[teestub]

I would almost certainly be sitting on a train with a beer and a pack of pork pies weighting in at around 120kg.

I think it’s important to make time for both training and pork pies.

[moose]

Climbing at Kilnsey is / was good for both. The Spa supermarket in Threshfield includes a branch of H Weatherheads, an award-winning Pateley Bridge butchers: very nice pork pies, pasties, and quiches.  The pork pies with chorizo and black pudding under the lid are recommended.  Popping in to re-stock on the way home was my regular reward after a good session during non-Covid times (the pork pies freeze well if wrapped in foil).

[SA Chris]

My default for big days in the mountains; compact, tasty, moist and will sit in your stomach for hours.

[webbo]

Before I went veggie I used to like a pork pie and mustard. The mustard was the best bit.

[dunnyg]

Good knowledge on the threshfield pately bridge butcher connection. Psyched.

[IanP]

Not sure if the original thread has much life left , but good post by Molly TS on Instagram

https://www.instagram.com/p/CLFZS-Djvh5/?igshid=1h73ubkg5o65w

[mrjonathanr]

Kids read those posts, good role model there.

[abarro81]

I may be misreading, but I read Molly's post as falling as much into the "possibly bad dieting/weight decisions" as the "ED" camp, though it's hard to tell, which is why I don't think its easy (or worth it?) to separate these things out. Only difference is that Molly's post is more on the anti-diet bandwagon that the "defensive" posts from people more on the "diet can be useful" that some people didn't like

One concern I would have with the current anti-diet movement is that dieting becomes so frowned upon that genuine critical conversation about its possible risks and benefits is driven underground. E.g. I wouldn't dare raise the point in Molly's insta that her injury may or may not have had anything to do with weight (and I have pretty thick skin for internet arguments).. and I'm sure others wouldn't too, but will be thinking the same (i.e. discussion around this stuff is already not open, honest or critical. Pity bonjoy deleted his more argumentative post from a few days ago)

[spidermonkey09]

 genuine critical conversation about its possible risks and benefits

The problem is that having such a conversation out in the open, with high achieving athletes such as yourself as the exemplar of what the results can look like, creates an environment which presents quite a significant risk to quite a lot of people's health, mental and physical. I have sympathy with the point of view which suggests that it would be better if the received wisdom was that dieting for performance should be avoided for 95% of participants.

[abarro81]

That's fine, and if that's what's best for people then fair enough. But
1) you forfeit the ability to claim in any way, shape or form that you want open and honest discussion, or even any form of discussion/conversation on the topic (people keep saying, on here and insta etc that it's great to have conversation around this - you can't say that unless you actually want conversation)
2) you run the risk of dieting being a secret that you keep hidden because others wouldn't approve
3) you fuck over anyone who is considering dieting and thinks critically because it becomes clear that the message is "don't do drugs because drugs are bad" with no real discussion about how bad, what we understand, how to manage it safely if you do want to "experiment", etc.

[Bonjoy]

I may be misreading, but I read Molly's post as falling as much into the "possibly bad dieting/weight decisions" as the "ED" camp, though it's hard to tell, which is why I don't think its easy (or worth it?) to separate these things out. Only difference is that Molly's post is more on the anti-diet bandwagon that the "defensive" posts from people more on the "diet can be useful" that some people didn't like

One concern I would have with the current anti-diet movement is that dieting becomes so frowned upon that genuine critical conversation about its possible risks and benefits is driven underground. E.g. I wouldn't dare raise the point in Molly's insta that her injury may or may not have had anything to do with weight (and I have pretty thick skin for internet arguments).. and I'm sure others wouldn't too, but will be thinking the same (i.e. discussion around this stuff is already not open, honest or critical. Pity bonjoy deleted his more argumentative post from a few days ago)

I can't recall what I wrote to be honest. Possibly something about the chilling effect of tone policing. I did consider starting a new thread to discuss the point separately as I thought it related to wider trends in social media, and I didn't want to derail this discussion. But eventually decided not to on the basis people might object to my tone... 

[shark]

It’s still in deleted items if you want to check or quote yourself

[spidermonkey09]

I wouldn't pretend that such an approach would have no downsides. Its all a matter of picking which approach is likely to cause less social harm, which is obviously a matter of opinion. In order:

1) you forfeit the ability to claim in any way, shape or form that you want open and honest discussion, or even any form of discussion/conversation on the topic (people keep saying, on here and insta etc that it's great to have conversation around this - you can't say that unless you actually want conversation)

I think this is lost in translation to a certain extent, because by 'conversation' what I think is meant is an acknowledgement of the effects of dieting and EDs in climbing in the past and present and a recognition that we haven't been sensitive about that in the past. As I said previously, I don't actually believe that widespread discussion of how dieting can work for climbing would actually be a good thing, because I think it would quickly feed down from 9a climbers to 7a climbers. YMMV obviously.

2) you run the risk of dieting being a secret that you keep hidden because others wouldn't approve

Yes, this is a risk. I don't know whether the risk of this would outweigh the existing risk of people believing that 'everyone else is doing it, it gets results, smart, strong climbers advocate it as an approach for pushing your grade.' Beyond my pay grade!

3) you fuck over anyone who is considering dieting and thinks critically because it becomes clear that the message is "don't do drugs because drugs are bad" with no real discussion about how bad, what we understand, how to manage it safely if you do want to "experiment", etc.

The drugs argument is an interesting one and one for another thread that I have very mixed opinions on, and maybe that feeds a bit into my views on this. For me, 'thinking critically' is one of those loaded terms that has applies a negative connotation to those who prefer to simply not engage in the activity under discussion (because they don't have the time, don't feel qualified, or numerous other reasons), and a positive connotation to those that do. Basically my view on this is the same as for no.1; I am conflicted on whether an open, 'critical' discussion on dieting would produce better health outcomes for people than a blanket approach. Because I think a blanket approach would on balance help a greater number of people I am inclined to think this is the better option.

[Bonjoy]

Almost certainly a bad idea but WTH -
I posted, then deleted this, in response comments about the defensive tone of various people's contributions. You can't defend anything labelled defensive without looking defensive...

In contrast I find generalised complaints about tone depressing and alienating. At the risk of being shredded for my negative tone I think this sort of thing puts a lot of people off engaging in discussions like this. I'd prefer people could say what they think, and be rigorously challenged on the specifics when people disagree, rather than receiving a non-specific scolding for their 'tone'.

 
Please, if anyone thinks this is an inappropriate place for this discussion, say so and I will move it elsewhere.

[abarro81]

by 'conversation' what I think is meant is [...]

What you describe isn't what I would call conversation!

For me, 'thinking critically' is one of those loaded terms that has applies a negative connotation to those who prefer to simply not engage in the activity under discussion (because they don't have the time, don't feel qualified, or numerous other reasons), and a positive connotation to those that do. Basically my view on this is the same as for no.1; I am conflicted on whether an open, 'critical' discussion on dieting would produce better health outcomes for people than a blanket approach. Because I think a blanket approach would on balance help a greater number of people I am inclined to think this is the better option.

I don't think negatively of anyone who considers something (be it dieting, drugs or anything else) and decides against it. I don't particularly think less of those who decide against something without a real reason - it's their choice. I do think less of those who push a view without allowing interrogation of it. My thought is, broadly, this: if I read something like Molly's post, I rapidly ask "how do we know the injuries were diet driven", but if I'm not allowed to ask this question I just form a dim view of those telling me that like a fact but not allowing me to ask the questions, so I'll probably start to ignore them (same as Stu's earlier point - if you claim that dieting doesn't work well for lots of people then many will ignore you because it's clearly not true; with injuries it's obviously much more vague because causation in individual cases is largely unknowable, but the broad point is the same). Perhaps this says as much about me and my default scepticism as it does about anything else

[teestub]

Alex by ‘dieting’ are you strictly referring to calorie restriction, going to bed hungry, etc.?  What’s your view around approaches based more around changing macros, ‘fuelling’, etc., is this coming under the heading of ‘dieting’ for you?

[Will Hunt]

I'm roughly with Barrows on this. Molly seemed to recognise in her post that losing some weight had been beneficial in the short term but wasn't sustainable in the long term. Other people may not be able to get the same short term benefits but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work for everyone. That much seems to be fact; if you deny it or try and hush it up then you end up in exactly the same place we were in before the film - with something that is clearly used behind the scenes by some people, and which fucks some people up, but around which there is a culture of silence. Telling people that weight loss is always bad and must always be avoided isn't going to stop people drawing their own conclusions after scrolling through Instagram and seeing people who cut weight getting up stuff.

If we recognise that there can be benefits then you also get to have a meaningful conversation of what the risks are and set out the caveats. These caveats might be that the dark arts should only be used once you've optimised everything else; and that they should only be used for limited, short-term purposes (i.e. for a short period of redpointing something that would be very significant to you). It would be important to have somebody close to you who understands the risks and can intervene if things are becoming unhealthy.

I'm not sure how effective this 'buddy system' backstop might be in the context of real mental health disorders (body dysmorphia etc), but I would guess that eating disorders would be less common in people who came to weight-loss through an openly discussed and measured approach, than in people who came to it by being influenced by what they saw happening on social media.

[spidermonkey09]

if I read something like Molly's post, I rapidly ask "how do we know the injuries were diet driven", but if I'm not allowed to ask this question I just form a dim view of those telling me that like a fact but not allowing me to ask the questions

I mean, my immediate response to this is that its none of our business to be honest! If Molly (not exactly uninformed on these issues I would presume!), who knows her body and has coaches/ contacts to discuss things with, suggests they were then I don't think a default questioning tone is particularly relevant or appropriate, especially on a public forum. I don't think anyone talking about how diet affected their climbing/health is obliged to do a peer reviewed study before talking about it.

Perhaps this says as much about me and my default scepticism as it does about anything else

I think it does, and I don't think its per se a bad setting to be on, but I do think it has limitations when it comes to empathetic response to difficult issues. This is not to say your comments here aren't empathetic (I think they are sensible and interesting) but I do think they would have implications if they were the status quo.

[Will Hunt]

if I read something like Molly's post, I rapidly ask "how do we know the injuries were diet driven", but if I'm not allowed to ask this question I just form a dim view of those telling me that like a fact but not allowing me to ask the questions

I mean, my immediate response to this is that its none of our business to be honest! If Molly (not exactly uninformed on these issues I would presume!), who knows her body and has coaches/ contacts to discuss things with, suggests they were then I don't think a default questioning tone is particularly relevant or appropriate, especially on a public forum. I don't think anyone talking about how diet affected their climbing/health is obliged to do a peer reviewed study before talking about it.

A bit of balance needed I think. There's no need to put everything under a microscope - I trust that Molly and her coaches know something about this - but saying that discussion of the causation of injuries should be off the cards can lead to incorrect information being taken as gospel, which can lead to people making less informed decisions about risk.

As an example, when Mina had her accident on Rainshadow she ascribed the blame to a loose fitting harness. Without going into the specifics I think the UKB Independent Inquiry reported that this might have had a small impact but perhaps not as significant as getting a hard catch or not wearing a helmet when there's a chance you'll get spat off in the way she did. I know punters who then started worrying about whether their harness fitted just right; I didn't hear anybody worrying about hard catches. I still see punters, wearing harnesses that may as well be made-to-measure, yarding the rope bowstring tight when their friend tells them that they're coming off.

[abarro81]

if I read something like Molly's post, I rapidly ask "how do we know the injuries were diet driven", but if I'm not allowed to ask this question I just form a dim view of those telling me that like a fact but not allowing me to ask the questions

I mean, my immediate response to this is that its none of our business to be honest! If Molly (not exactly uninformed on these issues I would presume!), who knows her body and has coaches/ contacts to discuss things with, suggests they were then I don't think a default questioning tone is particularly relevant or appropriate, especially on a public forum. I don't think anyone talking about how diet affected their climbing/health is obliged to do a peer reviewed study before talking about it.

My default assumption would be that unless you go pretty hardcore (e.g. osteoporosis driven by hormonal disfunction from REDS) it will be incredibly difficult to know how much diet has contributed to any given injury or set of injuries. (this relates to my comment early on in the thread about injuries, which you labelled as disappointing/defensive). I'm very open to people showing me the light here if I'm wrong - either via studies or "expert" testimony, that's the kind of conversation I'd like more of around this (partly driven by being self-interested about whether my injury issues are related to historical dieting, though their pattern rules out any obvious short-term driver e.g. being light for a season). I also don't think that saying thing on social media accounts should make them immune from questioning. If it's none of our business then I assume that applies to the people commenting positively as well as anyone questioning whether it's realistic to think that we know how much injuries may or may not be diet driven in different situations. If someone wrote a post about how they dieted and didn't get injured it would be fair enough to question whether they just got lucky. Unfortunately, I wouldn't want to ask Molly about what leads her to believe the injury was diet driven because of the inevitable bullshit pile-on, so we're left with one less useful datapoint/anecdote in the world about whether dieting (and dieting to what level etc.) drives injury in climbing...

[IanP]

I may be misreading, but I read Molly's post as falling as much into the "possibly bad dieting/weight decisions" as the "ED" camp, though it's hard to tell, which is why I don't think its easy (or worth it?) to separate these things out. Only difference is that Molly's post is more on the anti-diet bandwagon that the "defensive" posts from people more on the "diet can be useful" that some people didn't like

One concern I would have with the current anti-diet movement is that dieting becomes so frowned upon that genuine critical conversation about its possible risks and benefits is driven underground. E.g. I wouldn't dare raise the point in Molly's insta that her injury may or may not have had anything to do with weight (and I have pretty thick skin for internet arguments).. and I'm sure others wouldn't too, but will be thinking the same (i.e. discussion around this stuff is already not open, honest or critical. Pity bonjoy deleted his more argumentative post from a few days ago)

'As much' into bad diet camp I guess means also 'as much' into the ED camp as well which doesn't appear totally healthy.  Reading her post it seems she wasn't particularly happy and she doesn't appear to directly link her injury to diet which sort of means that argument isn't particuarly relevant (that word again  ).

I think she says some important and honest stuff about her own experience:

'the mental differences weigh a lot more. I still struggle with pushing down the bad habits of the past that creep up daily'

'But I also recognise that my strength is what helps me climb hard, my healthy body weight is what allows my cycle to continue as it should, and my decision to eat well is what means I can laugh and be happy with the people around me' 

Does anyone really think a regime that means a 19 year old does not have normal menstruel cycle is anything other than pretty wrong?

I am not anti diet and I keep saying this - I just would rather we talked more about how we make a more open and supportative community that would allow people (particularly young people) to understand choices they make and get support if needed.

[spidermonkey09]

As an example, when Mina had her accident on Rainshadow she ascribed the blame to a loose fitting harness.

I thought this would probably come up as I clicked post, but I do think the context is different as correct harness fit is not a mental and physical health issue in the same way as dieting and EDs and so is fine for public discussion for me.

[Bonjoy]

I am not anti diet and I keep saying this - I just would rather we talked more about how we make a more open and supportative community that would allow people (particularly young people) to understand choices they make and get support if needed.

I think all would agree this is absolutely what is needed. 'Open' necessarily means  a complete and honest appraisal of the pros and cons, with at least the appearance that there isn't a pre-approved choice that will be supported and one which wont. That's not a defence of dieting, just of the importance of informed choice. It's tricky, nobody wants to be complicit in sending someone down a wrong path and I can see why there's a wish to narrativise things in a way which encourages people in a direction which seems objectively wiser. For many people this is the right approach. But Alex is right in saying that some people will instinctively take apart simple narratives and draw conclusions, which may not be the same conclusions they'd draw if they were given the unvarnished facts and left to make their own decision. Or better still encouraged to vocalise any embryonic desires they might hold and have them challenged on merit.
I think some might look at climbers condemning their past behaviour on dieting as pulling the ladder up after they've gained the benefits. These are probably the hard to reach individuals and the ones who wont be persuaded without hard factual debate.

[shark]

As an example, when Mina had her accident on Rainshadow she ascribed the blame to a loose fitting harness.

I thought this would probably come up as I clicked post, but I do think the context is different as correct harness fit is not a mental and physical health issue in the same way as dieting and EDs and so is fine for public discussion for me.

You missed the point by a country mile there 

[spidermonkey09]

You missed the point by a country mile there 

Not intentionally, so please feel free to correct me (sure Will will be along shortly to do so)