|
Timjitsu
Aug 31, 2012, 4:46 PM
Post #1 of 75
(20541 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 30, 2012
Posts: 4
|
im 6'1" 220lbs, my BF% is around 10-11% so im in pretty good shape. i started climbing a few months ago and i've been asked by a few people in the gym "damn it must be tough carrying around all that weight." and ive been watching some climbing videos and ive noticed that all of them are relatively small (compared to me). so it seems to me that being a large person really hinders someone from becoming a really good climber. can anyone give me some names of any professional climbers that are 6'+ 200lb+?
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Aug 31, 2012, 4:56 PM
Post #2 of 75
(20527 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
Timjitsu wrote: im 6'1" 220lbs, my BF% is around 10-11% so im in pretty good shape. i started climbing a few months ago and i've been asked by a few people in the gym "damn it must be tough carrying around all that weight." and ive been watching some climbing videos and ive noticed that all of them are relatively small (compared to me). so it seems to me that being a large person really hinders someone from becoming a really good climber. can anyone give me some names of any professional climbers that are 6'+ 200lb+?
As far as I know, no.
Strength-to-weight ratio is the name of the game. That's why so many of those 90lb. middle school girls can climb circles around many adult men.
If you're bulked up from lifting weights then you'll need to quit that and slim down to lean muscles.
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
njrox
Aug 31, 2012, 5:00 PM
Post #3 of 75
(20519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2011
Posts: 251
|
Timjitsu wrote: can anyone give me some names of any professional climbers that are 6'+ 200lb+?
Alex Honnold and Dean Potter are both 6ft+ and likely under 200lbs.
Long, thin, and graceful seem like postive factors but not every really good or pro climber is built like Ichabod Crain.
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Aug 31, 2012, 5:03 PM
Post #4 of 75
(20513 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
That's pretty heavy for a serious climber at that height. Someone like my husband stands at 6'0" and 165lbs (ie - he has a good body type for climbing). Also, if climbing is your primary sport you don't tend to really "bulk up" either. You can still be quite powerful without huge muscles.
As for large famous climbers, there's always John Long reply, but in modern day standards I'm not even sure how hard he cranked.
In the end it doesn't really matter though. Not everyone is going to have that ideal body type for climbing, but you should be able to get to a decently high level with enough time and effort (I'm thinking 5.12 at a minimum).
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 31, 2012, 5:28 PM
Post #5 of 75
(20490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Timjitsu wrote: im 6'1" 220lbs, my BF% is around 10-11% so im in pretty good shape.
Not sure where you got those 10-11% numbers, but I just punched that into a BMI web page and came up with a BMI of 30 which is way high. At your height you should definitely be under 200lbs and probably closer to 180lbs with a BMI under 20 to be considered "in pretty good shape" by climbing standards. At age 26 (a long time ago) I was 6'0' and climbed at a 155-160lbs.
http://www.active.com/...culators/bodyfat.htm
|
|
|
|
|
chopperjohn
Aug 31, 2012, 5:50 PM
Post #6 of 75
(20474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2007
Posts: 87
|
Im not a pro but I'm 6 foot and my weight ranges from 195 to 230 depends on if its a good buffet season. I crank at a steady 5.11 abc sometimes d. I'm a pretty lazy climber too so if you stick to it you'll be alright. You don't wanna be a skinny pro type climber anyway then you'll have to listen to Phish drive a shitty hippy subaru outback and eat a lot of healthy food. Stay a fat ass and enjoy climbing and making all the little climbers watch in amazement when you crank your first 5.12 with gear while they are sport climbing in there red spandex. Go ahead flame away skinnys
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Aug 31, 2012, 5:55 PM
Post #7 of 75
(20470 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
Toni Lamprecht is been one of Germany´s top climbers (9a/5.14d boulder Fr8c/V15) and he is 6´3"/ca 200lbs and John Dunne is of course shorter and considerably fatter!
Hewever they have talent which is normally the most desirable characteristic to being a good climber, sadly as another 6´/200pounder I seem to be missing this.
|
|
|
|
|
Timjitsu
Aug 31, 2012, 5:56 PM
Post #8 of 75
(20470 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 30, 2012
Posts: 4
|
healyje wrote: Timjitsu wrote: im 6'1" 220lbs, my BF% is around 10-11% so im in pretty good shape. Not sure where you got those 10-11% numbers, but I just punched that into a BMI web page and came up with a BMI of 30 which is way high. At your height you should definitely be under 200lbs and probably closer to 180lbs with a BMI under 20 to be considered " in pretty good shape" by climbing standards. At age 26 (a long time ago) I was 6'0' and climbed at a 155-160lbs. http://www.active.com/...culators/bodyfat.htm
hahaha... for the sake of amusement, i put in the measurements of my wrist, waist, hips and forearms. and guess what it gave me mr. smartypants.... 12%. and i know my own body, i say im closer to 10-11%. but i must say thats pretty close for an online BMI calculator...
im a naturally big guy. i dont do any lifting that would put on size. and yes i know the difference between lifting for size and for endurance. i used to be 240 @ 8%BF and have friends who are bigger and leaner. i do kettlebells, pushups and pull ups and i still gain size. its just the way im built. i do go a little heavier with my legs to keep them in per portion with my upper body so i dont look like a cartoon.
so in the future please dont judge someones physical fitness without seeing them and punching their height and weight into a useless BMI calculator. have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 31, 2012, 6:05 PM
Post #9 of 75
(20454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Timjitsu wrote: so in the future please dont judge someones physical fitness without seeing them and punching their height and weight into a useless BMI calculator. have a nice day.
Dude, not sure what numbers you punched into that body fat form, but on the BMI form 6'1" @ 220 gives a BMI of 29-30.
And bottom line is it's impossible to be 6'1" @ 220 and not have a percentage of body fat closer to 30 than 10 unless you are an alien with a very different bone and tissue density then the rest of us humans.
Further 6'1" is hardly 'tall' and at that height if you way more than 190 you can't even be considered fit let alone in any kind of shape.
|
|
|
|
|
njrox
Aug 31, 2012, 6:25 PM
Post #10 of 75
(20438 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2011
Posts: 251
|
A BMI doesn't tell you your body fat percentage. It's a chart based on "appropriate" height to weight ratios. A BMI over 25 isn't good though.
Using Calipers for skinfold measurment is a proper way to determine Body Fat Percentages.
10% body fat is a pretty low number, actually.
|
|
|
|
|
amarius
Aug 31, 2012, 6:35 PM
Post #11 of 75
(20429 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2012
Posts: 122
|
BODY FAT percentage has nothing to to with BODY MASS INDEX
The extremes can be understood when looking at professional bodybuilders - their BMIs are through the roof, while body fat percentages are very low, especially during the comp period.
Wikipedia has a decent entry for body fat measurements. None of the more reliable methods are DIY
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Aug 31, 2012, 6:37 PM
Post #12 of 75
(20428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
healyje wrote: Timjitsu wrote: im 6'1" 220lbs, my BF% is around 10-11% so im in pretty good shape. Not sure where you got those 10-11% numbers, but I just punched that into a BMI web page and came up with a BMI of 30 which is way high. At your height you should definitely be under 200lbs and probably closer to 180lbs with a BMI under 20 to be considered " in pretty good shape" by climbing standards. At age 26 (a long time ago) I was 6'0' and climbed at a 155-160lbs. http://www.active.com/...culators/bodyfat.htm
BMI is pretty much worthless as means to determine proper weight.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 31, 2012, 6:38 PM
Post #13 of 75
(20421 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
njrox wrote: A BMI doesn't tell you your body fat percentage. It's a chart based on "appropriate" height to weight ratios. A BMI over 25 isn't good though. Using Calipers for skinfold measurment is a proper way to determine Body Fat Percentages. 10% body fat is a pretty low number, actually.
Yeah, I know BMI is a bad approximation, but no matter what method he uses it's not going to be coming up roses with those stats.
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Aug 31, 2012, 6:38 PM
Post #14 of 75
(20421 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
healyje wrote: Timjitsu wrote: so in the future please dont judge someones physical fitness without seeing them and punching their height and weight into a useless BMI calculator. have a nice day. Dude, not sure what numbers you punched into that body fat form, but on the BMI form 6'1" @ 220 gives a BMI of 29-30. And bottom line is it's impossible to be 6'1" @ 220 and not have a percentage of body fat closer to 30 than 10 unless you are an alien with a very different bone and tissue density then the rest of us humans. Further 6'1" is hardly 'tall' and at that height if you way more than 190 you can't even be considered fit let alone in any kind of shape.
Complete bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Aug 31, 2012, 6:39 PM
Post #15 of 75
(20416 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
healyje wrote: njrox wrote: A BMI doesn't tell you your body fat percentage. It's a chart based on "appropriate" height to weight ratios. A BMI over 25 isn't good though. Using Calipers for skinfold measurment is a proper way to determine Body Fat Percentages. 10% body fat is a pretty low number, actually. Yeah, I know BMI is a bad approximation, but no matter what method he uses it's not going to be coming up roses with those stats.
Again, more complete bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
Timjitsu
Aug 31, 2012, 6:44 PM
Post #16 of 75
(20410 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 30, 2012
Posts: 4
|
healyje wrote: Timjitsu wrote: so in the future please dont judge someones physical fitness without seeing them and punching their height and weight into a useless BMI calculator. have a nice day. Dude, not sure what numbers you punched into that body fat form, but on the BMI form 6'1" @ 220 gives a BMI of 29-30. And bottom line is it's impossible to be 6'1" @ 220 and not have a percentage of body fat closer to 30 than 10 unless you are an alien with a very different bone and tissue density then the rest of us humans. Further 6'1" is hardly 'tall' and at that height if you way more than 190 you can't even be considered fit let alone in any kind of shape.
omg please just stop talking... better yet do me a favor, go into Golds gym in NV and walk up to Jay Cutler (5' 9" 275lbs BF is probably around 3-5% during season) and tell him his BMI is way too high and he is not in good physical shape. there's at least 3 things that will happen. he will laugh at you, slap you, or both.
the BMI is an "okay" way at best, to judge the physical fitness of a person who is barely active. but its a HORRIBLE way of judging the physical fitness of an very active person...
so please go away and lets get back on topic...
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Aug 31, 2012, 6:45 PM
Post #17 of 75
(20408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
chadnsc wrote: healyje wrote: njrox wrote: A BMI doesn't tell you your body fat percentage. It's a chart based on "appropriate" height to weight ratios. A BMI over 25 isn't good though. Using Calipers for skinfold measurment is a proper way to determine Body Fat Percentages. 10% body fat is a pretty low number, actually. Yeah, I know BMI is a bad approximation, but no matter what method he uses it's not going to be coming up roses with those stats. Again, more complete bullshit.
Well, that's one opinion, but at 6'1" anything over 180 or so is nowhere near being in solid climbing shape - anyone positing otherwise is delusional.
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Aug 31, 2012, 6:50 PM
Post #18 of 75
(20400 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
amarius wrote: BODY FAT percentage has nothing to to with BODY MASS INDEX The extremes can be understood when looking at professional bodybuilders - their BMIs are through the roof, while body fat percentages are very low, especially during the comp period. Wikipedia has a decent entry for body fat measurements. None of the more reliable methods are DIY
While the most accurate test is still the water displacement method (1-2% error) a good hand held or digital scale that uses bioelectrical impedance analysis (3-6% error) to measure body fat is still a rather accurate method.
Caliper testing is the most inaccurate with a 15 -25% margin for error.
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Aug 31, 2012, 6:54 PM
Post #19 of 75
(20393 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
healyje wrote: chadnsc wrote: healyje wrote: njrox wrote: A BMI doesn't tell you your body fat percentage. It's a chart based on "appropriate" height to weight ratios. A BMI over 25 isn't good though. Using Calipers for skinfold measurment is a proper way to determine Body Fat Percentages. 10% body fat is a pretty low number, actually. Yeah, I know BMI is a bad approximation, but no matter what method he uses it's not going to be coming up roses with those stats. Again, more complete bullshit. Well, that's one opinion, but at 6'1" anything over 180 or so is nowhere near being in solid climbing shape - anyone positing otherwise is delusional.
I won't disagree that being lighter is better in CLIMBING but your statements about height and body fat percentages are total bullshit.
Besides I know plenty of people over 6'-1" and 180 pounds and they crank pretty dang hard (.12d to 13b range) so . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Aug 31, 2012, 6:55 PM
Post #20 of 75
(20391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
healyje wrote: chadnsc wrote: healyje wrote: njrox wrote: A BMI doesn't tell you your body fat percentage. It's a chart based on "appropriate" height to weight ratios. A BMI over 25 isn't good though. Using Calipers for skinfold measurment is a proper way to determine Body Fat Percentages. 10% body fat is a pretty low number, actually. Yeah, I know BMI is a bad approximation, but no matter what method he uses it's not going to be coming up roses with those stats. Again, more complete bullshit. Well, that's one opinion, but at 6'1" anything over 180 or so is nowhere near being in solid climbing shape - anyone positing otherwise is delusional.
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Aug 31, 2012, 6:58 PM
Post #21 of 75
(20385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
redlude97 wrote: healyje wrote: chadnsc wrote: healyje wrote: njrox wrote: A BMI doesn't tell you your body fat percentage. It's a chart based on "appropriate" height to weight ratios. A BMI over 25 isn't good though. Using Calipers for skinfold measurment is a proper way to determine Body Fat Percentages. 10% body fat is a pretty low number, actually. Yeah, I know BMI is a bad approximation, but no matter what method he uses it's not going to be coming up roses with those stats. Again, more complete bullshit. Well, that's one opinion, but at 6'1" anything over 180 or so is nowhere near being in solid climbing shape - anyone positing otherwise is delusional. Way to backtrack
That's healyje, backtrackin', bull shit spewin', internet climber.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Aug 31, 2012, 7:11 PM
Post #22 of 75
(20366 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
Timjitsu wrote: healyje wrote: Timjitsu wrote: so in the future please dont judge someones physical fitness without seeing them and punching their height and weight into a useless BMI calculator. have a nice day. Dude, not sure what numbers you punched into that body fat form, but on the BMI form 6'1" @ 220 gives a BMI of 29-30. And bottom line is it's impossible to be 6'1" @ 220 and not have a percentage of body fat closer to 30 than 10 unless you are an alien with a very different bone and tissue density then the rest of us humans. Further 6'1" is hardly 'tall' and at that height if you way more than 190 you can't even be considered fit let alone in any kind of shape. omg please just stop talking... better yet do me a favor, go into Golds gym in NV and walk up to Jay Cutler (5' 9" 275lbs BF is probably around 3-5% during season) and tell him his BMI is way too high and he is not in good physical shape. there's at least 3 things that will happen. he will laugh at you, slap you, or both. the BMI is an "okay" way at best, to judge the physical fitness of a person who is barely active. but its a HORRIBLE way of judging the physical fitness of an very active person... so please go away and lets get back on topic...
While you are correct in the fact the BMI is not a good way to measure physical fitness, bringing up a guy who is 5'9" and 275 lb ON THIS SITE as a paragon of fitness and good shape will get you nothing but laughter.
Listen, you started this thread. Don't get pissed when people tel lyou that less weight would be better.
Of course if you take two people who both carry 20 pounds of fat on them, and one of them is really built with bulky muscle, and the other one has no muscle worth mentioning, the BF percentage will look much better on the "built" guy, but it doesn't change the fact that they are both carrying 20 pounds of fat on them.
And for climbing it doesn't matter whether you are carrying 200 pounds of muscle+20 pounds of fat up that wall, or whether you are carrying 180pounds of muscle and 40 pounds of fat. Either way, you are carrying 220 pounds up that wall, most of that built-up muscle is not doing you any good when you are climbing. Your bulky legs will be just as much hindrance as a beer belly.
To give you an example, two strong tall climbers that I personally know, are in 6'2"-6'3" and maybe 135-145lb.
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Aug 31, 2012, 7:27 PM
Post #24 of 75
(20349 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
lena_chita wrote: To give you an example, two strong tall climbers that I personally know, are in 6'2"-6'3" and maybe 135-145lb.
Tee heee, I would have to drop back down to 10% body fat and remove a leg to weigh that little! (6'-2", 195 pounds at 10% body fat)
I know that's great for climbing but dang, a 6'-3" tall man weighing in at 135 pounds is thin!
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Aug 31, 2012, 7:33 PM
Post #25 of 75
(20345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
healyje wrote: chadnsc wrote: That's healyje, backtrackin', bull shit spewin', internet climber. A Minnesota climber calling me an internet climber - that's a good one dude.
Road trip much?
Meh doesn't matter, I'm off to the Needles for the weekend. Have fun on the internet healyje!
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
