[lmarenzi]

 

Over the long term, going hungry is an absolute non option, unless you become an ascetic like Gandhi. Nothing wrong with that second option, I should note, the world would be a better place if we had more ascetics. But it wouldn't yield any more good climbers.

Obviously not going hungry and pigging out on Ben & Jerry's are two different things.

[Paul B]

running will do little other than allow you to eat more cakes and maintain an acceptable body fat percentage.

Surely this is more than enough reason?

Exactly!

Sure, go for it!

It just doesn't make sense to me and boils down to Serpicos original point on calories (probably earlier on in this thread).

There was an interesting study Stu had linked to somewhere regarding willpower being finite. I can't find it now. It involved chocolate.

[Stubbs]

What doesn't make sense - that some forms of cardio exercise can make you hungrier than others?  If willpower is finite surely the less you have to rely on it to meet your goals the better?  Or should training be as hard as you can make it -   perhaps you could get a hair shirt to go inside your weightvest 

[Sasquatch]

running will do little other than allow you to eat more cakes and maintain an acceptable body fat percentage.

Surely this is more than enough reason?

Exactly!

Sure, go for it!

It just doesn't make sense to me and boils down to Serpicos original point on calories (probably earlier on in this thread).

There was an interesting study Stu had linked to somewhere regarding willpower being finite. I can't find it now. It involved chocolate.

I'm not sure if it was the same study, but I recently read some interesting work on behavioral economics that basically went along the lines that if you are constantly having to limit your desires, you will eventually binge in a bad way.  Overall, people were better off with small controlled instances of giving in, rather than this massive binge.

Secondly, it not as simple as Serpico pointed out as you should well know.  Weight control/loss is a surprisingly complicated process that is usually more about lifestyle change than about calorie consumption.  It incorporates sleep, stress, and other lifestyle choices as those factors influence you basal metabolic rate. 

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! 

 

You mean I can't just have whatever I want with no effort. 

I know what you mean, but I think the holistic view is hard for most people to understand.  Sleep, Eating, Stress, etc. all play a huge role in the effectiveness of training, so taking the "most effective" thing in only one aspect may not have the best overall impact.  Understanding how the different options affect other aspects of training/life is important. 

I've never seen a study that tried to relate to it, but I know that I am grouchy when I'm hungry and more stressed out as a result.  Stress has been studied to death and generally speaking mental stress of this type negatively impacts training and weight loss.

Secondly, I'd like to see the impact of HIIT on fit and active people for weight loss/control as the study was based on inactive people.  I'd hazard that one of the reasons for the change was an increase in lean muscle which results in an increase in basal metabolic rate, hence leading to weight loss through body composition changes. 

[Paul B]

The original Tabata study (not the one I referenced) used 'athletes', sorry I can't qualify that further Sheffield University doesn't seem to have access. 

If you're going down the holistic line then consider the time savings and where that could be best invested?

Edit: This link picks the original study apart a bit: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/effects-of-moderate-intensity-endurance-and-high-intensity-intermittent-training-on-anaerobic-capacity-and-vo2-max.html

The study recruited 14 active male students who were, at best moderately trained (VO2 max was roughly 50 ml/kg/min which is average at best; elite endurance athletes have values in the 70-80 range)

[Sasquatch]

The original Tabata study (not the one I referenced) used 'athletes', sorry I can't qualify that further Sheffield University doesn't seem to have access. 

If you're going down the holistic line then consider the time savings and where that could be best invested?

You're right that the original Tabata study used Athletes, but I don't recall the original tabata study mentioning anything about weight loss.... It's been abit since I read it though, and was more interested in some of the other aspects of it. 

Agreed.  I guess my big point is simply that there is a place for all the options, the magic is in putting together all of the details. 

[underground]

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

Mine all over...

[lagerstarfish]

Edit: This link picks the original study apart a bit: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/effects-of-moderate-intensity-endurance-and-high-intensity-intermittent-training-on-anaerobic-capacity-and-vo2-max.html

off topic I know, but this comment interested me

Has anyone done any measurements of the power outputs people achieve when they do these alternative Tabatas? I’ll use round numbers and take a guess. A 100 kg person weighs about 1000 Newtons and if he raises his center of gravity by .6 meters (2 feet) in one second that would be 600 Joules in one second, or 600 watts. If we only want 500 watts, he’d have to do it about 17 times in the 20 seconds. I’m also not sure if 2 feet (my 0.6 meters) is a good guess for the distance his center of gravity moves.

If my 0.6 meters is right, then someone needs to do around 15-20 bodyweight squats in 20 seconds to do the Tabata protocol.

so by similar thinking, it isn't impossible for me (a fairy-like 95kg moving 50something cm per pull) to be banging out 500W doing pullups

well, as long as I do one pullup per second anyway...

I like the idea of banging out Tour de France level power with my arms

 

:ego:

[Serpico]

off topic I know, but this comment interested me

Has anyone done any measurements of the power outputs people achieve when they do these alternative Tabatas? I’ll use round numbers and take a guess. A 100 kg person weighs about 1000 Newtons and if he raises his center of gravity by .6 meters (2 feet) in one second that would be 600 Joules in one second, or 600 watts. If we only want 500 watts, he’d have to do it about 17 times in the 20 seconds. I’m also not sure if 2 feet (my 0.6 meters) is a good guess for the distance his center of gravity moves.

If my 0.6 meters is right, then someone needs to do around 15-20 bodyweight squats in 20 seconds to do the Tabata protocol.

I haven't followed that link back to the original articles but a couple of things stand out from the quote:

. A 100 kg person weighs about 1000 Newtons...

A 100kg person weighs 100kg, a Newton is a unit of force. If they stand up at a moderate speed then they'll exert ~1000N of force to do so, if they stand up quickly they exert more force. Standing up very quickly is also called 'jumping' because your feet tend to leave the floor...

if he raises his centre of gravity by .6 meters (2 feet) in one second that would be 600 Joules in one second, or 600 watts. If we only want 500 watts, he’d have to do it about 17 times in the 20 seconds. I’m also not sure if 2 feet (my 0.6 meters) is a good guess for the distance his center of gravity moves.

If my 0.6 meters is right, then someone needs to do around 15-20 bodyweight squats in 20 seconds to do the Tabata protocol.

This completely ignores the negative part of the squat which you also have to exert force to lower (as opposed to fall) to the start position.
Add this in and you're looking at 8-10 squats, or more likely squat jumps in 20 seconds.
This is assuming his Newtons x distance x time power equation is correct, which I'm currently too lazy to check (0 watts expended).

[lagerstarfish]

I worked it out using kg meters (body mass x vert moved) and converted to joules using the magic of the internet

and also regarded the drop down to involve no energy (using only Mr Newtons Famous Gravity to move my mass)

[slackline]

I haven't followed that link back to the original articles but a couple of things stand out from the quote:

. A 100 kg person weighs about 1000 Newtons...

A 100kg person weighs 100kg, a Newton is a unit of force. If they stand up at a moderate speed then they'll exert ~1000N of force to do so, if they stand up quickly they exert more force. Standing up very quickly is also called 'jumping' because your feet tend to leave the floor...

There's some confusion between the scientific and everyday use of the terms weight here.  Kilograms is a measure of mass, whilst Newtons is a measure of weight....

In scientific contexts, mass refers loosely to the amount of "matter" in an object (though "matter" may be difficult to define), whereas weight refers to the force experienced by an object due to gravity.[1] In other words, an object with a mass of 1.0 kilograms will weigh 9.8 newtons (newton is the unit of force, while kilogram is the unit of mass) on Earth (its mass multiplied by the gravitational field strength).Its weight will be less on Mars (where gravity is weaker), more on Saturn, and negligible in space when far from any significant source of gravity, but it will always have the same mass.

From the font of all disinformation

So they are right in saying that a person with a mass of 100kg weighs 1000 Newtons, just as you are correct in saying that its 1000 Newtons of force required to move that mass, because thats what weight is, the amount of force required to move a given mass within a gravitational field.  Not sure whether more force is required to make the same movement quickly as its the moment of inertia that needs to be overcome and that is pretty constant from what I remember.  You may exert an excess of force if you move beyond standing up and actually leave the ground in a jump.

That 100kg person would still have a mass of 100kg in space, but as there is virtually no gravity they are in essence weightless (newtons close to zero), they don't ever weigh 100kg.

Anyway, all very pedantic 

[Muenchener]

Sandy Allan and Rick Allen probably now a thing or two about endurance training and weight loss. They just came down from spending 17 days mostly above 7,000 metres on Nanga Parbat having set off with food for 8 to 10 days.

Snow Plod Wads?

[Plattsy]

Not sure what this post adds but here are my stats since I started running quite some time ago.

Approx. weight and body fat when I started running regular with an aim to lose weight for climbing.
203 lbs - 23%

Probably 4/5 years time frame with at least one major plateau.

Approx. weight and body fat now (not ran for a couple of weeks due to niggles).
179 lbs - 14%

I've never done HIIT I just go out and run. Sometimes hard, sometime plod. Distance, sometimes determined, sometimes on the fly.

My appetite is a lot less than it used. For example I could put away an entire portion of sweet n sour chicken balls and egg fried lice. That would do me for two meals now (although I'm more of a singapore chow mein man now).

I do have a preference to towards long runs in the hills and mountains when motivated to do so. Some of the longer harder stuff I've done certainly worked my core, a benefit not discussed but then it probably doesn't add that much I guess.

Now to find a photo of Mr Randall running in his Rab gear....

[slackline]

Running & cycling, swimming, cross-country skiing with a fair bit of stretching and even some "anti-training" thrown in for good measure.

Seems to work for her general alpine fitness and coupled with a bit of focus on power then makes other goals achievable. 

[Falling Down]

Yeah but she's a girl so has great flexibility and small fingers.

[slackline]

Very droll 

[Muenchener]

I went for a short sharp hill walk the other day: around 450 metres of height gain and 4.5 km distance covered, carrying a 10kg pack, in 43 minutes. Pretty similar to a typical eastern alps rock route / uk mountain crag approach. And also - given a metric Naismith's Rule that a hundred metres of height gain is the same amount of effort/time as a kilometre of distance covered on the flat - about comparable to running a 50 minute 10k.

A 50 minute 10k isn't spectacular (even with a 10kg rucksack), but it's probably more than most of us if given the choice woud regard as a reasonable warm up for a climbing session. But if we're interested in climbing in places with more uphill approaches than Malham, then we do have to be aerobically fit enough to do it, and ideally not be completely knackered afterwards before we even start climbing.

But is running necessary in order to achieve enough aerobic fitness to do this sort of thing? No. Exhibit A: if I tried to run a 10k these days my calf muscles would disintegrate. I ride my bike, go hillwalking, and do occasional specific training sessions of stepups with a heavy rucksack. The latter two of which are more specific to what I'm training for than running on the flat would be.

Rambling a bit here, but I am actually making a point. That point being: depending on one's choice of venue but if one is interested in climbing at, say, Cloggy or Oberreintal rather than (only) Malham or the Tor, then getting to the bottom of the route in a reasonable time and in a reasonable state is climbing-specific fitness, and it requires a decent level of whole-body aerobic/cardio endurance (not necessarily achieved through running although it certainly could be)

[Fultonius]

Remembering that this is UKBouldering - I reckon most people on here are thinking along the lines of either bouldering, sport or short trad. Yeah, there's people who do longer stuff but even then, aerobic fitness, while useful, probably won't be the limiting factor!

Obviously, if your intentions are to be the next Ueli Steck then aerobic fitness is much more likely to be the limiting factor!

[abarro81]

There's definitely some use for crags with a bigger walk in IMO. Even sport climbers have to do them occasionally - Ceuse, Terradets north face, Makinodromo, Espadelles etc. I always think that the Ceuse walk in loses me 1 hard try per day because of fatigue, no doubt that would be minimised by being running fit.

[csl]

Remembering that this is UKBouldering - I reckon most people on here are thinking along the lines of either bouldering, sport or short trad. Yeah, there's people who do longer stuff but even then, aerobic fitness, while useful, probably won't be the limiting factor!

Obviously, if your intentions are to be the next Ueli Steck then aerobic fitness is much more likely to be the limiting factor!

Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but i read an interview with Ueli in which he said when he was preparing to free golden gate he stopped running in order to get better at hard climbing. So when he's not training to run up mountains, running is even detrimental to his hard rock climbing!? Probably just in terms of taking up valuable climbing training time/energy.

[Muenchener]

Remembering that this is UKBouldering

True, but permit me to cite FLMHMF (Exhibit A) and The Dolomites (Exhibit B) as evidence that things over thirty metres are not universally regarded as Off Topic.

The things being talked about in those thread certainly aren't Real Alpinism - no snow, ice or big boots, mostly solid rock, sometimes bolts - but they do tend to involve (a) getting to the start of the route without already being an hour behind schedule or completely f*cked (b) doing quite a bit more climbing mileage than one normally does in a sport climbing or trad cragging day, then ...

(c) potentially doing several hours more abseiling and/or loose scrambling in Do Not Fall situations whilst probably being too hot / too cold, thirst, hungry, in screaming foot pain (*) ... but still having it sufficiently together to not do things like my partner did the other week after pitch two of a ten pitch abseil: arrive at none-too-large belay ledge, unclip ATC from rope and chuck it away down the mountain, then have it pointed out  to you that you haven't clipped in to the belay yet . Experience and having one's routines pretty much instinctivised is proably the main thing here, but I'm sure fitness helps too.

(*) Note To Self: consider buying comfy shoes for Dolomites

[Fultonius]

To be fair this thread was opened with the question:

as there is no benefit to climbing endurance from increasing your cardio fitness.

The difficulty I guess is how you define "climbing endurance".

If it encompasses 30 pitch dolomites routes, then yes, you could maybe argue that it benefits. However, I never, ever run and the only CV work I do is mountainbiking a few times a month. I didn't feel that cardio fitness was holding me back on the Marmolada...

However, I think most people on here are more concerned with the definition of climbing endurance that applies to bouldering/sport/short trad which is more local muscular endurance. Whether or not running affects this aspect is, well, what this thread is all about!


Also, I doubt you'll find anyone on here that would disagree that improved CV fitness will improve your performance on a long day out on a alpine style route. Pretty much a no brainer.

[Muenchener]

I think most people on here are more concerned with the definition of climbing endurance that applies to bouldering/sport/short trad which is more local muscular endurance. Whether or not running affects this aspect is, well, what this thread is all about!

You're right of course. I just went a little off at a tangent when I noticed that my training hike on Thursday was somewhat "equivalent" to running a 10k.

I'm sure that for something like the Vinatzer-Messner - which is a long term aspiration for me, this year I'll be happy if I get up a few good V+'s - what counts most is having a pretty comfy technical margin on the hard pitches. Which I certainly wouldn't as UIAA VII is my top sport grade at the moment. I'm therefore quite clear that getting technically better will help and getting aerobically fitter won't.

[a dense loner]

Oh my fucking God