I agree that BMI is a bit crap, but it can be got from the exising datawaist measurement might be better - or some waist/height/weight magic athleticism index probably better
as regards the tan investigation; we could use Tanners to test/corroborate predictions made after analysing the existing data
I'm not a great fan of BMI as it tends not to work too well for particularly muscley people.
maybe just - "do you do aerobic exercise" yes/no NO resting heart rate? 48 vegetarian? AH AH! IN TUSCANY??? frequency of posts on popular climbing based forums? DAILY number of children? ZEROincome? PATHETICmarital status? SINGLE religion? THE RELIGION OF FONT 8B
Or number of Rock Shoes?
Dammit you've confirmed what I've always suspected. I'm way to heavy to be climbing hard. I have the highest BMI of anyone climbing over 7B+......Cakes, pies, and , or climbing harder.... Tough call
Quote from: Sasquatch on October 31, 2012, 05:00:35 pmDammit you've confirmed what I've always suspected. I'm way to heavy to be climbing hard. I have the highest BMI of anyone climbing over 7B+......Cakes, pies, and , or climbing harder.... Tough callI wouldn't worry about it too much, with a larger sample theres bound to be someone with a higher BMI than you who can climb as hard. EDIT : Updated the PDF.
Oh shit look at that slight negative trend between height and bouldering grade, you've played right into the tallies' hands!
Quote from: slackline on October 31, 2012, 05:05:35 pmI wouldn't worry about it too much, with a larger sample theres bound to be someone with a higher BMI than you who can climb as hard. EDIT : Updated the PDF.I'm sure you're right, but I've never met one..... Looks pretty similar for routes.....
I wouldn't worry about it too much, with a larger sample theres bound to be someone with a higher BMI than you who can climb as hard. EDIT : Updated the PDF.
Imagine willackers should be there too though?
its the one-armers where there is so many missing or zero's its barely worth bothering.
I should add that if anyone keeps a diary of their training and climbing then they could easily analyse themselves to see what training level equates to what level of performance (although it might be a ballache to have to enter it all into a computer if its kept on paper).
Do you mean in a manner like this - comparing training intensity/volume to performance level across lots of different people or meaning correlating periods of varying training volume/intensity with performance level?If the latter, I think it's actually quite a hard thing to do as you not only have to consider (and somehow gauge - hard to do accurately) intensity and volume, but also exactly which energy systems you're working on and how long for, and you have to worry about how to take into account what you've been doing previously. E.g. If you go day-on-day-off for a month and climb really hard it doesn't necessarily mean that you should be following that protocol all the time.
(obviously I'll have to bend down to show it to them)