[Ti_pin_man]

Some guy on 8a.nu seems to have tried to do some stat thing here on the top 300-odd climbers in their database...

http://www.8a.nu/?IncPage=http%3A//www.8a.nu/forum/ViewForumThread.aspx%3FObjectId%3D33163%26ObjectClass%3DCLS_ForumGeneral%26CountryCode%3DGLOBAL

that seems to indicate the top climbers average 5foot 7 and weigh 64kgs - at 6 foot and 82kgs I'd better chop my head off. 
 

[tomtom]

If you were after surgical weight loss you could probably get by with only one lung (for short problems) and one kidney... Appendix and pancreas could go too... and a fair length of intestine... Its all quite wet and weighty that stuff, so I recon you could easily lose 5kg or more that way

[T_B]

I did think when I had my lower leg in plaster and lost 2 kilos in 3 weeks that you could just stick both legs in plaster for a few weeks for that crucial pre-redpoint weight loss (assuming it was not a slab ;-))

[SA Chris]

Wonder how much both legs full plaster would get you? You sure as hell wouldn't hassle yourself getting to the fridge for another beer.

[cowboyhat]

so I reckon you don't need to be any lower than 74 at 6'2.

Obviously it would be great to know the tipping point of perfect strength/too fat to climb.

All this must be dependent on body shape/ type. IIRC James I train with who is around 6'3" or 4" was around 63KGs at lightest.

Yes he looked a bit weird but he has quite a weird body anyway, long narrow torso. His 'normal' pre diet weight is only about 72kg.

[Ti_pin_man]

If you were after surgical weight loss you could probably get by with only one lung (for short problems) and one kidney... Appendix and pancreas could go too... and a fair length of intestine... Its all quite wet and weighty that stuff, so I recon you could easily lose 5kg or more that way

Sadly selling / removing a kidney will be pretty fatal for me, I only have one, so I really have no excuses... how much does a kidney weigh ?

 

[Dexter]

I did think when I had my lower leg in plaster and lost 2 kilos in 3 weeks that you could just stick both legs in plaster for a few weeks for that crucial pre-redpoint weight loss (assuming it was not a slab ;-))

Wonder how much both legs full plaster would get you? You sure as hell wouldn't hassle yourself getting to the fridge for another beer.

just set up a campus circuit to the fridge and back

[Rocksteady]

I thought I'd seen this sort of topic somewhere before - apparently an old-skool study done on comp climbers (sport). Can be extrapolated accordingly to bouldering I guess?

http://cel.webofknowledge.com/InboundService.do?SID=Z2uHAoHXzXsYQkEQnzL&product=CEL&UT=000207609300004&SrcApp=Highwire&Init=Yes&action=retrieve&Func=Frame&customersID=Highwire&SrcAuth=Highwire&IsProductCode=Yes&mode=FullRecord

"The results indicated that elite sport climbers are of small to moderate stature and exhibit very low % fat, moderate grip strength and high SMR when compared with other athletic groups. Values for the height-weight ratio and sum of seven skinfolds in the female finalists were very near those of the male finalists, which may indicate that reduction of body mass and % fat are primary adaptations in these female athletes. Climbing ability was predictable from Grip Strength to Mass Ratio and % fat, though the R2 was low."

[Evil]

Here's the table of data from that study in case anyone's interested. Good find 

[IS2]

Any mathematician out there work out how the height-weight ratio is calculated.... tried the obvious 66.6 kg / 1.778 m = 37.45  or what they said ht / wt 177.8 / 66.6 = 2.66 ???

[moose]

That's some scary low body fat on the men.  My impedance scales are reasonably decent by the admittedly ropey standards of the method (electrodes for both hands and feet etc) and they refuse to go any lower than around 5-5.5% - and that's lardy by the standards of this bunch!

[Rocksteady]

That's some scary low body fat on the men.  My impedance scales are reasonably decent by the admittedly ropey standards of the method (electrodes for both hands and feet etc) and they refuse to go any lower than around 5-5.5% - and that's lardy by the standards of this bunch!

Study is from 1993, which may make a difference in terms of extreme diet tactics being adopted? Not sure these days having so low a body fat is considered healthy/optimal for performance?

[Monolith]

Study is from 1993, which may make a difference in terms of extreme diet tactics being adopted? Not sure these days having so low a body fat is considered healthy/optimal for performance?

Coupled with the fact that consumption of craft bakery produce and pies are de rigeur these days. 

[Sasquatch]

So I mimic'd the guys study from 8a.nu, but used the top 50 boulderers as of today for the last years ranking. 

Average Age: 26.2                 Std Dev-5.2
Average Height: 176.2           Std Dev-5.7
Average Weight: 66kgs          Std Dev-6.3
Average BMI: 21.1                 Std Dev-1.5
Average Yrs Climbing: 13.2     Std Dev-3.8

Take what you will from that.

[lagerstarfish]

I've always aspired to being above average - looks like I'm there in every respect

[IS2]

Hmm no takers on the maths then.

Using the mean figures for the male semi finalists gives them 0.377 kg / cm which gives a vague  measure of body composition. Sort of a  measure of how dense they are. Using this figure for an 82 kg bloke gives a height of 217 cm ( 7 ft 1 1/2 inches).... which means not very much other than that to have a body composition similar to the semi finalists  and be 82 kg you would need to be over 7 ft tall.    Vaguely supports Dense's argument.... or suggests one can be much chunkier and still climb 8A.

However it cheered me up cos at 156cm and 60 kg I am very close to the 0.377 figure so feel less tubby........ but no where near doing 8A. Calculators and scales out to find out how heavy you would need to be to match these ripped heroes from 93...

[Evil]

Any mathematician out there work out how the height-weight ratio is calculated.... tried the obvious 66.6 kg / 1.778 m = 37.45  or what they said ht / wt 177.8 / 66.6 = 2.66 ???

I think they might state it somewhere in the study. I can post the article up somewhere tomorrow if people are interested. I've got access to academic journals at work.

[Zods Beard]

Does anyone know what the ideal weight for bouldering is then? Can't be arsed reading previous posts for myself but surely some sort of conclusion must've been reached.

[Cassidy]

Oi rosma you calling me fat!?

I don't boulder hard enough to affect this pole anyway but Malc has defo been known to get above 80 and is still, you know, Malc strong. 8A+ no bother.

[Evil]

Here's the full article. I'll take it down after a couple of weeks or something, as it's not meant to be "systematically redistributed" 

You can now decode the "ability" stat as well and see how hard they had climbed

Anthropometric profiles of elite male and female competitive sport rock climbers

[tim palmer]

like most sports science articles I am not sure it is worth the time required to read it or the paper it is printed on

[Evil]

Haha probably not! There is another paper in the same journal about how inaccurate the body fat % estimation method used in that paper is, but the paper looking for an accurate method doesn't really come to any sort of conclusion itself either...

There are boatloads of climbing related papers there, but I suspect trawling through them to find anything valuable might take a lot more time than is worthwhile. Must.....resist....time...wasting....

[Fiend]

5'8" and 76kg too 

Low weight is definitely crucial for hard bouldering.

[rosmat]

Oi rosma you calling me fat!?

I don't boulder hard enough to affect this pole anyway but Malc has defo been known to get above 80 and is still, you know, Malc strong. 8A+ no bother.

Ha, I was waiting for that!

I thought being mentioned in the same company as Fred Nicole and Jimmy Webb would have cheered you up though 

[slackline]

Any mathematician out there work out how the height-weight ratio is calculated.... tried the obvious 66.6 kg / 1.778 m = 37.45  or what they said ht / wt 177.8 / 66.6 = 2.66 ???

I think they might state it somewhere in the study. I can post the article up somewhere tomorrow if people are interested. I've got access to academic journals at work.

The height-weight ratio (HWR) was calculated as height divided by the cube root of body mass

Haha probably not! There is another paper in the same journal about how inaccurate the body fat % estimation method used in that paper is, but the paper looking for an accurate method doesn't really come to any sort of conclusion itself either...

Not necessarily too big a problem if the same method of estimation is applied to everyone as the error is then systematic and what is of interest is the difference between individuals.