UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => diet, training and injuries => Topic started by: Murph on December 13, 2016, 11:54:37 am
-
Off topic from the steep board discussion. Here is a link to the ranger study (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15195793_Lower_limit_of_body_fat_in_healthy_active_men) I was talking about.
Not saying that this is a good way to lose weight, and the report says that the participants certainly larded up again after getting through selection. But at least initially the weightloss on this 1,000 cal/day deficit was primarily fat. At least until a bodyfat of c5% was reached, thereafter further weightloss came at the expense of lean mass.
I wouldn't imagine there is any comparison with this method versus sensible eating-training strategy. But it is what it is. Weight loss, for these rangers over the first 6 weeks of their ordeal was primarily fat loss (11kgs down to 4.8kgs) rather than Fat Free Mass loss (65kgs down to 61.7kgs).
However, in googling for that study I came across this one (http://www.academia.edu/4112946/Physiological_Consequences_of_U.S._Army_Ranger_Training) which looks at the impact of that sort of ordeal on power output and the results are not inspiring. However, if I had a project in mind I might be tempted to leave the ranger selection a few weeks short of what looks like breaking point, having a few days on the steak, broccoli and ice cream diet and then getting stuck into those 7As that have thus far repelled my advances.
Food for thought?
-
Cheers Murph!
I don't know how much I'll understand in terms of statistics but I'll try.
One thing to consider is that it dates back to 1993.
-
Yohimbe and two weeks of 1400 calories has always worked well in the past for me. With the added benefit of giving you good wood.
-
One thing to consider is that it dates back to 1993.
True! But how much can human physiology really have changed in 20 years...?
I like the bit at the beginning where it says something like "humans have in their fat stores a compact reserve of 100,000 calories"...you know, just in case!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yohimbe and two weeks of 1400 calories has always worked well in the past for me. With the added benefit of giving you good wood.
What?
English please.[emoji12]
I know, I know, google.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
It's that gorilla that got shot innit?
-
On an interesting side note...
Created an account at academia.edu to read that and was immediately followed by an old Geophysicist friend I haven't spoken to in eight years-ish.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
It's that gorilla that got shot innit?
Ummm....
The man from Web MD, he say NO!
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161213/7a7da6b461892e1cf7eb769086dc7eb4.png)
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
It's that gorilla that got shot innit?
Ummm....
The man from Web MD, he say NO!
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161213/7a7da6b461892e1cf7eb769086dc7eb4.png)
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
Hmmm, does it say you'll end up thinking Brexit is a good idea?
-
Yeah you shouldn't use it if you've depression, anxiety or various other conditions. Powerful stuff that african tree bark, beware!
-
Um, yeah, fuck that.
-
Off topic from the steep board discussion. Here is a link to the ranger study (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15195793_Lower_limit_of_body_fat_in_healthy_active_men) I was talking about.
(…)
Food for thought?
Thanks murph, interesting stuff!
What I find especially scary about this study:
<<Results: Vertical jump height (-16%), explosive power output (-21%), maximal lifting strength. (-20%), body mass (-13%), fat-free mass (-6%),and fat mass (-50%) declined (P< 0.05) after the training course>>
Which basically says that yes, they lost lots of weight and tons of fat, but they lost at the same time (and over-proportionally) vast amounts of power and strength, even on bodyweight-dependent test exercises like vertical jumps! So we can’t even argue that it’s only an absolute strength/power loss and not a relative one (to BW).
Also this:
<<Circulating total testosterone and insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) experienced significant (…) declines, and cortisol was significantly increased>>
So in other words, what Nibs said about the metabolism getting totally trashed.
With hormonal status at that level, your ability to recover well from strenuous climbing sessions drops to almost zero (->testosterone) while your injury and particularly inflammation risk (-> cortisol) sky rockets :o
Not ideal to say the least and clearly a last resort for very special goals. So one should check carefully if the size of the prize (e.g. importance of the project) is worth it.
-
One thing to consider is that it dates back to 1993.
True! But how much can human physiology really have changed in 20 years...?
I like the bit at the beginning where it says something like "humans have in their fat stores a compact reserve of 100,000 calories"...you know, just in case!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Murph, nothing against you, really. Human phisiology may not have changed in the last 20 years, but sports nutrition has.
As far as the fat storage goes, 1 kg of fat equals roughly 8.000 calories, so I doubt that we have 100.000 calories to burn without turning into a skeleton.
I would really emphasize the drop in power output and testosterone production as a guiding light.
-
So in other words, what Nibs said about the metabolism getting totally trashed.
Yeah man - Nibs knows his shit!
These guys were really hammered though - like, they the fat levels of a bodybuilder on stage but had just been up all night playing soldiers on a hill somewhere. In the cold.
-
Sorry guys can't reply properly, I'm at a conference. Very interesting thread!
-
Murph, nothing against you, really.
....
I would really emphasize the drop in power output and testosterone production as a guiding light.
Hey, no offence taken - and yeah I shared it here because that second study about the hormonal impacts on power is, just what you were on about.
So it's the two things going on - until ridiculously lean, like 7% bodyfat (which is approaching competing bodybuilder level) most of the subjects in the first study predominantly lost fat rather than muscle.
Then the second study (done by a lot of the same folk but I don't think on the same subjects) says that this had a terrible impact on hormones, strength and power output.
The missing link though is, what would have happened if they had stopped their ridiculous diets a bit earlier, plateaued for a while, and then been tested.
I don't think this comparison is specific enough about the driver for the poor power and T-levels. Just last week on power club I learnt that sleep is essential for recovery and T-scores and so on... it could have been the lack of sleep that was driving the T-scores and so the poor power. I don't know if the study is specific enough.
It's all good stuff though! And absolutely not an ideal training plan.
-
So basically 3-9 hasn't been getting any because his testosterone levels have plummeted* due to his starvation diet?
*amongst other social factors
-
To be frank, under the conditions, sleep deprivation and hunger are part and parcel. So, bit of a chicken and egg question.
The point of the test was to find those who could continue to function in a reasonable and logical manner, despite those privations.
I've done a fair bit of survival training over the years, both military and civi and one of the primary objectives has always been to hammer home the effect of (essentially) starvation. Sleeping whilst hungry is damn hard.
The 10 day Brecon Beacon phase of my training was done entirely on Arctic ration packs (dehydrated) and there was ~3000kcal available per day (iirc). However, we were deliberately sleep deprived and worked to a point where we were (probably) burning more like 4000kcal.
The rat packs were designed to give enough energy for the average man, at moderate exertion, in sub-zero conditions; assuming you consumed the whole thing.
Those who didn't, didn't last.
In '92, I was on the Joint Services Expedition to climb Mount Pagent on South Georgia (just outside the Antarctic circle). Again, we were using Artic Rat packs. However, carrying a 60kg load, 23km across the Icecap to advanced base and climbing etc etc; I lost 2.5 Stone in 18 days.
Now, there were other complications for me (Frost nip in both feet, snow blind) but, as a 21 year old, very fit, male, it must have taken two or three months for me to recover to full fitness.
The one hour of darkness(ish) and generally failing to follow proper diurnal habits, can't have helped (sleep was here and there, usually no more than a couple of hours undisturbed.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
That study show an approx weight loss of 1kg per week. Which is around the rate of weight loss experienced on the Anderson Bro's recommended routine of 1400 calories per day. When I do that for a couple of weeks I reliably lose 2 kg in two weeks, then I stop and eat normally again. But maybe it's the
Viagra Yohimbe.
Like you say, stopping short of total hormonal annihilation is the only sane choice. It isn't news that sustained calorie-deficit fucks you up, you only need read about the effects of eating disorders.
-
That study show an approx weight loss of 1kg per week. Which is around the rate of weight loss experienced on the Anderson Bro's recommended routine of 1400 calories per day. When I do that for a couple of weeks I reliably lose 2 kg in two weeks, then I stop and eat normally again. But maybe it's the Viagra Yohimbe.
Like you say, stopping short of total hormonal annihilation is the only sane choice. It isn't news that sustained calorie-deficit fucks you up, you only need read about the effects of eating disorders.
I have the Andersons book (I think, training for climbing?), but not read it cover to cover. I'll remedy that.
1400 kcal seems ridiculously low, at least according to my recent studies. I know I require 2600/day to maintain my current weight/BF ratios, given my normal training/activity levels and today 3278 kcal with my session. Even when I was losing, given a similar training regimen, I was aiming for 2300kcal/day. That was shedding 0.5kg per week and almost a 1000kcal deficit on training days!
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Sounds like you're doing a lot of training to burn that much energy. That amount of training surely can't all be focused on training for specific climbing goal but rather more all-over health/fitness/strength? The typical Anderson routine is quite low in terms of energy expenditure and focuses purely on training for a particular route goal, pretty much to the detriment of anything else - no running, very little supplemental weight training (though still some), no other activities just 'the goal'. They're pretty OCD! Also the diet phase immediately precedes the red-pointing phase where the weight-loss counts most and is soon over and done with.
-
Sounds like you're doing a lot of training to burn that much energy.
Thats his training for looking after three kids.
-
Sounds like you're doing a lot of training to burn that much energy.
Thats his training for looking after three kids.
Four.
And, yes Pete, nowhere near so focused.
But seriously, that's running to work (2k each way steep hills), doing the school run (1.5k each way, more hills), instructing group exercise classes(1.5hrs), a couple hours setting/climbing and then from 13:00 to 16:30 club swinging/sword kata/one armers/foot on campus/Bachar ladder/campus/Finger board/45* board. Then kids club (1hr) and run home. So the fitness tracker recalcs as you go. I won't eat tat much, I'll end up ~600kcal down on the recommended.
You can use online calculators to see what a typical day will burn for you on top of your BMR (and calculate your BMR), with a reasonable approximation.
This one is good:
http://acaloriecalculator.com
The ios app for that works well.
So, for a 76kg male, for a ten minute duration would give, as an example:
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161213/c3ccbbacfb9a4c0d664f6917c92c7dde.png)
The smaller number being the factor by which you multiply your BMR for the given period. Obviously, errors abound, especially since it in part relies on your perception of effort.
You might notice the example is page two of twenty eight, it pretty much covers most activities.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
For reference, this is what my day looks like having just got home and before evening meal:
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161213/3c7cf227401b2f3f483d2193d61b9986.png)
There's also a Protein shake (powder+350g skimmed milk) out of shot in the "snacks" section.
There will be a glass of Red tonight (200ml) and 27g of Galaxy.
It might seem ocd, but it's quite easy to track closely what you are doing.
Where I have preached to the converted, I apologise.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
entirely on Arctic ration packs (dehydrated) and there was ~3000kcal available per day (iirc).
...
I lost 2.5 Stone in 18 days.
Thanks for sharing your experiences here.
Do you know if the rat packs are the same for everyone regardless of their size? Related, does everyone have to carry the same amount of kit? Just wondering out loud whether there is an advantage to being a little guy in training.
You say you were burning closer to 4K. Well if a "normal" day for you now is 3.3k, maybe you were doing a lot more than that!
Regardless, that's a solid fat club result there OMM - shame it came at such a price.
-
Actually, I had to google. 25 years is too long.
It was this:
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161213/c090b1824bcdd0be49b079eabe5c95fd.png)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161213/111c51288a714a365ff1a2ef1cad9de2.png)(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161213/988a7da503dbe8c376199f772d0725b2.png)
And, from what I can gather, came to 3600kcal. If you ate every thing, every sugar packet, every powdered milk, every soup etc. Rarely was there enough time. Usually, we were in four man teams and they were individual packs; so often different main meals. Everything got chucked in a single pan to make "pot mess". Just hold your nose and swallow.
And yes, you got a can opener, even though the only tin was the meat paste and that had a pull tab. I still have some of those can openers.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
On kit amounts.
We did 30 months training, in 3 month classes.
There were pass/fail "selections" for advancement at each phase.
(There were also academics too).
At middle of 1 class (basic), Scrasden fort (near Torpoint/Plymouth). 20lb standard kit. 6ml double time squad march. From Fisguard to Fort. 30ml, full kit navigation ex. 16hr time limit (+the usual assault course type stuff).
End 1class: Cardinham (Bodmin moor). 30lb standard kit. It's an old clay mine. Mother furker of an assault course, 4 man team, carrying a railway sleeper, 2 miles long, over clay tips, through a large marsh, swim across the flooded quarry, 100mtr long 1x1 tunnel etc etc. Legendary in Artificer circles. Still makes me shiver. 30 mile nav ex over Bodmin moor. Various weapon stuff.
End 4class: Fort Bouldner, Isle of Wight.
30lb. 40ml in 24 hrs, nav ex. Seriously fun assault course including the longest sump I've ever done (longer than the Jungle at Lympstone). Plus, assault course again as a Gun Run (with a Victorian era artillery piece).
9 class: Brecon Beacons.(Tal-y-bont)
30lb standard kit. 10 days. Nav ex's, E&E, Caving, Mountaineering assement, night ex's and all kinds of daft shit (cross this chasm using two shoelaces, half a cold fish and chips and a piece of gum type stuff). Culminating in (our version of) the Fan dance. 24km, 685 mtr climb (twice), 7hrs.
The other "selections" were a Sea Training phase with the Dartmouth training Squadron and a two week seamanship/sailing phase.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Cheers OMM
Couldn't help but notice this:
...4 man team, carrying a railway sleeper, 2 miles long...
That is a seriously long railway sleeper! I don't envy you guys.
-
What always stands out with those ratpacks is to get the full calorie content you have to make and drink about 20 litres of tea every day. Do they still put bromide in the biscuits brown to make you infertile?
Anyway, that is a very long railway sleeper.
-
Cheers OMM
Couldn't help but notice this:
...4 man team, carrying a railway sleeper, 2 miles long...
That is a seriously long railway sleeper! I don't envy you guys.
Yep. We were 'ard I tell ya, 'ard. That Clay tip was so high, we needed oxygen (carried in an old sheep's bladder) and all done in Hurricane force winds, during the worst blizzard on record. In our underpants, blindfold.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Remember chatting to a former BAS person, who during fieldwork 20 years ago their daily ration was c.10k calories. Lots of Butter. I mean LOTS of butter. Slabs of butter covered in sugar between two slices of bread... stomping about for 12-18 hour days in - whatever temps...
-
to get the full calorie content you have to make and drink about 20 litres of tea every day.
Not many calories in tea Dave. Eat the sugar tho. Not sure about the non dairy whitener...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
their daily ration was c.10k calories.
OMM says he lost 2.5 stone in 18 days up above. If he was having 3k a day and all that weight loss was fat (which of course it wouldn't have been but stay with me) that means his daily energy spend was getting on for 10k too. (3K x 18 days rations) + (8K x 16kgs lost) = c180,000
Impressive numbers to someone who lives in an office.
-
Swimmers, Rowers burn 8-10k per day... read what Phelps ate a day whilst training!
Claimed (probably overblown) to be 12000 per day...
Men’s Health said he used to eat this: “Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions, and mayonnaise; two cups of coffee; one five-egg omelet; one bowl of grits; three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar; and three chocolate-chip pancakes.” And that was just for breakfast.
-
I've yet to find anything other than NATO standards for rat packs of that era. However, it seem the 3600kcal was the temperate pack, not arctic. The new cold climate packs, introduced mid 2000's have 5100kcal. I'd guess they must have been on a par back then, so not as low as I remember.
I don't recall ever considering this, even in Exped planning. It was X days=X Packs + Y spare and assume MOD know what they're doing.
Sorry, can't resist this was the terrain.
First, 23km back to the coast; where we were dropped by Ridged Raider, by the Royals.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161214/d3c0d4dedba4ca3b153661a140947899.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161214/74768725dd4b12e414a40b4daa04b3d9.jpg)
Heavy packs, hard terrain, we had to carry everything we'd need for (originally) 25 days (ran away early). Above the head of the fella in the foreground is the Icefall that we had to climb. Bergshrund and crevasse hell and no handy sherpas to fix ladders or ropes.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161214/79c0d2ac034ed59b1c28a399b055672d.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161214/6450b668710caa466ca9d1a040456a70.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161214/e166d3a623ad8bf8729d4d5ac7229012.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
This has probably been covered numerous times, but how many calories do you actually burn bouldering for say 2 hrs (with no scientific background or reasoning whatsoever, I think not very much).
It always strikes me the walk ins burn more calories than bouldering.
-
I'd guess more indoors than out. When I used to count calories I'd go for about 350cals per session (2h) based on it being about 30 mins of climbing.
-
The new cold climate packs, introduced mid 2000's have 5100kcal. I'd guess they must have been on a par back then, so not as low as I remember.
That 1993 study says that during winter rations were over twice as big as the summer.
Summer rations were 5.4kj (which is 1,300 kcal or so). Rather them than me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
This has probably been covered numerous times, but how many calories do you actually burn bouldering for say 2 hrs (with no scientific background or reasoning whatsoever, I think not very much).
It always strikes me the walk ins burn more calories than bouldering.
10 minutes for a 76kg male:
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161214/93588cc834a9ebd41028d8eba1f061ea.png)
You must subtract your BMR from the values shown, for that period. Or calc your BMR and multiply by the indicated factor.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
This has probably been covered numerous times, but how many calories do you actually burn bouldering for say 2 hrs (with no scientific background or reasoning whatsoever, I think not very much).
It always strikes me the walk ins burn more calories than bouldering.
Interesting Dan..
I've been experimenting with an apple watch (new toy) the last week or two - which has a heart beat thingy, so supposedly gives a better 'calorie burn' during 'workouts'... Not wanting to trash the shiny new toy actually bouldering, so far I've done:
1. Beastmaker session - (3x6 7sec hangs x 3). Stopping it during the 10-15 min break between sets - leaving it running during the 1-2 min break between each group of 6 hangs. This burnt c.220 cal in a 20(ish) min work out it was recording (was nearer 50 if you include the 10-15 min breaks). Max heart beat 180 (must have been gurning at one point!)
2. Warming up at Logport wall (c.10-12 V1-3 problems). c.60 cal burnt in 10 min... Max heart beat 100...
To put this in context, a 40-50min c.3km pram push around the once leafy streets of Didsbury burns 250-350 depending how fast I push TTjnr..
-
From reading about the early Antarctic exploration (most notably The Worst Journey in the World by Cherry Apsley Garrard - an amazing book) they seemed to surviv mostly on Pemmican https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemmican
Which sounds utterly rank.
-
You're wrong to stop on the rests. You continue to have elevated HR and calorie burn for sometime after stopping the activity. Also, HR is unreliable for an essentially anaerobic activity. You could get tech and calc the energy required to raise your mass x mtrs and guesstimate your total ascent?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
For bouldering a some/most of the calories burnt must come from the glycogen you expend, some shit like that? (Don't really know what I'm on about here, totally blagging it).
-
From reading about the early Antarctic exploration (most notably The Worst Journey in the World by Cherry Apsley Garrard - an amazing book) they seemed to surviv mostly on Pemmican https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemmican
Which sounds utterly rank.
Sounds like the fat balls you hang out for birds to nibble on.
-
Sounds like the fat balls you hang out for birds to nibble on.
Dave... Come on. Really?
-
From reading about the early Antarctic exploration (most notably The Worst Journey in the World by Cherry Apsley Garrard - an amazing book) they seemed to surviv mostly on Pemmican https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemmican
Which sounds utterly rank.
Sounds like the fat balls you hang out for birds to nibble on.
Open goal.
Maybe her husband was a former artcic explorer.
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/a2017083-He-has-eaten-a-fat-ball
-
Sounds like the fat balls you hang out for birds to nibble on.
Dave... Come on. Really?
You're right, fat balls don't have meat.
-
From reading about the early Antarctic exploration (most notably The Worst Journey in the World by Cherry Apsley Garrard - an amazing book) they seemed to surviv mostly on Pemmican https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemmican
Which sounds utterly rank.
Sounds like the fat balls you hang out for birds to nibble on.
Open goal.
Maybe her husband was a former artcic explorer.
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/a2017083-He-has-eaten-a-fat-ball
Funny as, but; how the hell did you find that?
And.
Jeeze guys, I thought I'd digressed; this might actually be a UKB tangential thinking record!
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Funny as, but; how the hell did you find that?
Partner is a regular mumsnetter and showed it to me a while back. Possibly a future classic that will always be in circulation like the singletrackworld picolax thread.
-
Incidentally, by my calcs: for a 75 kg person.
(assuming 740 N required to move 1 mtr, or 740 J/mtr).
Kcal/mtr climbed = ~ 0.185kcal.
Or,
0.002467kcal/kg body weight.
I think.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Incidentally, by my calcs: for a 75 kg person.
(assuming 740 N required to move 1 mtr, or 740 J/mtr).
Kcal/mtr climbed = ~ 0.185kcal.
Or,
0.002467kcal/kg body weight.
I think.
How can this distinguish between jug hauling and crimping the life out of something?
I know what gets my heart beating faster -and that can't just be for fun...like my heart doesn't know how small the holds are...?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The human body is at best 25% efficient, so you burn 4 times as many calories as the work you've achieved. Plus climbing will burn a good chunk isometrically - I'd guess you burn more like 5 times your estimate, if not more.
Smaller holds mean more isometric contraction of stabilising muscles but I'm not sure the calorie burn will be much different.
-
This study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6235814_Energy_system_contributions_in_indoor_rock_climbing
puts the range of KJ expended per metre climbed at between 7.2 KJ/m and 9.2 kj/m for 62.4 kg climbers (+-3.3). While in KJ, it's energy expended, so the 25% efficiency can be ignored. Therefore, in calorie terms:
8.2 kJ per metre (average) equals 0.031 kCal/m/kg
So for me, a typical session might be 120m: - 283 kCal. Seems pretty reasonable.
-
So latest from today's watch calorie thingy is..
55min BM session (3 sets of 3 x 6 hangs) 231 'active calories burnt' 350 in total.
1:20 min 4.5km pram walk. 200 active calories and 350 total.
-
I take it that's based on heart rate?
-
This study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6235814_Energy_system_contributions_in_indoor_rock_climbing
puts the range of KJ expended per metre climbed at between 7.2 KJ/m and 9.2 kj/m for 62.4 kg climbers (+-3.3). While in KJ, it's energy expended, so the 25% efficiency can be ignored. Therefore, in calorie terms:
8.2 kJ per metre (average) equals 0.031 kCal/m/kg
So for me, a typical session might be 120m: - 283 kCal. Seems pretty reasonable.
Thanks, this is the best thing about UKB. Someone will have an answer to almost any query.
The human body is at best 25% efficient, so you burn 4 times as many calories as the work you've achieved. Plus climbing will burn a good chunk isometrically - I'd guess you burn more like 5 times your estimate, if not more.
Smaller holds mean more isometric contraction of stabilising muscles but I'm not sure the calorie burn will be much different.
Yes, I hadn't considered efficiency, which was quite dumb of me. Looking through the American institute of Sports Med. Figures (briefly on someone else's pdf), Rock climbing looks to be one of the highest burning exercises. More than a moderately paced swim for instance. I want to get hold of that table, but it seems to tally with website I linked to above.
Actually, I'm mildly surprised at the contribution of the Aerobic system in hard routes. I didn't expect it to be higher than the Alactic.
I assume this would not be true for a bouldering session though? So for a given time on rock (as opposed to session duration), assuming longer rests; there would therefore be less aerobic engagement?
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
I take it that's based on heart rate?
Heart rate, accelerometer and it's got at GPS - so distances will be accurate.
Interesting that my mean heart rate fingerboarding (Inc rests between sets) was 73 and for the walk 101. So must have had some heartbeat peaks during the BM session... anyway just some numbers to throw in the mix.
-
Would I also be right in thinking, that given period of engagement (cumulatively) of Anaerobic systems, raises the metabolism for longer (in recovery) than a similar duration period of Aerobic system engagement?
As in, there is nothing to recover, within the Aerobic system; whereas both Anaerobic systems require the body to remanufacture/replace ATP/Creatine phosphate?
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
This study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6235814_Energy_system_contributions_in_indoor_rock_climbing
Whilst snagging a copy of this I found I have a copy of an earlier review article from the same journal which includes a section on "Oxygen uptake and energy expenditure" (as well as "Anthropometry", "Flexibility", "Aerobic Power" and a few other aspects)....
Watts PB (2004) Physiology of difficult rock climbing. Eur J Appl Physiol (2004) 91: 361–372
DOI 10.1007/s00421-003-1036-7
Available from the usual illicit sources of paywalled content.
-
Murky buckets, mon sewer!
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
As in, there is nothing to recover, within the Aerobic system; whereas both Anaerobic systems require the body to remanufacture/replace ATP/Creatine phosphate?
All muscle contraction requires ATP (and therefore the ability to maintain ATP - it's actually not quite as clear as "replace" as the muscle aims as much as possible to "maintain" ATP - even in exhaustive efforts the concentration barely changes).
Whether it's anaerobic lactic (or alactic) or aerobic there is always a requirement of ATP. Be good if we could have it for free though!
-
As in, there is nothing to recover, within the Aerobic system; whereas both Anaerobic systems require the body to remanufacture/replace ATP/Creatine phosphate?
All muscle contraction requires ATP (and therefore the ability to maintain ATP - it's actually not quite as clear as "replace" as the muscle aims as much as possible to "maintain" ATP - even in exhaustive efforts the concentration barely changes).
Whether it's anaerobic lactic (or alactic) or aerobic there is always a requirement of ATP. Be good if we could have it for free though!
Yes, poor wording on my part. My impression was that both Lactate and Aerobic systems route through the Mitochondria and (for want of a better word) stop, when you do. Where as the CP system takes up to 5 min to "recharge"?
So, a 0.5-1 min on/5 min off routine, with a cumulative exercise time of (say) 15 minutes, would burn more than a 15 min run (at similar intensity)?
That's a question not an assertion!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
As to what burns more in 15 mins comes down to how many motor units across the entire body were firing in each exercise (rate, force, rest etc etc) The cals used will be higher in a large muscle group, rather than a small muscle group no matter how intensely that forearm might be firing. It's just a size + contractile force question. A quad operating at 5RM needs more ATP than a forearm at 5RM.
It's really hard to answer the specifics of your two scenarios unless you were able to get something like a METS value and even some of those numbers I'm never that sure about!
See http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clc.4960130809/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clc.4960130809/full)
-
So... It's 4:30am.
And I've just woken up thinking about this.
Nothing wrong there, is there? (probably should have come off the Fluoxetine slowly as Largers said). However, despite a confused Retriever enthusiastically greeting me, I don't have a horde of kids asking me to fix things and no Mrs OMM trying to discuss bloody Xmas presents or nagging that I'm spending too much time on my pad.
I'd touched on METs earlier in the thread, but just referred to them as "factors", lazy of me because I know what METs are; sorry.
So, moving from badly phased questioning (and It was addressed to the UKB at large, not just you Tommy), to something more like positing an Hypothesis...
The closer to failure a given chain is exercised, the greater the number of motor units is engaged. So, 3 reps @ 80% 1RM could be said to be a MU (motor unit) factor of 3x80, or 240 MUf's.
(Yes, I just made that up, but I like the idea of MUfs).[emoji3]
Where as, 9 reps @ 20% 1RM would be only 180 MUfs.
Obviously, the more intense, lower rep exercise, burns more energy.
(I'm inferring a linear rate of increase in engagement, through the "all or nothing" principle as each MN fires, this I need to check).
For the first 30sec to one minute, of each of those examples, only the ATP/CP system is engaged; after which the Lactate cuts in. So essentially, our 24 MUfs @ 80% 1RM will be entirely within the ATP/CP phase.
Now, we know the ATP/CP system takes (up-to) 5 minutes to recharge, at a high metabolic cost.
(Question: does that ATP/CP recovery begin during the exercise, whilst the lactate sys is engaged and the exercise continues, or does it only begin after cessation of activity?)
I believe, the Lactate cycle will, essentially, stop when the activity stops.
( Question: I know that the Glycogen must also be replaced and I don't know the metabolic cost of that, but my impression is that the body's store would be replaced over a longer period and only at a slightly higher metabolic rate than at rest (?)).
So, I posit, that if we equalise the resistance to the 20% 1RM and equalise total reps and add rests to one; to give two exercise protocols:
1: 9 reps @ 20% 1RM
2: 3 sets of 3 reps @ 20% 1RM, WITH 5 minutes between sets.
Protocol one, despite moving a similar resistance, a similar distance to protocol two; has an increase in metabolic cost (over rest) only for the duration of the exercise, plus a single ATP/CP recovery cycle.
Protocol two, incurs a heightened metabolic cost for the activity period, plus three ATP/CP recovery periods and would have a greater Calorific cost than Protocol one.
Extending the Hypothesis to the activity of climbing, protocol one becomes Sport climbing and protocol two, Bouldering, WHERE THE CLIMBING IS OF SIMILAR DIFFICULTY and total distance climbed is equal.
So:
1: a nine meter wall of a given difficulty (x), climbed once.
2: a three meter wall of difficulty x, climbed three times, with five minutes rest between each.
I think, the later protocol would have a higher calorific cost and be more beneficial to losing fat, than the former.
-
No idea the answer but a few thoughts:
I doubt it's as simple as reps x %1RM. If it was then the same effort/energy would be required for 2x50%1RM as for 1x100%1RM. Given that performing the latter would necessarily be preceded by and followed by a lengthy rest. And a quick repeat would be next to impossible, whereas the former could be followed by 20 more reps....I just can't understand how the energy expended would be remotely comparable.
Supporting this is evidence from the concept 2 rower (http://www.concept2.co.uk/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/watts-calculator):
400 watts gives a pace of 1:36/500m.
500 watts gives a pace of 1:29/500m.
So a 25% increase in power output increases speed by just 7%.
No idea what a 20%1RM would mean for a climbing move. It's too abstract. I expect it's something a reasonably fit person could climb all day. And with little energy expended. Otherwise, when the wideboyz go on one of their 500 routes in a day challenges where they climb several vertical kilometers, they would burn a ridonculous amount of energy and would, quite literally, waste away in the space of a few hours.
It's quite possible I've not followed something here though!
-
Yes, I'm now ploughing through (ha,ha) Ploughman and Smith (3rd) and other sources, to see if I can find a recruitment curve on Motor Neurone activation.
I'm actually wondering if it isn't less efficient at lower loads, as the "all or nothing" principle (where all the Motor Units controlled by a given MN must fire, or none at all) would suggest over activation at around the threshold loads. Whereas 1RM should equate to ~100% activation.
I'm only using 1RM and a resistance exercise, as a example; because the energy required to move a given resistance is quantifiable over a given distance. It assumes a similar tempo between protocols.
When that assumption is carried over to climbing, I'm again assuming a similar tempo, but I'm not suggesting a relationship to 1RM or any particular value; only a calorific consumption ratio, which might be comparable to my notional MUfs ratio.
Of course, fatigue increases MU activation and increases calorie burn over time, which I also need to factor into the hypothesis.
The rowing analogy, is a fixed load with varying tempo, which might be different again.
Hopefully, I'm going to stumble across a paper that covers this ground or an aspect that I've missed that blows the whole notion.
More reading required!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Maybe just spend all this time you're researching out running instead? :shrug:
Or do a load of squats at the end of your bouldering session?
I would have thought optimising your climbing session to make it burn more energy might impact the climbing gains?
-
No idea why I'm looking at this but the research has been done now so...
According to that same source, 100watts produces a split time of 2:30.
So, the rower who can produce a 6:20 2k (400 watt pace - no mere trifle!) would have a 20% threshold of c10:05. I know someone who recently beat 6:20 and how hard he had to work to train for it and then deliver. I'm reasonably confident he could produce 10 minute 2ks all day long.
In other words, if you are going to do 3 moves then rest then do 3 moves again - and time is in any way limited - then make sure those 3 moves are not the sort of thing you could do as long as you can stay awake. Can't really think of a good reason to do 3 easy moves repeatedly tbh unless it's to show the wife how it goes...
Just seen your reply - keep ploughing on! ;D
-
Maybe just spend all this time you're researching out running instead? :shrug:
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161217/62c2e56fdd5cda3284511cce8b4001a6.jpg)
:rtfm:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
http://ylmsportscience.blogspot.fr/2014/10/nutrition-importance-of-protein-intake.html
-
Maybe just spend all this time you're researching out running instead? :shrug:
Or do a load of squats at the end of your bouldering session?
I would have thought optimising your climbing session to make it burn more energy might impact the climbing gains?
[emoji12]
Sorry, it's not for me, per se.
I'm a PT, so I write exercise programs for others and I'm thinking in terms of optimising for weight loss, but using Bouldering as the activity; because it's far more interesting than general gym work for clients (mine, anyway).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'm thinking in terms of optimising for weight loss, but using Bouldering as the activity; because it's far more interesting than general gym work
Unfortunately, it's also far less effective (if we mean weight loss in terms of fat loss).
-
Not that I'm an expert but....absolutely what nibs said. If weight/fatloss is even remotely an issue and time is limited (as it is) then bouldering isn't even remotely a good way of achieving it.
Compound exercises and a 500 cal/d deficit. That's the most sensible long term plan for most people who aren't a million miles from target.
Short term, bigger deficits are available but they should be short term for all the hormone deficiencies and longer term rebound risks etc.
And fatter untrained people can clock up bigger, even much bigger, deficits before going catabolic because a unit of fat can be utilized by the body at a certain rate. Its not clear exactly what that rate is, but it sort of makes sense that there would be a limit. Think I've seen something quoted on Reddit saying either 22-31cals/lb/day. So if someone was hugely overweight then of course they could have a bigger deficit for longer. There's even a study reporting what happened to a fat bloke who didn't eat for a year. [spoiler]he leaned out[/spoiler]
Oh, and there's a ton of other factors too like how individuals react to exercise stimulus by compensating with wriggling less the rest of the day. Different people are different apparently. The ranger study really backs this up.
Basically track the food and be sensible. And for long term results don't go mad short term. But maybe not over Christmas :)
-
Rowing might not be the best comparison as the main increase in effort as speed increases is overcoming drag/friction.. which loosely speaking increases at the square of velocity...
-
Rowing .....loosely speaking increases at the square of velocity...
That C2 link uses a cube function (watts=2.8/pace^3)
-
Cool. Serve me right for reading the posts too quick :)
-
This study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6235814_Energy_system_contributions_in_indoor_rock_climbing
(…)
(…)
Actually, I'm mildly surprised at the contribution of the Aerobic system in hard routes. I didn't expect it to be higher than the Alactic.
(…)
Was also puzzled by those claimed energy system contributions, until I realized I had looked at this the wrong way.
Not suggesting, you are making the same mistake, but am sharing my misunderstanding just in case others did :-)
The study is looking at energy system contribution via respiratory analysis, if I scanned this right. So this looks across ALL muscle groups / entire body, while from a climbers perspective we would obviously be most interested in the (most performance limiting) contribution of the finger flexors.
Finger flexors have very low absolute mass compared to the bigger muscle groups and thus will impact the analysis outcome only to a very small degree. Also the bigger muscle groups (legs, trunk…) will operate at probably lower average intensity levels and in a less sustained mode (having bigger chunks of time to recover) at least in most / average routes, as opposed to finger flexors.
So the probably more anaerobic lactic operation mode of the finger flexors gets ‘masked’ by the less intense and thus more aerobic operation mode of the other, bigger muscle groups.
Which makes sense if looking at like this: If I fall on a route, it is usually because my finger flexors surrender (either pumped out, powered out, or for bouldery routes not having enough max strength) or because I can’t do a certain move limited by other, bigger muscle groups - but then almost never pumped/powered out but rather not having enough max strength / power in those bigger muscles.
Hope this makes any sense.
-
Not that I'm an expert but....absolutely what nibs said. If weight/fatloss is even remotely an issue and time is limited (as it is) then bouldering isn't even remotely a good way of achieving it.
Compound exercises and a 500 cal/d deficit. That's the most sensible long term plan for most people who aren't a million miles from target.
Short term, bigger deficits are available but they should be short term for all the hormone deficiencies and longer term rebound risks etc.
And fatter untrained people can clock up bigger, even much bigger, deficits before going catabolic because a unit of fat can be utilized by the body at a certain rate. Its not clear exactly what that rate is, but it sort of makes sense that there would be a limit. Think I've seen something quoted on Reddit saying either 22-31cals/lb/day. So if someone was hugely overweight then of course they could have a bigger deficit for longer. There's even a study reporting what happened to a fat bloke who didn't eat for a year. [spoiler]he leaned out[/spoiler]
Oh, and there's a ton of other factors too like how individuals react to exercise stimulus by compensating with wriggling less the rest of the day. Different people are different apparently. The ranger study really backs this up.
Basically track the food and be sensible. And for long term results don't go mad short term. But maybe not over Christmas :)
This is true and precisely how I operate. However, I generally have two types of client. The first are already very fit and strong, where my role is that of coach, bringing them on to a point often beyond my own ability (usually Parkour, MTB etc Athletes) and using quite "extreme" exercises (I usually do "Windscreen wipers" on the bar with 12kg strapped to my feet, some of these guys make that look easy. Muscle-ups with a 10kg vest? Ha! Warm-up!(JK)).
The second category consists of those who want to get fit/strong and lse weight. They are rarely the bored housewife but they are generally people who have tried the "FitnessFirstGold2000!" type of thing and found it a bit "meh".
Over the last couple of years, I/we have had great success utilising Body weight, Calisthenics and Bouldering to achieve their goals. One guy lost 6.2 Stone over an 11 month period, with an hour and a half of Calisthenics, three times a week; some limited CV work; generally upping activity (walk 10,000 steps/day etc) and climbing four times a week. In that particular case, he would be in climbing for 2-3hrs or more; usually starting off with 4x4's and then just having a ball.
The point being, once these guys get into climbing, they change their whole lifestyle around it; without realising it.
Now, what I'm wondering about here, is not if this is the "best and most efficient" method to lose weight; because that's well established and exactly what my clients are already running away from. However, I think I can see a potential to optimise Bouldering to better fit the goal.
So, possibly, instead of good'ol 4x4's; perhaps 3xlimit problems/5 min rest, repeat; or similar.
This assumes a problem that you can only just manage, approximates the 1RM of a resistance exercise. Note, I said approximates.
Now, generally the Calisthenics is tailored to Strength development over Hypertrophy or somewhere on the spectrum between, depending on the client. That means low reps, high resistance and long rests, so already a long way down the road I'm proposing...
I don't know and probably not explaining my thinking well (it's too nascent in my own mind). I'm pretty damn sure, though, that long term change needs a fundamental change in both attitude and body composition, so that's what I aim for. Not just losing fat, but building (enough) muscle, confidence and (even) a passion for exercise. That's much easier to achieve with Bouldering/Climbing than any machine or lump of iron.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
This study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6235814_Energy_system_contributions_in_indoor_rock_climbing
(…)
(…)
Actually, I'm mildly surprised at the contribution of the Aerobic system in hard routes. I didn't expect it to be higher than the Alactic.
(…)
Was also puzzled by those claimed energy system contributions, until I realized I had looked at this the wrong way.
Not suggesting, you are making the same mistake, but am sharing my misunderstanding just in case others did :-)
The study is looking at energy system contribution via respiratory analysis, if I scanned this right. So this looks across ALL muscle groups / entire body, while from a climbers perspective we would obviously be most interested in the (most performance limiting) contribution of the finger flexors.
Finger flexors have very low absolute mass compared to the bigger muscle groups and thus will impact the analysis outcome only to a very small degree. Also the bigger muscle groups (legs, trunk…) will operate at probably lower average intensity levels and in a less sustained mode (having bigger chunks of time to recover) at least in most / average routes, as opposed to finger flexors.
So the probably more anaerobic lactic operation mode of the finger flexors gets ‘masked’ by the less intense and thus more aerobic operation mode of the other, bigger muscle groups.
Which makes sense if looking at like this: If I fall on a route, it is usually because my finger flexors surrender (either pumped out, powered out, or for bouldery routes not having enough max strength) or because I can’t do a certain move limited by other, bigger muscle groups - but then almost never pumped/powered out but rather not having enough max strength / power in those bigger muscles.
Hope this makes any sense.
I reckon that sounds about right...
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Good post OMM, thanks. I feel like a bit of a Charlie now for spouting the bleedin' obvious!
Calisthenics for climbing - probably another separate thread, but I've always wondered how awesome a training plan that would be for someone who has been climbing for a while, has strong fingers, but is still pretty shit (as in, someone like me). Calisthenics plus fingerboard would make a good climber, no. Was it someone on this forum who once said "without strong fingers we would all just be shit gymnasts". Amen.
Anyway....
I usually do "Windscreen wipers" on the bar with 12kg strapped to my feet, some of these guys make that look easy
Ankle weights! Why don't I already have some!? And here I was wondering what to put on the Christmas list.
Nice one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You end up walking like a duck.
Thus far I've only found 5kg max weights, so I use 3 sets at once (a 5 and two 1's on each leg).
https://vimeo.com/196280242 (https://vimeo.com/196280242)
With core stuff, for me, I aim for a balance between endurance and strength, so for these 3 sets of 10, with 2min between sets.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Nice one Matt, good display.
I was wondering though, if the same result couldn't be obtained in another way. I've read an interesting article on T-Nation, about absolutely avoiding flexion and torsion of the spine at the same time.
Seeing as it's almost impossible to avoid flexion at the lumbar spine, I was asking myself whether it wouldn't be better to just stick to front levers , ab-wheel or some other kind of single plane movement pattern, like planks for the obliques.
-
I've certainly not experienced any negative effects, nor had any reported. But every core session for me:
A: incorporates shoulders.
B: begins with levers (actually salutations).
C: includes Weighted Dorsal raises (wall bar) and body levers, toe to bar etc.
D: Push away Flies (an advanced, weighted version of I,Y,T's).
And so on. I spend about 2.5-3hrs every Wednesday on my personal core training and an indeterminate amount of time demonstrating stuff during the rest of the week. So plenty of single plane stuff. I feel that wipers are more "realistic" (if that makes sense?) along with toe to bar. More akin to real climbing movements.
Core is also partially incorporated into my Monday sessions as that is spent (after Campusing and BM work) by spending a fair while under the 45*.
I think my obsession with a strong core is born out of my back injury though, which plagues me not a jot since I started to pay particular attention to core strength.
I might actually train almost as much as you, though not sure that's possible [emoji6]. I have a sneaking suspicion that the training is now more important to me than the climbing... Help![emoji15]
I've read similar articles, but not anything definitive; always keen to modify, so if you know of any?
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Ahahah, I'm afraid that's very possible! I just train at most one hour in the evening!
I wish I had the time to try all the different training routines that I'd like to do!
Anyway, cool that you don't have any drawback from that excercise, probably all the core training has put you in the position to bear that effort.
Not knowing anything specific, I'd simply sack the windscreen wipers for a couple of weeks, and see how things go, then maybe increase the levers and planks and check things again. Or simply leave everything as it is now, given that it's working well for you!
As for the training as an aim in itself... Welcome to the club. It's nice isn't it?
-
I've read an interesting article on T-Nation, about absolutely avoiding flexion and torsion of the spine at the same time.
Is it this one? (https://www.t-nation.com/training/how-not-to-warm-up) In my fairly informed opinion it's almost entirely bollocks; opinion and pseudo-science masquerading as fact. It's a lot like the rationale given for never training crimps then wondering why you stuggle or get injured when forced to crimp. I'm instinctively suspicious of anyone that says NEVER do a particular movement or activity. If it's so bad for us why do we have evolved the capacity to do it?
Real world functional movements - including climbing - are almost always combined movements (a mixture of physiological movements e.g. flexion combined with rotation). If you are interested in improving real world function it makes sense to include combined movements in your training.
-
I can see the merit of avoiding such motion in warm up, much like any static stretching (I don't like anything beyond "limbering up" through normal range of motion, myself, enough to get the synovial fluid flowing and no more). That's because I have been quite put off stretching in general, finding more spinal irritation from that than anything except sit-ups!
This meta started me looking into it:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/48/11/871.short
And lead me to another paper that stated as much as a 30% reduction in strength from stretching prior to exercising, I can't find that paper now, thought it was in my library. I'll trawl the citations in the above.
Found this too, whilst searching:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/1/2.full.pdf?sid=5307c5fb-d3dd-4ade-8aeb-c8c1a10f9de8
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Sorry guys, couldn't reply earlier.
No, that's not one of the articles that I've read, in any case as OMM said, it makes sense to avoid such a movement pattern in a warm up!
On the matter of specificity, or real world function, my experience is that the kind of core tension required for climbing is far more complex than the one that can be developed with front levers or windscreen wipers or even ab-wheel.
All these excercises train the ability of "pushing" yourself up against gravity, and do not place a serious effort on the legs.
In climbing on very overhanging terrain, this kind of ability - although crucial in terms of pure strength - is not enough, because the specific climbing effort requires that we stay rigid but actually pushing our body down on the footholds, rather than pushing it up against the rock.
So, down to the hips it's mostly the frontal part of the torso that bears the effort, but from the hips down, it's all the posterior chain, from erectors (that are involved in the levers anyway) to the glutes, hamstrings and calves.
I've been able to do front levers for quite a few years now, but only when I started climbing on my board and developing specific excercises involving the use of feet, my climbing core tension became better.
So, while all the excercises mentioned above are a strength prerequisite, in terms of climbing specific core tension they are not enough.
Or at least this is my experience.
I understand though that all these excercises are a bit addictive, especially if someone tends to be performance oriented in everything... It's hard for me not to try and get better and stronger on basically anything that I do for a training. For me almost every excercise could be an aim on its own. Unfortunately, this attitude collides with priorities.
-
Are you saying, in an occluded manner, that the best training for climbing is climbing then Nibile? :clown: ;)
-
The horror, the horror!
Well, let's say that I say that the best training for climbing is... my board! ;D :smart:
No, really, the complexity of climbing is appalling.
-
So, this thread wandered all over the shop, again. I hold my hand up for that, but it's all just too fascinating and too closely related to other equally fascinating thing and I just have so many questions and, and ...
But, in answer to the original topic and evidence aside, here's my anecdotal tale of what worked for me.
Said many times elsewhere, but repeating for context.
In 2013 I tore my right Supraspinatus (tendon rupture) and it put me OOA for the next two years. Even when I tried to come back after a year, I ballsed it up by going into it too hard and giving myself a tendinitis in the right Brachioradialis (I thought at the time it was Campusing that set it off, but later realised it was FB repeaters).
I got despondent, stopped climbing (or anything really), left all the PT work to staff and put on weight. Now I tell everybody that I got up to 86/88kg, that's not true. After Xmas 2015 I hit 92kg and panicked.
I'm supposed to be a Personal Trainer, FFS, but all I was was Billy three chins.
So, I took my own advice. The shoulder was much better and the tendinitis resolved, so no excuse bar the fear of failure.
This is what I did:
1: Downloaded and use the "My Fitness Pal" app and start to calorie restrict to 2300/day, paying attention to my Macro split. And that was it diet wise. Basically I ate normally and cut out extras, it's surprisingly difficult to actually eat as much as 2300 kcal.
2: Using my phone's pedometer, aim for 10,000 steps a day and ~20 floors climbed. Easy, walking the school run with the kids and 2km each way to work (~15min brisk) and getting back to active work.
Plan and execute a training program.
Mon:
shoulder work, foot on campus, campus, FB campus, FB (I now do 3x3 pull ups on each hold, BM2000, started on the deep, now on the small edges, currently like this: 1set= 3x pull ups of 4 pads, front two, mid two, back two, middle mono (deep), index mono (attempt not done) ring mono. Then 3x3 pull ups on the 45's and then dead hangs on the (home made) 50* and (attempt not achieved) 55*. Then I spend ~1hr on the 45* board.
2.5-3hrs total.
Tues: rest/work maybe a board session if I feel the need/good.
Wed:
Shoulder work. Then to the high bar, Salutations (un-weighted) 3x10. Wipers and toe to bar (weighted 12kg at ankles) 3x10. Then wall bar, Dorsal raises (12kg weight held at arms length), Body levers ( weighted 10kg at ankles). Rings, Push away Flies (weighted 23kg).
~2hrs.
Everything 3x10, basically.
Thurs:
Climbing day! Woo-hoo!
Early run to project (Dartmoor for me at the mo). Warm up problems (you can imagine) ~1hr of project work. I actually set a timer, 4 mins of attempts and 5 min rest. This usually leaves my skin trashed (and my arms).
Weighted walking (started with 6km/10kg/1hr/150mtr climb, built to 22km/20kg/4:38hrs/650mtr climb).
Rain screws the climbing part here, so I try to get to the board in the evening.
Fri:
Strength day.
Shoulder work.
One armers 3x3 each arm (started with assistance, now failing on the last one of the third set, no assistance. Still can't 1arm the BM square on, but I will).
Weighted Muscle ups. 4kg belt. 3x3.
Weighted Bachar ladder (1-5-8 insh Allah). 3x3.
Weighted push away lock offs on rings, 8kg. 3x10.
Weighted pull ups, wrecking ball, 8kg 3x4.
Weighted peg board. 8kg. 3xup the board.
Negative 1armers. 8kg belt 3x3. 6sec descent.
Negative Pull-ups 60kg, 3x3, similar descent.
Weighted press-ups, on the rings 30kg 3x10
Weighted FB Pull ups 4pad, 45's and the Lapis balls. 3x3 23kg.
Theraband shoulders to finish.
~3hrs.
Rest the weekend (which means MTB, Kayaking or God knows what with my kids).
So, obviously, I started that with everything un-weighted or assisted but essentially the same routine. Built it up over 4 week cycles, with a rest week at the end of each cycle and ~10% increase in resistance each cycle (not always, some things maxed out quite quickly).
Started in January 2016.
By September I was 74kg and back projecting 7C (and failing, still failing, but it begins to feel almost possible).
I have allowed an increase to 75.5kg over the winter, but this is to give me a reserve for an endurance race I expect to run in July (with a mock run in April). I'm running on 2660 kcal/day, plus extra to compensate for training. My weight is and has been steady for six months. I check my weight once a week, having calculated where it should be over the week. Same time, same day, same condition (post crap), never been more than 0.5kg out.
It works and the only CV components in there are the walking.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
I found the myfitnesspal app good for calculating daily calorific intake.. and keep it (in my case) at 2.5k.
As it's a thread that wanders a Q to OMM or anyone.., I've been tracking my heart rate for the last two weeks with a reading every 4 min or something. Looking at the data what's notable is that despite doing a fair bit of gentle exercise every day (10k steps - mostly pram walking and pottering around the house) my max is 120-130bpm and resting around mid 60's. This is all fine, but I'm wondering if I need to do some more cardio. Something to give the old ticket a bit more of a work out a few times a week... I get this at the climbing wall or when climbing (don't wear the watch then) though...
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161221/b2b406df46abf8fefb6fcf4601ced401.jpg)
-
If you PM me an email I can send an interesting PowerPoint (or Keynote, if you're an Apple addict) on the subject.
But I wouldn't be overly concerned with a resting rate like that. Everything hinges around your Max Heart Rate, though so:
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161221/9c0324fb65beadd2c825915b2c755c94.png)
Which I find easiest to use.
In the middle of Squad training, so just a quick coffee stop. I can look at your post again later. [emoji3]
Edit:
Meant to say I'm guessing (not knowing your age) that the walking is taking you into the Aerobic zone?
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
220 minus your age is bollocks for working out your max heart rate. I could get over 200 in my early forties. My current max I think is somewhere in the 180's which would put me in my 30's which I haven't seen for over 20 years.
-
So, an around about figure for calories burned for 1 hour (of average) bouldering (warm up, etc), no walk ins counted, would be about...?
-
About a third of a bottle of wine. :alky: :(
-
220 minus your age is bollocks for working out your max heart rate. I could get over 200 in my early forties. My current max I think is somewhere in the 180's which would put me in my 30's which I haven't seen for over 20 years.
It's not the max you can achieve, it's the recommended max for a typical person (moderately fit) of your age, that is considered safe for training purposes. You might be much fitter than this if you perform a great deal of aerobic exercise. However, a higher rate increases the risk of things going wrong...
Edit:
Sorry, that was too brief.
It's also the simplest method for most people. I think 211-( 0.64xage) is "more" accurate (and better across genders), but still has huge variations across a population. The only truly accurate method is individual measurement in a controlled and monitored environment.
The Karvonen is a blunt tool, but it does the job safely. Put it this way, I would be required to stop/slow a client if their rate reached the predicted max, whilst exercising. I can't see much justification and a fair amount of risk, actually Stress testing a client. What people do on their own, mind you, is a different kettle of pilchards...
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
About a third of a bottle of wine. :alky: :(
That's what I feared!
-
220 minus your age is bollocks for working out your max heart rate. I could get over 200 in my early forties. My current max I think is somewhere in the 180's which would put me in my 30's which I haven't seen for over 20 years.
It's not the max you can achieve, it's the recommended max for a typical person (moderately fit) of your age, that is considered safe for training purposes. You might be much fitter than this if you perform a great deal of aerobic exercise. However, a higher rate increases the risk of things going wrong...
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
So all those athletes doing high level intervals are at risk, I guess nobody told Chris Hoy to take it steady doing his intervals on the turbo. With a mattress to fall on to and a bucket to be sick in. I think you need to show some evidence that pushing yourself to your aerobic limits is riskier than just pushing it a bit.
-
220 minus your age is bollocks for working out your max heart rate. I could get over 200 in my early forties. My current max I think is somewhere in the 180's which would put me in my 30's which I haven't seen for over 20 years.
It's not the max you can achieve, it's the recommended max for a typical person (moderately fit) of your age, that is considered safe for training purposes. You might be much fitter than this if you perform a great deal of aerobic exercise. However, a higher rate increases the risk of things going wrong...
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
So all those athletes doing high level intervals are at risk, I guess nobody told Chris Hoy to take it steady doing his intervals on the turbo. With a mattress to fall on to and a bucket to be sick in. I think you need to show some evidence that pushing yourself to your aerobic limits is riskier than just pushing it a bit.
No.
That's your choice.
I wouldn't stop you, but can you not understand why as a PT, I would not "recommend" it to a client?
I push myself all the time, often until I literally collapse or require help to move. That's a whole other game, though.
However, Tom asked about an occasional "boost" and general CV health, not Olympic training protocols!
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Tom's idea of aerobic excercise is having a manual rather than automatic gear box.
-
Tom's idea of aerobic excercise is having a manual rather than automatic gear box.
He told you this?
Because his post indicated that his idea of aerobic exercise was pushing a pram. Now, if that was "pushing a pram up Ben Nevis at a run", it certainly wasn't clear from the post.
(Sorry Tom, if I misunderstood).
Bare with me, I'm doing this from memory, between cooking a meal and doing dishes. I just sat down (21:47); so unless Mrs OMM demands my Xmas present wrapping skills; I might be able to answer you.
Since you're leaving me to do all the work, perhaps you could answer a question for me. Or two, perhaps.
Given that there is an increased risk of the following, when exercising to Max Heart rate; Stroke (rare, but not impossible), Fainting, Vomiting , loss of coordination (to name a few).
What is the advantage of training to that level, for aerobic fitness?
Why do have "Training Zones", which cover a range of HR's?
Why is the Aerobic Zone the lowest of those Zones?
(Damn, that's 3 already).
What about reaching a point of diminishing returns, and when operating at 100 per cent and you have no aerobic "headroom" left, at which point you begin to build an "oxygen debt" which can actually reduce training improvement?
(Bugger! Alright 4 then).
So, we recommend training within certain Zones for certain benefits and usually try to avoid a client collapsing on a treadmill ('Cos that can hurt, lead to extended stays in the local A&E, preclude any future clients and possibly standing on the wrong side of the Dock). It is also commonly accepted that vomiting clients are not good for business or your chances of seeing the client again or being allowed back in the gym.
If you think I'm being rude, please note the "in-a-friendly-way" part of my rider, I'm not trying to be.
But, if you think recommending such high intensity training to someone over an internet forum, without knowing any medical history etc, well....?
There are exceptions to the rule, of course. I am and (used) to train Mixed Gas divers (I wasn't a PT then, just an INTD, GUE instructor) and we trained very hard for Expeditions. My speciality was Wreck penetation (U533 Exped 2004 amongst others), many of my Buddies were Cavers (TCDP, PCP etc). I trained/dived with John Bennet, in the build up to his record attempt (300mtrs SCUBA) and some of that was fucking nuts (him, not me, I just watched him vomiting).
And throughout that part of my life, I had annual ECGs and examinations and had to have a full medical before Exped departure; because no one took it for granted that that level of stress was going to have a happy ending.
John died, by the way. On a dive, a easy one, in open water. We don't know why, they never recovered the body.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
I'm not suggesting training to your max heart rate but in order to be able to accurately train in the right zones. You need to know what your max is.
If I went with 220 minus my age I would be looking at around 160, the highest I've recorded this year was 184 while riding up 20 % hill trying to keep with the teenagers.
So if I used 160 as my max and based my zones on this, I would be training at a level which is not going to achieve much.
Most training regimes using heart rate zones suggest a max heart rate test.
There is quite a lot of evidence to suggest ECG's are not a good indicator in finding if athletes are at risk of cardiovascular problems. Some cycling federations insist on them for their racing licence holders
I hope this makes sense and is not the usual bollocks I spout as I have eaten too many of them.
-
Sorry for not being able to do this quicker.
My entire library is in PDF and I didn't have links for it all, so I've back tracked through Google (wouldn't it be nice to be able to share a PDF the way you can a photo on here).
Anyhoo... Xmas has been a bit of a distraction.
I believe the main purpose of the ECG's in our case was looking for previous Barotrauma/DCI's etc and was only one of a battery of tests (to do with Cardiac muscle damage I think(?)). Also a lot of time spent on bikes/treadmills measuring VO2...
Anyway, back to high intensity/Max HR risks:
Unfortunately, the Gov guidelines we use are an, unhelpfully brief, single page position statement.
It says it's risky.
(Thanks for that).
The problem is that it is the result of a Working group review rather than direct research.
Physical Activity Guidelines in the UK: Review and Recommendations
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213743/dh_128255.pdf
This in turn is primarily informed by US and Aus research/Gov. positions...
The ACSM being the most coherent (to my mind) and the one I had saved in iBooks:
They state: " It is well established that the transient risks of SCD (Sudden Cardiac Death (my parenthesis)) and AMI (Acute Myocardial Infarction (again mine)) are substantially higher during acute vigorous physical exertion as compared with those during rest (1,31). Retrospective and prospective data suggest that vigorous-intensity physical activity transiently increases the risk of nonfatal AMI and SCD approxi- mately sixfold (31) to 17-fold (1) as compared with rest- ing behavior."
http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2015/11000/Updating_ACSM_s_Recommendations_for_Exercise.28.aspx
Citing:
(1)Albert CM, Mittleman MA, Chae CU, Lee IM, Hennekens CH, Manson JE. Triggering of sudden death from cardiac causes by vigorous exertion. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(19):1355–61.
(31)Mittleman MA, Maclure M, Tofler GH, Sherwood JB, Goldberg RJ, Muller JE. Triggering of acute myocardial infarction by heavy physical exertion. Protection against triggering by regular exertion. Determinants of Myocardial Infarction Onset Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(23):1677–83.
So, this applies principally to those with pre-existing risk factors. The problem being these people are often asymptomatic or unaware of their predisposition and no amount of pre-exercise interviewing is going to help bring it to light. So, we (I) would always want medical clearance prior to anything very vigorous (you should hear some of the circuit/spinning etc training debate going on right now).
None of this means I wouldn't work with someone at high intensity, just not casually or over the net.
So...
Why use that old formula?
It's easy to do in your head. It's close enough for most applications (not quite as good as Newtonian physics for an Engineer, but you get the picture).
There is no accurate way to predict Max HR. There are (slightly) better versions of that, that have a better accuracy at population levels. However, there is an interesting study (can't find link) that shows a variation of up to 60 BPM in MHR for members of a single international standard rowing squad.
The Formula tends to under predict and more so (ie. is safer) with advancing age. (Which is why it's way off for a fit person of my age or more (you? I'm 46 in three days (Fuck! How did that happen? Help!))
Using the fairly broad ranges of the training Zones allows you to move up to the upper limits over a relatively short period and reassess.
Without being able to monitor VO2, you can gain *some* empirical feed back to estimate the training Zone accuracy, using RPE.
Most people give up long before they hit MHR, it's too uncomfortable for all but the dedicated.
Most people, basically, just need to double their resting HR for thirty minutes plus per week for general health; even quite sporty people; that don't partake in more "extreme" CV sport. Bouldering ain't one of them. (Cycling is, of course).
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
We are clearly talking about different versions of active people. Your version is folk who want to get fitter. Mine it would seem are people who are willing to die trying. 30 years of Cycling/ Triathlon clearly effects ones ability to see things as others do. :-\
-
So, an around about figure for calories burned for 1 hour (of average) bouldering (warm up, etc), no walk ins counted, would be about...?
Missed this.
Do you know about METs (Metabolic Equivalents)? I put a screen cap up earlier in the thread and Tommy mentioned them. They are a rough guide to how much extra your body burns during a given activity.
In case you don't:
It's based around your BMR, Basal Metabolic Rate; or the number of calories you burn simply existing.
Usually it's easiest to download a calculator app...
But, using the Harris Benedict method:
BMR = (13.7516 x weight + 5.0033 x height - 6.755 x age + 66.473) kcal/day
Where the weight is in kg.
Now, there are then correction factors to be applied, depending on habitual activity rates to estimate daily calorie requirements.
If, though, you instead apply a MET to the BMR for a given period of exercise, you can estimate the calories burned during that period.
So take:
BMR/ 1440* = BMR/minute
* The BMR is a 24 hr figure.
Then:
BMR/Min x T* x MET = Calories burned. (CB)
* where T = duration of activity excluding rests.
Finally:
CB - (BMR/min x T) = Calories burned extra to BMR.
Now, the quoted METs for rock climbing range from 5.8 (light to moderate difficulty/ traversing) through 7.5 (Difficult) to 8 for Mountaineering.
They're guides only, of course, pretty sure slogging up K2 chalks up a higher MET than the one mentioned.
The upshot being, it depends on you and you physical characteristics. Add a weight belt and...
It is higher than you think (assuming some accuracy (or at least the same inaccuracies)). Higher (at "difficult" at least) than a "Moderate" swim of equal duration, for instance.
Problem is though.. What does "Difficult" mean? I assume it correlates to the RPE (Rate of Perceived Effort) scale, but?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Sorry, I'm an Arts student, my mind went blank after 5 lines. ;)
-
five lines of what? ;D
-
;D
-
five lines of what? ;D
Code? ;)
-
Sorry, I'm an Arts student, my mind went blank after 5 lines. ;)
I'm an Engineer.
I downloaded the app...
[emoji12]
Or:
Call it 1000kcal (who cares[emoji13]) and have another bottle and [emoji126]🕺dance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Apologies OMM and Webbo if my request has caused some disagreement...
I really don't want to exercise hard enough to throw up, but my question arises from having now worn a watch that monitors my heart beat every few min for nearly a month (but NOT worn during climbing), my heart rate has not got above 120bpm.. so whilst I think I am engaging in some aerobic exercise, its not exactly stretching my ticker much..
I did get a max of 180 during a deadhanging session when I was trying really hard, but discounted that as an error/outlier..
The watch also tells me I'm walking on average 45-50 km a week, so its not like I'm sat on my arse all the time..
I am lazy - but pragmatic - and if 30 min of exercise that makes my heart go a bit more, 2-3 times a week, will keep me on this planet for a bit longer then I'm happy to put the effort in...
until I get bored ;)
-
Given that watched based heart rate monitors are unreliable it's quite possible that 180 was an error.
I read something on Cycling Weekly about Fitbits giving much higher readings than a chest strap monitor.
-
Given that watched based heart rate monitors are unreliable it's quite possible that 180 was an error.
I read something on Cycling Weekly about Fitbits giving much higher readings than a chest strap monitor.
Amen.
But I wouldn't discount it completely. Check the consistency of the reading in that activity. Borrow a different type if you can and repeat. Are you a gym member? Do you have access to a treadmill/bike with an HR monitor? If you do, compare readings. Whilst they all have inaccuracies, hopefully they're not the same inaccuracy! Check your own pulse with a watch for good measure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Err - it appears I have underestimated the quality of my fruit based fitness device.. it appears it's pretty much bob on...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/9to5mac.com/2015/05/08/apple-watch-heart-rate-monitor-accuracy/amp/?client=safari
-
Incidentally, why not wear it climbing?
Stick a trendy, chic and awesome 70's stylee Sweatband over it (don't forget the matching Headband and short shorts); and see what you get.
It's not *That* expensive, after all...
Still, that graph (for what it's worth) seems to show the greatest discrepancies at the peaks/troughs of the read +/-5BPM as best as I can deduce from that picture. Still the Karvonen is supposedly +/-10 BPM so...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If you get 180 dead hanging I would avoid :wank: or :shag: now you are getting on a bit.
-
If you get 180 dead hanging I would avoid :wank: or :shag: now you are getting on a bit.
Maybe they're one armed dead hangs, whilst conducting the activities you suggested he should avoid?
Making him a far superior athlete to anyone else I think of.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
Incidentally, why not wear it climbing?
Stick a trendy, chic and awesome 70's stylee Sweatband over it (don't forget the matching Headband and short shorts); and see what you get.
It's not *That* expensive, after all...
Still, that graph (for what it's worth) seems to show the greatest discrepancies at the peaks/troughs of the read +/-5BPM as best as I can deduce from that picture. Still the Karvonen is supposedly +/-10 BPM so...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did some more googling and more comprehensive tests (50 users) shown it's 90% accurate (not 98) - but still the best wrist worn one (Fitbit next best at 80%) etc...
Why not wear it when climbing? Well I'm a real clutz when climbing and always get bumps bangs and scrapes - so even if I covered it up I suspect it'd get damaged. And I know from bitter experience how those gritstone crystals can damage a phone screen :-/
That said, it would work strapped to an ankle which would probably be ok. We held it to the baby's back of hand and it gave a sensible reading (120..). Mind you, I feel enough of a wanker wearing it in public - let alone at a wall/crag, especially with a majoosive sweatband over it! I am interested in what the results would be though...
-
Err - it appears I have underestimated the quality of my fruit based fitness device.. it appears it's pretty much bob on...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/9to5mac.com/2015/05/08/apple-watch-heart-rate-monitor-accuracy/amp/?client=safari
Don't worry.
To Err is human.
To Um is divine.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
If you get 180 dead hanging I would avoid :wank: or :shag: now you are getting on a bit.
Yes it's most likely an error. I was working myself hard but nowhere near the 'top of a (bike) climb about to faint from trying so hard' type effort where I would expect my heart rate to be highest.