Forums: Climbing Information: General:
Better climbing, not looking
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for General

Premier Sponsor:

 


Matthew0718


Oct 3, 2012, 11:07 AM
Post #1 of 51 (6890 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 29, 2012
Posts: 36

Better climbing, not looking
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I've been getting a lot better at climbing recently but for the life of me I can't burn fat.


carabiner96


Oct 3, 2012, 12:27 PM
Post #2 of 51 (6832 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12556

Re: [Matthew0718] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Matthew0718 wrote:
I've been getting a lot better at climbing recently but for the life of me I can't burn fat.
Start jogging.


USnavy


Oct 3, 2012, 12:37 PM
Post #3 of 51 (6822 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2664

Re: [carabiner96] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

carabiner96 wrote:
Matthew0718 wrote:
I've been getting a lot better at climbing recently but for the life of me I can't burn fat.
Start jogging.
Jogging works good, but there are better options. The best option is a combination of cardio, weight lifting, and diet modification.


carabiner96


Oct 3, 2012, 12:50 PM
Post #4 of 51 (6813 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12556

Re: [USnavy] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
carabiner96 wrote:
Matthew0718 wrote:
I've been getting a lot better at climbing recently but for the life of me I can't burn fat.
Start jogging.
Jogging works good, but there are better options. The best option is a combination of cardio, weight lifting, and diet modification.
Start jogging, pounding muscle milk.


larwood91


Oct 3, 2012, 1:52 PM
Post #5 of 51 (6778 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 26, 2012
Posts: 13

Re: [Matthew0718] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Sure you can. Your body naturally burns fat. You just keep eating too much of it. Disciplined diet and exercise.


deschamps1000


Oct 3, 2012, 2:16 PM
Post #6 of 51 (6760 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 29, 2004
Posts: 343

Re: [carabiner96] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Yup, start jogging. Cardio does a lot more for burning fat than climbing. Climbing does very little.


Wade308


Oct 3, 2012, 3:40 PM
Post #7 of 51 (6740 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2012
Posts: 57

Re: [larwood91] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

larwood91 wrote:
Disciplined diet and exercise.
This.


marc801


Oct 3, 2012, 5:47 PM
Post #8 of 51 (6697 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2767

Re: [Wade308] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Stating it another way: burn more calories than you take in. IOW, eat less, exercise more, eat wisely.


dan2see


Oct 3, 2012, 7:58 PM
Post #9 of 51 (6664 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [Matthew0718] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Matthew0718 wrote:
I've been getting a lot better at climbing recently but for the life of me I can't burn fat.

I climb, I get hungry, I eat.


hyhuu


Oct 4, 2012, 5:30 AM
Post #10 of 51 (6601 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 25, 2001
Posts: 492

Re: [Matthew0718] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Big Wall climbing or mountaineering. That ough to burn plenty of fat.


njrox


Oct 4, 2012, 6:39 AM
Post #11 of 51 (6573 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2011
Posts: 251

Re: [Matthew0718] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm a Certified Personal Trainer (not just throwing out my opinions). This is very general advice.

"Jogging" is not a good way to burn fat.

Resistance Training, "Running", or even better, Sprinting is more effective way to burn fat. Use your muscles if you want to burn fat.

Jog to build your base for for running.

The best peice of advice I can give you for long-term fat loss is to substitute two training days for food shopping and food preperation.


shimanilami


Oct 4, 2012, 7:48 AM
Post #12 of 51 (6542 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043

Re: [Matthew0718] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

The ultimate goal is to get laid. And, factually speaking, people who climb harder get laid more.

So who cares what you look like?


amarius


Oct 4, 2012, 8:23 AM
Post #13 of 51 (6527 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 23, 2012
Posts: 119

Re: [njrox] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

To burn 1lb of fat from running alone, 150lb person would have to cover around 37 miles, calculation based on net calorie expenditure.
Source - "Energy expenditure of walking and running"

But, I totally agree with your advice on food shopping and food preparation.


njrox


Oct 4, 2012, 8:58 AM
Post #14 of 51 (6518 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2011
Posts: 251

Re: [amarius] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I consider "running" to be around a 7-8 minute mile (7.5-8.5 mph) pace. I consider jogging to be something in the 10-12 minute mile pace (5mph-6mph). Sprints, all out 10-20 second runs with several minutes of rest in between. I think running is an important aspect of training but I wouldn't put all my eggs into that basket. My advice to people is to focus on being able to sustain a 75-85% of your max heart for at least 20 minutes, which should more or less translate into running a 5k race. You can exclusively jog or run as a means to lose weight but you will sacrifice a lot of muscle and there's the risk of injury from repetition. It's always best to vary what you do and how much you do it. But I can't stress enough the importance of diet. If you really focus on what you're eating and how much you're eating you'll have a lot more success than by just exercise alone.


Partner camhead


Oct 4, 2012, 9:19 AM
Post #15 of 51 (6504 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20776

Re: [njrox] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

cardio can be a mixed bag if you are trying to cut weight for climbing. it can cut your flab, but after intense sessions of running or cycling, your body is so starved that you crave and consume more food.

I've tried to cut weight for climbing by cycling 150 miles a weak, and was unsuccessful. It also built up huge leg muscles that have like 10 lbs of bulk that I never use climbing. This season, I have been WAY more successful at dropping weight by cutting overall caloric intake, cutting simple carbs, reducing all carbs, and upping lean proteins. All with less cardio and more gym climbing.


hyhuu


Oct 4, 2012, 10:26 AM
Post #16 of 51 (6471 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 25, 2001
Posts: 492

Re: [camhead] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
cardio can be a mixed bag if you are trying to cut weight for climbing. it can cut your flab, but after intense sessions of running or cycling, your body is so starved that you crave and consume more food.

I've tried to cut weight for climbing by cycling 150 miles a weak, and was unsuccessful. It also built up huge leg muscles that have like 10 lbs of bulk that I never use climbing. This season, I have been WAY more successful at dropping weight by cutting overall caloric intake, cutting simple carbs, reducing all carbs, and upping lean proteins. All with less cardio and more gym climbing.

Interesting. I rode 200+ miles a week, lost a few pounds and still have the chicken legs.


saint_john


Oct 4, 2012, 11:05 AM
Post #17 of 51 (6458 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [Matthew0718] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Matthew0718 wrote:
I've been getting a lot better at climbing recently but for the life of me I can't burn fat.

You need to consumer fewer calories. Diet is for weight loss; exercise is for fitness.


jt512


Oct 4, 2012, 1:24 PM
Post #18 of 51 (6405 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

saint_john wrote:
Matthew0718 wrote:
I've been getting a lot better at climbing recently but for the life of me I can't burn fat.

You need to consumer fewer calories. Diet is for weight loss; exercise is for fitness.

Christ, enough bullshit already. Weight loss results from negative energy balance, that is, when total energy expenditures exceed total energy intake. It doesn't matter whether the energy deficit results from diet, exercise, or a combination. Studies consistently show that it is easier to lose weight and keep it off when you combine exercise and diet.

Jay


redlude97


Oct 4, 2012, 2:05 PM
Post #19 of 51 (6388 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [camhead] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
cardio can be a mixed bag if you are trying to cut weight for climbing. it can cut your flab, but after intense sessions of running or cycling, your body is so starved that you crave and consume more food.

I've tried to cut weight for climbing by cycling 150 miles a weak, and was unsuccessful. It also built up huge leg muscles that have like 10 lbs of bulk that I never use climbing. This season, I have been WAY more successful at dropping weight by cutting overall caloric intake, cutting simple carbs, reducing all carbs, and upping lean proteins. All with less cardio and more gym climbing.
It would help if you weren't a masher.


DemolitionRed


Oct 4, 2012, 2:15 PM
Post #20 of 51 (6375 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 30, 2012
Posts: 77

Re: [deschamps1000] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

deschamps1000 wrote:
Yup, start jogging. Cardio does a lot more for burning fat than climbing. Climbing does very little.

That depends how you climb! I do a hell of a lot of cardio exercise on the big walls.
Maybe your sort of climbing doesn't burn calories. Mine does :)

To the op. I think part of your problem is, being over weight makes you a slower climber. You need to get out of your comfort zone.
Start pushing that body of yours beyond the pain barrier. If climbing is what you enjoy the most then learn how to do climbing drills. This will be hugely beneficial to not only your climbing ability and your level of fitness but your weight loss too.
Get yourself a sports heart monitor and learn how to use it.


(This post was edited by DemolitionRed on Oct 4, 2012, 2:17 PM)


deschamps1000


Oct 4, 2012, 3:04 PM
Post #21 of 51 (6350 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 29, 2004
Posts: 343

Re: [DemolitionRed] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Of course. I lose an average of 5 pounds per climbing trip if walls or alpine climbing are involved. But, do you really think that the guy that posted this is regularly climbing walls or big alpine routes? A tiny percentage of the climbing population regularly climbs walls and big alpine routes. Your base assumption is wrong.


saint_john


Oct 4, 2012, 3:06 PM
Post #22 of 51 (6348 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [jt512] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
Matthew0718 wrote:
I've been getting a lot better at climbing recently but for the life of me I can't burn fat.

You need to consumer fewer calories. Diet is for weight loss; exercise is for fitness.

Christ, enough bullshit already. Weight loss results from negative energy balance, that is, when total energy expenditures exceed total energy intake. It doesn't matter whether the energy deficit results from diet, exercise, or a combination. Studies consistently show that it is easier to lose weight and keep it off when you combine exercise and diet.

Jay

Of course weight loss is the result of a caloric deficit. And yes, That deficit can come from reduced intake or from burning more calories, or a combination of the two.
The OP already knows how to exercise. What he probably doesn't know is how to feed himself properly. Therefore, in order to lose weight, he needs to focus on refining his diet. He can work out all day long but until he gets the intake under control he's probably not going to see results.
I've been racing bicycles for more than 20 years. I can't tell you how many really fit, fast cyclists I've know that have caried around 10 or 20 extra pounds. Why? Certainley not because they weren't exercising enough.


saint_john


Oct 4, 2012, 3:14 PM
Post #23 of 51 (6342 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [camhead] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
cardio can be a mixed bag if you are trying to cut weight for climbing. it can cut your flab, but after intense sessions of running or cycling, your body is so starved that you crave and consume more food.

I've tried to cut weight for climbing by cycling 150 miles a weak, and was unsuccessful. It also built up huge leg muscles that have like 10 lbs of bulk that I never use climbing. This season, I have been WAY more successful at dropping weight by cutting overall caloric intake, cutting simple carbs, reducing all carbs, and upping lean proteins. All with less cardio and more gym climbing.

I've had same experience. It wasn't until I cut the crap out of my diet that I was able to get down to around 9 to 10% body fat. In the last year I've lowered the amount of cardio I've done and still lost weight. I firmly believe that losing weight is more a factor of what you eat than how much you work out.


jt512


Oct 4, 2012, 4:06 PM
Post #24 of 51 (6325 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [amarius] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

amarius wrote:
To burn 1lb of fat from running alone, 150lb person would have to cover around 37 miles, calculation based on net calorie expenditure.
Source - "Energy expenditure of walking and running"

So, that's an hour a day of slow running to burn 1 lb of fat per week, plus reducing caloric intake by 250 kcal/day, to lose another 1/2 lb of fat per week, for a total weight loss rate of 1.5 lb/wk, which about the maximum you can expect to be able to sustain. Sounds good to me.

Jay


jt512


Oct 4, 2012, 6:37 PM
Post #25 of 51 (6292 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

saint_john wrote:
jt512 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
Matthew0718 wrote:
I've been getting a lot better at climbing recently but for the life of me I can't burn fat.

You need to consumer fewer calories. Diet is for weight loss; exercise is for fitness.

Christ, enough bullshit already. Weight loss results from negative energy balance, that is, when total energy expenditures exceed total energy intake. It doesn't matter whether the energy deficit results from diet, exercise, or a combination. Studies consistently show that it is easier to lose weight and keep it off when you combine exercise and diet.

Jay

Of course weight loss is the result of a caloric deficit. And yes, That deficit can come from reduced intake or from burning more calories, or a combination of the two.

And so you agree, then, that your previous statement, "Diet is for weight loss; exercise is for fitness," was bullshit.

Jay


Partner robdotcalm


Oct 4, 2012, 8:42 PM
Post #26 of 51 (3316 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1023

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

saint_john wrote:
[Therefore, in order to lose weight, he needs to focus on refining his diet.

Actually, he needs to work on un-refining his diet and minimize highly refined food.

Wink

rob.calm


rico_1978


Oct 5, 2012, 12:49 AM
Post #27 of 51 (3301 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 5, 2012
Posts: 1

Re: [Matthew0718] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hi Matthew,

I've just noticed this review site and there is a fat burning guide reviewed on it. not sure if it will help or not but certainly worth looking at.

http://bluebonsai.co.uk/the-fat-loss-factor-review/

Cheers

Rich


saint_john


Oct 5, 2012, 5:48 AM
Post #28 of 51 (3285 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [jt512] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
jt512 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
Matthew0718 wrote:
I've been getting a lot better at climbing recently but for the life of me I can't burn fat.

You need to consumer fewer calories. Diet is for weight loss; exercise is for fitness.

Christ, enough bullshit already. Weight loss results from negative energy balance, that is, when total energy expenditures exceed total energy intake. It doesn't matter whether the energy deficit results from diet, exercise, or a combination. Studies consistently show that it is easier to lose weight and keep it off when you combine exercise and diet.

Jay

Of course weight loss is the result of a caloric deficit. And yes, That deficit can come from reduced intake or from burning more calories, or a combination of the two.

And so you agree, then, that your previous statement, "Diet is for weight loss; exercise is for fitness," was bullshit.

Jay

Did you read what I said? Or are you just stroking that monumental ego of yours? You must have gotten far too much priase as a child.


saint_john


Oct 5, 2012, 5:58 AM
Post #29 of 51 (3283 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hey Jay, I found this atricle online: http://jt512.dyndns.org/blog/?p=96
The author is a bit of a windbag but it contains some good info about losing weight. It's 9 paragraphs long but only has a couple of sentences about exercise (the rest is about what to eat) so it reiterates my beliefs that to lose weight, one must focus on diet rather than exercise.


potreroed


Oct 5, 2012, 12:24 PM
Post #30 of 51 (3224 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 1453

Re: [Matthew0718] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Watch your diet and get a mountain bike, it's a lot more fun than jogging.


carabiner96


Oct 5, 2012, 12:33 PM
Post #31 of 51 (3220 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12556

Re: [potreroed] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm glad that my 'jogging' comment stirred things up, but what I really meant was if you're looking to lose weight, hitting that sweet green route at the gym ain't gonna do it.

The day you hear the sorority chicks saying 'OMG, spring break is only three weeks away, I totes need to lose 15 pounds before hitting up the bikini bar in Cabo...will you belay me at the gym?' will be a strange day indeed.


saint_john


Oct 5, 2012, 12:44 PM
Post #32 of 51 (3217 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [potreroed] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

potreroed wrote:
Watch your diet and get a mountain bike, it's a lot more fun than jogging.

It's more fun than jogging and climbing.


redlude97


Oct 5, 2012, 12:48 PM
Post #33 of 51 (3215 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

saint_john wrote:
Hey Jay, I found this atricle online: http://jt512.dyndns.org/blog/?p=96
The author is a bit of a windbag but it contains some good info about losing weight. It's 9 paragraphs long but only has a couple of sentences about exercise (the rest is about what to eat) so it reiterates my beliefs that to lose weight, one must focus on diet rather than exercise.
Your comments seem to too abstract. Can you explain your strategy to lose 2+lbs of fat per week that would be sustainable for the average 150lb male through diet alone? Or the majority through diet? Thats like 1000Cals/day deficit.


jt512


Oct 5, 2012, 1:04 PM
Post #34 of 51 (3209 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

saint_john wrote:
Hey Jay, I found this atricle online: http://jt512.dyndns.org/blog/?p=96
The author is a bit of a windbag but it contains some good info about losing weight. It's 9 paragraphs long but only has a couple of sentences about exercise (the rest is about what to eat) so it reiterates my beliefs that to lose weight, one must focus on diet rather than exercise.

I probably should have emphasized exercise more in that article. Nonetheless it is specifically about diet.

*plonk*


(This post was edited by jt512 on Oct 5, 2012, 1:06 PM)


saint_john


Oct 5, 2012, 1:05 PM
Post #35 of 51 (3208 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [redlude97] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
Hey Jay, I found this atricle online: http://jt512.dyndns.org/blog/?p=96
The author is a bit of a windbag but it contains some good info about losing weight. It's 9 paragraphs long but only has a couple of sentences about exercise (the rest is about what to eat) so it reiterates my beliefs that to lose weight, one must focus on diet rather than exercise.
Your comments seem to too abstract. Can you explain your strategy to lose 2+lbs of fat per week that would be sustainable for the average 150lb male through diet alone? Or the majority through diet? Thats like 1000Cals/day deficit.

Who? Me? I never said anything about a 150lb male losing 2 pounds per week. That sounds extreme unless said male is like 5'3".
I'm just under 150 pounds at 5'11". I could lose 2 pounds in a day but thats only after Indian food and a lot of coffee. And that is not sustainable.


redlude97


Oct 5, 2012, 1:15 PM
Post #36 of 51 (3202 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

saint_john wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
Hey Jay, I found this atricle online: http://jt512.dyndns.org/blog/?p=96
The author is a bit of a windbag but it contains some good info about losing weight. It's 9 paragraphs long but only has a couple of sentences about exercise (the rest is about what to eat) so it reiterates my beliefs that to lose weight, one must focus on diet rather than exercise.
Your comments seem to too abstract. Can you explain your strategy to lose 2+lbs of fat per week that would be sustainable for the average 150lb male through diet alone? Or the majority through diet? Thats like 1000Cals/day deficit.

Who? Me? I never said anything about a 150lb male losing 2 pounds per week. That sounds extreme unless said male is like 5'3".
I'm just under 150 pounds at 5'11". I could lose 2 pounds in a day but thats only after Indian food and a lot of coffee. And that is not sustainable.
Fine, ignore the exact weight of the person. 2 lbs/week is a pretty moderate weight loss goal that can be obtained by motivated individuals. IME this is done by combining both exersize and nutrition, but you claim that it can be done by focusing mainly on nutrition.


saint_john


Oct 5, 2012, 1:43 PM
Post #37 of 51 (3195 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [redlude97] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
Hey Jay, I found this atricle online: http://jt512.dyndns.org/blog/?p=96
The author is a bit of a windbag but it contains some good info about losing weight. It's 9 paragraphs long but only has a couple of sentences about exercise (the rest is about what to eat) so it reiterates my beliefs that to lose weight, one must focus on diet rather than exercise.
Your comments seem to too abstract. Can you explain your strategy to lose 2+lbs of fat per week that would be sustainable for the average 150lb male through diet alone? Or the majority through diet? Thats like 1000Cals/day deficit.

Who? Me? I never said anything about a 150lb male losing 2 pounds per week. That sounds extreme unless said male is like 5'3".
I'm just under 150 pounds at 5'11". I could lose 2 pounds in a day but thats only after Indian food and a lot of coffee. And that is not sustainable.
Fine, ignore the exact weight of the person. 2 lbs/week is a pretty moderate weight loss goal that can be obtained by motivated individuals. IME this is done by combining both exersize and nutrition, but you claim that it can be done by focusing mainly on nutrition.

A caloric deficit is a caloric deficit, whether it's the result of an overall reduction in caloric intake, or reduced intake along with exercise.

I've assumed the OP was already working out in some form or another. My advice to him is that in order to lose weight he needs to focus on the quantity/quality of what he eats and not the amount of exercise that he does.

Matthew0718,
What's your diet look like? You into fast food? Beer, pizza? Sugar? Be honest.


redlude97


Oct 5, 2012, 3:23 PM
Post #38 of 51 (3179 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

saint_john wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
saint_john wrote:
Hey Jay, I found this atricle online: http://jt512.dyndns.org/blog/?p=96
The author is a bit of a windbag but it contains some good info about losing weight. It's 9 paragraphs long but only has a couple of sentences about exercise (the rest is about what to eat) so it reiterates my beliefs that to lose weight, one must focus on diet rather than exercise.
Your comments seem to too abstract. Can you explain your strategy to lose 2+lbs of fat per week that would be sustainable for the average 150lb male through diet alone? Or the majority through diet? Thats like 1000Cals/day deficit.

Who? Me? I never said anything about a 150lb male losing 2 pounds per week. That sounds extreme unless said male is like 5'3".
I'm just under 150 pounds at 5'11". I could lose 2 pounds in a day but thats only after Indian food and a lot of coffee. And that is not sustainable.
Fine, ignore the exact weight of the person. 2 lbs/week is a pretty moderate weight loss goal that can be obtained by motivated individuals. IME this is done by combining both exersize and nutrition, but you claim that it can be done by focusing mainly on nutrition.

A caloric deficit is a caloric deficit, whether it's the result of an overall reduction in caloric intake, or reduced intake along with exercise.

I've assumed the OP was already working out in some form or another. My advice to him is that in order to lose weight he needs to focus on the quantity/quality of what he eats and not the amount of exercise that he does.
Thats a pretty bold assumption to make from this single statement
Matthew0718 wrote:
I've been getting a lot better at climbing recently but for the life of me I can't burn fat.
I would have assumed he had no idea what he was doing, or just climbing to try to lose weight.

saint_john wrote:
A caloric deficit is a caloric deficit, whether it's the result of an overall reduction in caloric intake, or reduced intake along with exercise.
Of course, but at some point, you can only cut so many calories. Cutting 2-500 calories/day is relatively easy, but cutting 1000 is much harder. Most people find it easier to combine diet and exersize and the calorie deficict split say 50:50 or 500cals from diet and 500 from exercise.


potreroed


Oct 6, 2012, 9:18 PM
Post #39 of 51 (3127 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 1453

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I'd choose climbing over mountain biking any day.


scotchie


Oct 8, 2012, 7:27 PM
Post #40 of 51 (3042 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 30, 2004
Posts: 260

Re: [jt512] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
Christ, enough bullshit already. Weight loss results from negative energy balance, that is, when total energy expenditures exceed total energy intake. It doesn't matter whether the energy deficit results from diet, exercise, or a combination.

Conservation of Energy - It's not just a good idea. It's the law. Smile


kf8mo


Oct 13, 2012, 8:05 PM
Post #41 of 51 (2961 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 31, 2012
Posts: 15

Re: [saint_john] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

There's a pile of research on this topic. I'm pretty familiar with it, as I earn money for climbing trips by being a professor of medicine. The generalization that diet is for weight loss, exercise is for fitness is roughly true, for typical recreational levels of exercise (i.e., not marathon and ultramarathon running or cycling, or amateur-elite or professional level training). Yes, the overall point is energy deficit, but creating the deficit through restricting intake, particularly intake of high-glycemic-index low-nutritional-value foods, is the most effective approach. That's the bottom line from quite a lot of well-done research.

That is not to say that exercise doesn't contribute. It does, in several ways. Though not as important as diet, it does contribute directly to the calorie deficit. It also protects muscle mass. With diet alone, muscle gets burned along with fat as the body deals with energy deficit. So, exercise is quite important in becoming healthier, as opposed to merely lighter. Exercise also makes it easier to lose weight when dieting, because it helps prevent the reduced metabolic rate that otherwise tends to happen when calories are restricted.

The kind of exercise also matters. With all due respect to the trainer who commented, high-intensity exercise is not the optimal choice for weight loss. (For fitness, it is.) High-intensity exercise is heavily glycogen-dependent, and tends not to mobilize fat stores. Long-duration low-intensity exercise burns fat more effectively. Two hours of brisk hiking or cycling at a moderate pace four or five days a week is a pretty good target to aim for.


billcoe_


Oct 14, 2012, 8:14 AM
Post #42 of 51 (2931 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4668

Re: [kf8mo] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kf8mo wrote:
There's a pile of research on this topic. I'm pretty familiar with it, as I earn money for climbing trips by being a professor of medicine. The generalization that diet is for weight loss, exercise is for fitness is roughly true, for typical recreational levels of exercise (i.e., not marathon and ultramarathon running or cycling, or amateur-elite or professional level training). Yes, the overall point is energy deficit, but creating the deficit through restricting intake, particularly intake of high-glycemic-index low-nutritional-value foods, is the most effective approach. That's the bottom line from quite a lot of well-done research.

That is not to say that exercise doesn't contribute. It does, in several ways. Though not as important as diet, it does contribute directly to the calorie deficit. It also protects muscle mass. With diet alone, muscle gets burned along with fat as the body deals with energy deficit. So, exercise is quite important in becoming healthier, as opposed to merely lighter. Exercise also makes it easier to lose weight when dieting, because it helps prevent the reduced metabolic rate that otherwise tends to happen when calories are restricted.

The kind of exercise also matters. With all due respect to the trainer who commented, high-intensity exercise is not the optimal choice for weight loss. (For fitness, it is.) High-intensity exercise is heavily glycogen-dependent, and tends not to mobilize fat stores. Long-duration low-intensity exercise burns fat more effectively. Two hours of brisk hiking or cycling at a moderate pace four or five days a week is a pretty good target to aim for.

Any links to studies supporting this?


jt512


Oct 14, 2012, 3:23 PM
Post #43 of 51 (2902 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [kf8mo] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kf8mo wrote:
The kind of exercise also matters. With all due respect to the trainer who commented, high-intensity exercise is not the optimal choice for weight loss. (For fitness, it is.) High-intensity exercise is heavily glycogen-dependent, and tends not to mobilize fat stores.

All that matters is the amount of the caloric deficit, not the fuel mix burned. If the body burns glycogen during exercise, then it will have to replace that glycogen from carbohydrate from the next few meals. That is carbohydrate that would have been burned for fuel had the exercise not been done. Since this carbohydrate is now not available for energy, the body must draw down that number of calories from fat stores to burn instead.

In reply to:
Long-duration low-intensity exercise burns fat more effectively. Two hours of brisk hiking or cycling at a moderate pace four or five days a week is a pretty good target to aim for.

One hour (or less) of higher-intensity exercise will be just as effective, and a lot more practical.

Jay


kf8mo


Oct 14, 2012, 3:55 PM
Post #44 of 51 (2896 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 31, 2012
Posts: 15

Re: [jt512] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
All that matters is the amount of the caloric deficit, not the fuel mix burned...

In theory one might think so. However, in practice it doesn't work out. Fat doesn't get burned to replace the carb intake that goes into replenishing glycogen (well, it does but just not to a useful extent). People just eat more after high-intensity exercise, the glycogen stores get replenished but the fat stores are protected. Worse, people crave carbs after high-intensity exercise, then spike their glucose and insulin levels, and can even end up adding fat.

If you really want to lose fat specifically, through-hike the Appalachian Trail. That's about the ultimate in long-duration, low-intensity exercise, plus it limits your access to calories. However, as you point out, practicality does become an issue there.

In re the question on references, sorry I don't have a bibliography to share, scrounging up a good lit review would take a couple hours I haven't to spare. I'll ask a sports-med colleague this week and if she has something readily to hand I'll share it.


jt512


Oct 14, 2012, 9:41 PM
Post #45 of 51 (2867 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [kf8mo] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

kf8mo wrote:
jt512 wrote:
All that matters is the amount of the caloric deficit, not the fuel mix burned...

In theory one might think so. However, in practice it doesn't work out. Fat doesn't get burned to replace the carb intake that goes into replenishing glycogen (well, it does but just not to a useful extent). People just eat more after high-intensity exercise, the glycogen stores get replenished but the fat stores are protected. .

Please cite recent peer review research to back up these claims.

In reply to:
Worse, people crave carbs after high-intensity exercise, then spike their glucose and insulin levels, and can even end up adding fat.

Okay, so now you're claiming that high-intensity exercise actually causes gains in body fat. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're a crank. Of course, I'll happily apologize if you can convincingly support this claim by showing that you have the balance of peer review research on your side.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Oct 14, 2012, 9:51 PM)


Partner camhead


Oct 15, 2012, 6:53 AM
Post #46 of 51 (2843 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20776

Re: [kf8mo] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

kf8mo wrote:
jt512 wrote:
All that matters is the amount of the caloric deficit, not the fuel mix burned...

In theory one might think so. However, in practice it doesn't work out. ...

Dude, just step away from rc.com now. Mentioning anything beyond simple binary "theory" to JT512 just makes his head explode in confusion. In theory, he should be climbing 5.14. But in practice, he just topropes 5.12 on the internet.


Partner camhead


Oct 15, 2012, 6:55 AM
Post #47 of 51 (2843 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20776

Re: [jt512] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:

In reply to:
Worse, people crave carbs after high-intensity exercise, then spike their glucose and insulin levels, and can even end up adding fat.

Okay, so now you're claiming that high-intensity exercise actually causes gains in body fat.

Case in point.

Vulcandonny winz rc.n00b.


amarius


Oct 15, 2012, 10:45 AM
Post #48 of 51 (2824 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 23, 2012
Posts: 119

Re: [kf8mo] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kf8mo wrote:
The kind of exercise also matters. With all due respect to the trainer who commented, high-intensity exercise is not the optimal choice for weight loss. (For fitness, it is.) High-intensity exercise is heavily glycogen-dependent, and tends not to mobilize fat stores. Long-duration low-intensity exercise burns fat more effectively. Two hours of brisk hiking or cycling at a moderate pace four or five days a week is a pretty good target to aim for.

Given, I am internet based researcher, but almost everything is just one click away. Here is one study that present slightly different commentary.
In short - aerobic at 70% of VO2Max increases resting energy expenditure
The commentary also emphasizes that more fit individuals, that is the ones with higher VO2Max, will burn more energy even at the same relative load. I don't feel like searching for references showing that VO2Max can only be increased if exercising at high intensity levels.

Then, there is study , which also presents similar results.
In short - 70% HIIT regime resulted in higher subcutaneous fat loss than 50% regime.

Perhaps there were studies done recently with different outcomes?


redlude97


Oct 15, 2012, 11:39 AM
Post #49 of 51 (2816 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990

Re: [amarius] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

amarius wrote:
kf8mo wrote:
The kind of exercise also matters. With all due respect to the trainer who commented, high-intensity exercise is not the optimal choice for weight loss. (For fitness, it is.) High-intensity exercise is heavily glycogen-dependent, and tends not to mobilize fat stores. Long-duration low-intensity exercise burns fat more effectively. Two hours of brisk hiking or cycling at a moderate pace four or five days a week is a pretty good target to aim for.

Given, I am internet based researcher, but almost everything is just one click away. Here is one study that present slightly different commentary.
In short - aerobic at 70% of VO2Max increases resting energy expenditure
The commentary also emphasizes that more fit individuals, that is the ones with higher VO2Max, will burn more energy even at the same relative load. I don't feel like searching for references showing that VO2Max can only be increased if exercising at high intensity levels.

Then, there is study , which also presents similar results.
In short - 70% HIIT regime resulted in higher subcutaneous fat loss than 50% regime.

Perhaps there were studies done recently with different outcomes?
The problem that kf8mo is referring to is that humans suck at regulation, and when doing HIIT they end up eating more, canceling out much of the benefit. People are lazy sacks of shit, but truely motivated people will get the best results training at higher intensities and controlling their diet properly


kf8mo


Oct 16, 2012, 9:08 PM
Post #50 of 51 (2737 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 31, 2012
Posts: 15

Re: [redlude97] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
The problem that kf8mo is referring to is that humans suck at regulation, and when doing HIIT they end up eating more, canceling out much of the benefit. People are lazy sacks of shit, but truely motivated people will get the best results training at higher intensities and controlling their diet properly

In the physiology lab, of course x minutes of exercise at 85% max burns more calories than x minutes at 70%, which is more than x minutes at 50%, and that results in weight loss.

In the world outside the lab however, human behavior happens.

It's not so simple as being lazy sacks of s@#!, it includes the fact that when there is not an exercise physiologist or registered dietician measuring our calorie intake, we are lousy at estimating it. So indeed we do overshoot when doing high-intensity exercise, and at least replenish the glycogen stores and often more. And we don't realize we're doing it. Even for the truly motivated, it's the diet part that pares off weight. Exercise contributes fitness and prevents muscle loss, but not weight loss unless combined with diet, and people randomized to diet + exercise don't lose more weight than those randomized to diet alone. (Again, caveat that this is ordinary recreational level exercise, the level you can get most people to do, does not apply to amateur-elite/pro/marathon athletes, military recruit "volunteers", or the hardcores who live in the gym.)

It's probably worse in real life than even that, because the studies are done with volunteers willing to be randomized. They're the most motivated people around. For Joe Average, it's likely even worse.

Overall though the best prescription is diet + exercise, because losing weight while becoming less fit is not helpful.


(This post was edited by kf8mo on Oct 16, 2012, 9:29 PM)


kf8mo


Oct 16, 2012, 9:25 PM
Post #51 of 51 (342 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 31, 2012
Posts: 15

Re: [robdotcalm] Better climbing, not looking [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

robdotcalm wrote:
saint_john wrote:
[Therefore, in order to lose weight, he needs to focus on refining his diet.

Actually, he needs to work on un-refining his diet and minimize highly refined food.

A good point also. "Calories are calories" is another one of those things that's true in the physiology lab but not in the world. Refined carbohydrates, high-glycemic-index foods, are effective at producing the rebound overeating and the insulin spikes that cause calories to be stored as fat rather than burned.


Forums : Climbing Information : General

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook