my case.

 

Every time someone uses what a famous climber does to back up a method of training without any discrimination my heart sinks. It's lazy thinking - in fact it's barely thinking at all.

This he/she does that and He/she is an amazing climber so what they do must be right and good for me is a load of bollocks for a variety of reasons amongst which are:

• Famous climbers get good through a variety of diffrent ways (natural talent like Nadin, training bouldering hard like Jerry)
• Not all the training they do will be productive (if Jerry knew then what we know now he would have climbed 9a+)
• They are often clueless about training (not Jerry)
• What they do might be wholly irrelevant to your stregths, weaknesses, time you have avaialble and stage of your physical development
  
• They might be doing that activity for other reasons such as they like it

From a personal perspective a holistic top down type approach is better where you attempt to get a framework of how improvements work and align and commit to a training approach that suits your strengths weaknesses and goals rather than randomnly picking bits of anecdotes and information and cobble your training around that.

Sorry.

[Nibile]

I completely agree.
I think that part of the fascination with running (in relation to climbing) is that running is very easy, compared with the complexity of climbing-specific training, and the much sought after dream of being very light is very appealing, because it offers the idea of a "cheap" gain towards higher grades, to many uninformed climbers.
Just my opinion, with no personal reference.
When I used to run, I only did it to control weight and be able to eat more.
Then I developed an alimentary disorder.

[Nibile]

Seems fucking retarded all Macleod's running earlier in the day before training.

from here
http://davemacleod.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/lack-of-enzymes.html

"Going for a hill run before breakfast has been a fun and not so serious way to get outside on rest days, look at new crags and burn some ‘Jabba’ as they say in Glasgow"

and
"It would be easier for sure if Scotland had more steep sustained sport routes to keep me going. But that's not really the issue. The problem is that I've had to spend so much time trying to get stronger fingers to be able to do the moves on the routes I want to do, there isn't much time left over to get fitness. For a few brief moments in my climbing career, I've been faintly stamina fit. But most of the time I grunt my way through on sheer tenacity, pumped solid all the way."

Running fitness and climbing fitness do not coincide. He looks for steep, sustained sport routes, not for more running.

[Jaspersharpe]

• Not all the training they do will be productive (if Jerry knew then what we know now he would have climbed 9a+)

No he'd have just crocked himself sooner and then gone to The Lakes and still been the best.

[Sasquatch]

From a personal perspective a holistic top down type approach is better where you attempt to get a framework of how improvements work and align and commit to a training approach that suits your strengths weaknesses and goals rather than randomnly picking bits of anecdotes and information and cobble your training around that.

Sorry.

Hammer > Nail > Head. 

Don't apologize.  Despite Serpico disagreeing, this is why I think running can be a part of a training plan.  A generic,one size fits all plan is not really training, it's exercising   which is great if you want to get some exercise.

[Paul B]

Steadystate cardio is fairly catabolic is it not? High intensity interval training is potentially a better way of targetting fat loss rather than general "weight"?

I'm interested in the effect of running on strength gains though. While not training for climbing (at the moment) I have been lifting quite a lot of iron recently, and was finishing quite a few sessions with a 30min treadmill run. (Would prefer the road, but small child can't hack the distance.) Sounds like the two are counter-productive. Today I did the run before work, and will train solely strength tonight. Assuming that will be much more effective...

I wouldn't run on the same day as climbing though:
Extensive research shows that training multiple qualities, such as strength and endurance, within the same workout diminishes the development of either quality. My favorite: one study showed that simply adding 10 minutes of hard-paced running at the end of a strength session resulted in an almost 20% sacrifice in gains.
From Steve Bechtel's Blog.

[Nibile]

Steadystate cardio is fairly catabolic is it not? High intensity interval training is potentially a better way of targetting fat loss rather than general "weight"?

This is in the Racing Weight book. I can't remember, though, how precisely they speak about fat loss or weight loss. From my youth days I can remember all the bodybuilders in the gym doing light cardio to lose fat. Gentle jogging at roughly double of resting heart rate. Long jogs.
I think that the HIIT is a lot more catabolic especially regarding muscle mass, which, for a runner, isn't an issue.

[Wood FT]

This year I haven't run at all, instead I just made sure there was no wine or beer in the house during the week. I lost a stone in less than two months

I fear this is my cure as well

[Yossarian]

Steadystate cardio is fairly catabolic is it not? High intensity interval training is potentially a better way of targetting fat loss rather than general "weight"?

This is in the Racing Weight book. I can't remember, though, how precisely they speak about fat loss or weight loss. From my youth days I can remember all the bodybuilders in the gym doing light cardio to lose fat. Gentle jogging at roughly double of resting heart rate. Long jogs.
I think that the HIIT is a lot more catabolic especially regarding muscle mass, which, for a runner, isn't an issue.

They all seem to do HIIT these days though...

Properly long hard cardio sessions (i.e. 1hr plus runs or 3 hrs plus on a bike) tend to result in diminished testosterone levels, so are likely to be especially unhelpful when split between days of strength training.

[Nibile]

Noooooo!!! Yet another variable thrown in: testosterone levels!!!
It never ends!!!
But true.

[Pantontino]

This year I haven't run at all, instead I just made sure there was no wine or beer in the house during the week. I lost a stone in less than two months

I fear this is my cure as well

At first I found it hard to break the habit, but now it feels normal. I did have to get my wife to agree to the same rule. Mind you, last night she quaffed a bottle of wine and I turned it down.

I'm not a total fascist with it - if I end up in a pub mid week I will have a few pints and come the weekend I drink what I like.

[Sorry, a bit off topic - please get back to discussing intricate training stuff, none of which I would pretend to understand.  ]

[Paul B]

I think that the HIIT is a lot more catabolic especially regarding muscle mass, which, for a runner, isn't an issue.

Catabolism only refers to lean muscle mass and I don't agree, I'm fairly certain the original Tabata study shows this and for further clarity:

Long aerobic workouts have been promoted as the best method to reduce fat, as fatty acid utilization usually occurs after at least 30 minutes of training. HIIT is somewhat counterintuitive in this regard, but has nonetheless been shown to burn fat more effective!

Boutcher SH (2011). "High-intensity intermittent exercise and fat loss". Journal of Obesity 2011
Tremblay A, Simoneau JA, Bouchard C (1994). "Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism". Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental

[Nibile]

I am no scientist, but I think that catabolism is a process that can happen not only to lean muscle, although we take it in this sense in this discussion.
Anyway I don't understand Paul: your quote says that HIIT burns fat more effectively, no?
I don't disagree with this, in fact this is what I read on Racing Weight.
They say it's due also to the post-activity burning.

[Paul B]

what I'm disagreeing with is your statement that it is "a lot more catabolic". To me that means "it'll eat a lot more muscle mass".

[Nibile]

Ah, OK.
So:
regarding fat loss, HIIT is more effective than long aerobic workouts;
regarding muscle catabolism? Because I really don't know, it was only my idea.

[battery]

A lot of this discussion is going over my head with technical language but what I can testify through personal experience is:

For several years I ran/swam/cycled for 30 to 60 minutes a few times a week and maintained the same weight.

I entered a marathon and was running three times a week, one long run (up to 17 miles) one session of hill sprints and one gentle 30 minute run. I didn't lose a lot of weight, maybe only half a stone but my body noticeably changed shape and got slimmer.

[Yossarian]

Oh yeah - that's the other thing! Running causes an increase in bone density too...

[Paul B]

regarding muscle catabolism? Because I really don't know, it was only my idea.

Its my belief that its far less catabolic than a steady-state cardio exercise but I currently don't have a source to hand that'll support that.

For several years I ran/swam/cycled for 30 to 60 minutes a few times a week and maintained the same weight.

I entered a marathon and was running three times a week, one long run (up to 17 miles) one session of hill sprints and one gentle 30 minute run. I didn't lose a lot of weight, maybe only half a stone but my body noticeably changed shape and got slimmer.

Its all relative to diet; I could take up marathon running tomorrow and still ensure I put on weight if I ate more than I was burning (calorific excess), similarly I could take it it up and return to my default state of zero muscle by not eating at all.

[Paul B]

Oh yeah - that's the other thing! Running causes an increase in bone density too...

is this mainly in the legs? Improving the bone density of my twiglets seems like the best argument for running I've ever seen (this won't apply to most people).

[Sasquatch]

So:
regarding fat loss, HIIT is more effective than long aerobic workouts;

That's assuming you have the self-control to have the same diet in each instance. 

Personally, I've found that HIIT type training makes me REALLY hungry.  To the point where I don't have enough self-control to not eat significantly, and I'll be really hungry all day.  After steady state running for 45-60 minutes, I'll have a about a cup of yogurt and eat normal the rest of the day.  My net caloric difference is greater with the running, but that's a personal difference.

[Nibile]

So:
regarding fat loss, HIIT is more effective than long aerobic workouts;

That's assuming you have the self-control

Ahah nice one!
I eat like a pig already, for sure I don't need any other stimulus!!!
This topic is interesting for general knowledge to me, I don't think about running or burning fat (and it shows)! But thanks for the feedback!!!

EDIT: I eat a lot, but I try to eat healthy stuff and I don't exceed in carbs, fats and so on. Lots of meat though.

[Yossarian]

Oh yeah - that's the other thing! Running causes an increase in bone density too...

is this mainly in the legs? Improving the bone density of my twiglets seems like the best argument for running I've ever seen (this won't apply to most people).

I would imagine legs, pelvis and lower back...

[Paul B]

Personally, I've found that HIIT type training makes me REALLY hungry.  To the point where I don't have enough self-control to not eat significantly, and I'll be really hungry all day.

Sorry to be flippant but that's like discussing the best way to do strength training and saying my preference is to do it this less effective way because I can't be arsed/haven't the self-discipline to try hard. We might as well all go out and just enjoy ourselves is the case! 

Whilst I'm a pretty skinny person, I get comments all the time on my weight (specifically when I'm climbing well), the fact is despite naturally being very light I could be a shed load heavier if I gave in to all my Bridget Jones style cravings for ice cream (has anyone seen the amount of flavours of Ben and Jerry's you can get in the States compared to the UK? Its a travesty!).

[Stubbs]

Sorry to be flippant but that's like discussing the best way to do strength training and saying my preference is to do it this less effective way because I can't be arsed/haven't the self-discipline to try hard. We might as well all go out and just enjoy ourselves is the case! 

It's not really though is it Paul, it's someone giving valuable feedback about their personal experience comparing the two methods, with the aim being personal weigh control.  You may have a will of iron, but I think this sort of real life feedback is as useful as a scientific paper telling me which is the best way to metabolise my love handles!