|
|
|
|
I_do
Feb 25, 2010, 12:22 AM
Post #51 of 75
(17090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232
|
onarunning wrote: I_do wrote: curator wrote: Interesting post...It's true that not many climbers that have climbed 5.14 weigh close to 200. It is obviously more difficult to throw that much weight around. Again, Dean Potter has not climbed 5.14. But to answer the question. Mark Smith is the biggest 5.14 climber I've ever climbed with. He's not that big. Probably 6'4" and right around 200 lbs of solid muscle. What's even more interesting is the fact that he excels at technical crimpy routes. This is due to the fact that he is probably the most dedicated climber I've met. He'll wake up at 4 am to get warmed up before his project goes in the sun. He trains, takes care of himself, and as an added bonus he's the nicest guy ever. I don't believe that climbing at a very high level is possible for everyone but....I think despite the body you were born with if you are properly disciplined it is possible to climb into the 5.12+ and above range. And part of this is being commited to bringing your weight down. For someone like Mark dieting down to 200 is a healthy weight and any more would be anorexia. But to climb at your full potential you need a low BMI. that much is proven. That's not possible if you're tall. I'm 6'4 and just under 200 that's a BMI of 24 the highest that's considered healthy. To get in the low range of healthy I need to drop over 40lbs which would probably kill me. It might kill you, but I am 6'4 too and weigh around 160. I'm not unhealthy, I'm just a skinny 19 year old. I eat whatever I want and don't think I could gain weight if I wanted to. I don't climb that hard though, ha.
Fair enough, but generally speaking taller people will have a higher BMI at a similair fat percentage. Body type is very important as well, I used to be more like you but beefed up at some point. I don't climb very hard either  .
|
|
|
|
|
donald949
Feb 25, 2010, 10:03 PM
Post #52 of 75
(17062 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2007
Posts: 11455
|
onarunning wrote: I_do wrote: curator wrote: Interesting post...It's true that not many climbers that have climbed 5.14 weigh close to 200. It is obviously more difficult to throw that much weight around. Again, Dean Potter has not climbed 5.14. But to answer the question. Mark Smith is the biggest 5.14 climber I've ever climbed with. He's not that big. Probably 6'4" and right around 200 lbs of solid muscle. What's even more interesting is the fact that he excels at technical crimpy routes. This is due to the fact that he is probably the most dedicated climber I've met. He'll wake up at 4 am to get warmed up before his project goes in the sun. He trains, takes care of himself, and as an added bonus he's the nicest guy ever. I don't believe that climbing at a very high level is possible for everyone but....I think despite the body you were born with if you are properly disciplined it is possible to climb into the 5.12+ and above range. And part of this is being commited to bringing your weight down. For someone like Mark dieting down to 200 is a healthy weight and any more would be anorexia. But to climb at your full potential you need a low BMI. that much is proven. That's not possible if you're tall. I'm 6'4 and just under 200 that's a BMI of 24 the highest that's considered healthy. To get in the low range of healthy I need to drop over 40lbs which would probably kill me. It might kill you, but I am 6'4 too and weigh around 160. I'm not unhealthy, I'm just a skinny 19 year old. I eat whatever I want and don't think I could gain weight if I wanted to. I don't climb that hard though, ha. 
|
|
|
|
|
patmay81
Feb 26, 2010, 1:22 AM
Post #53 of 75
(17034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2006
Posts: 1081
|
[quote "estwing"]Doesn't Dean Potter weigh about 180. I'm 6'-3", and he is a bit taller than I am, "he's even taller that you!" said my friend. He is thin, but muscular.[/quote]
I was going to suggest Dean, that dude always seems huge to me.
|
|
|
|
|
onarunning
Feb 26, 2010, 2:25 PM
Post #54 of 75
(17010 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2007
Posts: 94
|
donald949 wrote: onarunning wrote: I_do wrote: curator wrote: Interesting post...It's true that not many climbers that have climbed 5.14 weigh close to 200. It is obviously more difficult to throw that much weight around. Again, Dean Potter has not climbed 5.14. But to answer the question. Mark Smith is the biggest 5.14 climber I've ever climbed with. He's not that big. Probably 6'4" and right around 200 lbs of solid muscle. What's even more interesting is the fact that he excels at technical crimpy routes. This is due to the fact that he is probably the most dedicated climber I've met. He'll wake up at 4 am to get warmed up before his project goes in the sun. He trains, takes care of himself, and as an added bonus he's the nicest guy ever. I don't believe that climbing at a very high level is possible for everyone but....I think despite the body you were born with if you are properly disciplined it is possible to climb into the 5.12+ and above range. And part of this is being commited to bringing your weight down. For someone like Mark dieting down to 200 is a healthy weight and any more would be anorexia. But to climb at your full potential you need a low BMI. that much is proven. That's not possible if you're tall. I'm 6'4 and just under 200 that's a BMI of 24 the highest that's considered healthy. To get in the low range of healthy I need to drop over 40lbs which would probably kill me. It might kill you, but I am 6'4 too and weigh around 160. I'm not unhealthy, I'm just a skinny 19 year old. I eat whatever I want and don't think I could gain weight if I wanted to. I don't climb that hard though, ha. Been there, done that. Wait a few years, the lbs will start adding up.
Haha, that's probably true. I better enjoy these years while I can...
|
|
|
|
|
curator
Mar 13, 2010, 6:03 PM
Post #55 of 75
(16939 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2005
Posts: 91
|
Just read through this post again. It made me wonder about how I phrased my last post. I stated that "to climb at your full potential you need a low BMI" I stand by that. You just have to define what is low for you, and what is healthy. I think a more accurate statement would be: 'to climb at the very highest level of the sport, you have to have a low BMI.' Do a BMI test on every guy that has ever climbed 5.15 and I think you'll get surprising similar results. Look at these guys: Sharma, Ondra, Graham, Andrada, Iker Pou, Fred Rouhling, Patxi Usobiaga, etc. None of them have a lick of fat and are pure sinew and gristle. That's why they can kill it.
So to the folks saying: "It's not possible or healthy for my body style to come down to a low BMI." The unfortunate fact is that not all of us were born with bodies capable of climbing 5.15 or even 5.13. Just a fact. I'm a scrawny dude and excel at climbing. But if I were to get into bodybuilding it would be futile. No matter how much I work out and take supplements and steroids I could never bulk up with the frame I was given. Same dilemma, different sport.
|
|
|
|
|
airscape
Mar 15, 2010, 6:15 AM
Post #56 of 75
(16854 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240
|
curator wrote: Just read through this post again. It made me wonder about how I phrased my last post. I stated that "to climb at your full potential you need a low BMI" I stand by that. You just have to define what is low for you, and what is healthy. I think a more accurate statement would be: 'to climb at the very highest level of the sport, you have to have a low BMI.' Do a BMI test on every guy that has ever climbed 5.15 and I think you'll get surprising similar results. Look at these guys: Sharma, Ondra, Graham, Andrada, Iker Pou, Fred Rouhling, Patxi Usobiaga, etc. None of them have a lick of fat and are pure sinew and gristle. That's why they can kill it. So to the folks saying: "It's not possible or healthy for my body style to come down to a low BMI." The unfortunate fact is that not all of us were born with bodies capable of climbing 5.15 or even 5.13. Just a fact. I'm a scrawny dude and excel at climbing. But if I were to get into bodybuilding it would be futile. No matter how much I work out and take supplements and steroids I could never bulk up with the frame I was given. Same dilemma, different sport.
Your frame has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
lazymonkey
Apr 29, 2011, 10:41 AM
Post #57 of 75
(16310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2010
Posts: 75
|
airscape wrote: curator wrote: Just read through this post again. It made me wonder about how I phrased my last post. I stated that "to climb at your full potential you need a low BMI" I stand by that. You just have to define what is low for you, and what is healthy. I think a more accurate statement would be: 'to climb at the very highest level of the sport, you have to have a low BMI.' Do a BMI test on every guy that has ever climbed 5.15 and I think you'll get surprising similar results. Look at these guys: Sharma, Ondra, Graham, Andrada, Iker Pou, Fred Rouhling, Patxi Usobiaga, etc. None of them have a lick of fat and are pure sinew and gristle. That's why they can kill it. So to the folks saying: "It's not possible or healthy for my body style to come down to a low BMI." The unfortunate fact is that not all of us were born with bodies capable of climbing 5.15 or even 5.13. Just a fact. I'm a scrawny dude and excel at climbing. But if I were to get into bodybuilding it would be futile. No matter how much I work out and take supplements and steroids I could never bulk up with the frame I was given. Same dilemma, different sport. Your frame has nothing to do with it.
sure it does
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Apr 29, 2011, 2:37 PM
Post #58 of 75
(16265 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
I_do wrote: onarunning wrote: I_do wrote: curator wrote: Interesting post...It's true that not many climbers that have climbed 5.14 weigh close to 200. It is obviously more difficult to throw that much weight around. Again, Dean Potter has not climbed 5.14. But to answer the question. Mark Smith is the biggest 5.14 climber I've ever climbed with. He's not that big. Probably 6'4" and right around 200 lbs of solid muscle. What's even more interesting is the fact that he excels at technical crimpy routes. This is due to the fact that he is probably the most dedicated climber I've met. He'll wake up at 4 am to get warmed up before his project goes in the sun. He trains, takes care of himself, and as an added bonus he's the nicest guy ever. I don't believe that climbing at a very high level is possible for everyone but....I think despite the body you were born with if you are properly disciplined it is possible to climb into the 5.12+ and above range. And part of this is being commited to bringing your weight down. For someone like Mark dieting down to 200 is a healthy weight and any more would be anorexia. But to climb at your full potential you need a low BMI. that much is proven. That's not possible if you're tall. I'm 6'4 and just under 200 that's a BMI of 24 the highest that's considered healthy. To get in the low range of healthy I need to drop over 40lbs which would probably kill me. It might kill you, but I am 6'4 too and weigh around 160. I'm not unhealthy, I'm just a skinny 19 year old. I eat whatever I want and don't think I could gain weight if I wanted to. I don't climb that hard though, ha. Fair enough, but generally speaking taller people will have a higher BMI at a similair fat percentage. Body type is very important as well, I used to be more like you but beefed up at some point. I don't climb very hard either .
BMI is a hight weight chart with a fancy name. No more, no less. It has a passing correlation to body fat percent, but it is not a measure of percent body fat. Pinch tests, neck to waist ratio, and electrical impedence measures all only estimate percent body fat, but are better than BMI.
BMI is skewed towards shorter people.
And, yes you can shed 20 pounds, and, no it won't kill you.
|
|
|
|
|
I_do
Apr 29, 2011, 2:56 PM
Post #59 of 75
(16256 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232
|
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: I_do wrote: onarunning wrote: I_do wrote: curator wrote: Interesting post...It's true that not many climbers that have climbed 5.14 weigh close to 200. It is obviously more difficult to throw that much weight around. Again, Dean Potter has not climbed 5.14. But to answer the question. Mark Smith is the biggest 5.14 climber I've ever climbed with. He's not that big. Probably 6'4" and right around 200 lbs of solid muscle. What's even more interesting is the fact that he excels at technical crimpy routes. This is due to the fact that he is probably the most dedicated climber I've met. He'll wake up at 4 am to get warmed up before his project goes in the sun. He trains, takes care of himself, and as an added bonus he's the nicest guy ever. I don't believe that climbing at a very high level is possible for everyone but....I think despite the body you were born with if you are properly disciplined it is possible to climb into the 5.12+ and above range. And part of this is being commited to bringing your weight down. For someone like Mark dieting down to 200 is a healthy weight and any more would be anorexia. But to climb at your full potential you need a low BMI. that much is proven. That's not possible if you're tall. I'm 6'4 and just under 200 that's a BMI of 24 the highest that's considered healthy. To get in the low range of healthy I need to drop over 40lbs which would probably kill me. It might kill you, but I am 6'4 too and weigh around 160. I'm not unhealthy, I'm just a skinny 19 year old. I eat whatever I want and don't think I could gain weight if I wanted to. I don't climb that hard though, ha. Fair enough, but generally speaking taller people will have a higher BMI at a similair fat percentage. Body type is very important as well, I used to be more like you but beefed up at some point. I don't climb very hard either . BMI is a hight weight chart with a fancy name. No more, no less. It has a passing correlation to body fat percent, but it is not a measure of percent body fat. Pinch tests, neck to waist ratio, and electrical impedence measures all only estimate percent body fat, but are better than BMI. BMI is skewed towards shorter people. And, yes you can shed 20 pounds, and, no it won't kill you.
Funny you replied to this rather old post, because I accidentaly stepped on a electrical impedence scale last week.
First I understand how BMI works and how I should not pay to much attention. Secondly am at 207 pounds atm @13.5% fat (lets assume this measurement is correct. I said I couldn't drop 40.
13.5% of 207 is 28... So if I were to drop even 20 pounds of fat i'd be left @ 180 pounds and a fat percentage of 4.4%. So 40 is impossible to do in a healthy way losing twenty would be very hard.
At the moment I'm aiming to bring my weight to under 195 which I think shouldn't be too hard and I would be sub 10% body fat both of which is fine.
Lets see if it helps my climbing, i guess it should.
|
|
|
|
|
flesh
May 4, 2011, 4:41 AM
Post #60 of 75
(16132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 419
|
Fred is 160... tops.... he's short climbed w him in font two yrs ago... klem is 175.... I stood right next to him at big bend inmoab... my buddy is 172 6 ft 2 .... climbs v13.... u ppl r trippin..... when my friend while sitting in iso at a comp w sharma asked him his weight he said 155-165.... he's 6 1....... I'm sorry peeps.... u gotta cut the weight..... and the guy who said he would have 0% fat at 177 must b built like a brickshithouse... ur trippin too.... now go back to ur pretend world. Listen.... it won't help u make progress pretending.
|
|
|
|
|
justanotherclimber
May 4, 2011, 5:34 AM
Post #61 of 75
(16119 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2005
Posts: 60
|
once bumped into a6 6', 240lb, 19 years old some years back that walked up to the crag i was at and proceeded to onsight every route at the cliff up to .13b...i had no doubt he would hit .14 sometime very soon.
|
|
|
|
|
flesh
May 4, 2011, 5:51 PM
Post #62 of 75
(16054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 419
|
There's some anomalies. I'd like to point out these strong men you see climbing are much lighter than you would think. The body carries fat in places you can't see. Follow this link, the guy in the video Steve, is 6 2 172, according to him when my friend asked him. ANother friend is 6 1 160, he's been as low at 158, they both boulder v13. Granted, this is harder than .14a. He looks huge in the video, right? It's the guy with tatoos and scruff. You can look very very strong(and heavy) at a very light weight when your 5% body fat. When I showed some guys in the office this guy they thought he weighed 190 and called him a beast.
That being said, this guy could probably climb a .14a with an additional 18lbs extra weight if he really projected it and climbed extremely efficiently, maybe one that has a bouldery crux with good holds above and below this crux, that was a bit short.
http://www.momentumvm2.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=221:hellbelly-eric-decaria-noah-bigwood-and-steve-maisch&catid=13:video&Itemid=3
|
|
|
|
|
flesh
May 4, 2011, 6:04 PM
Post #63 of 75
(16044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 419
|
[quote "sidepull"]I think this is an interesting question. I'm less interested in the 190 number (I assume that's the OP's weight) than in the idea of weight becoming a limiting factor on harder climbs. In other words, at some point your grip strength and total body strength are unable to compensate for total mass.
Both Sharma and Jason Campbell seem to be pretty big guys. Not near 190, but probably in the 160-70 range. What about Chris Lindner? I can't think of any other really big climbers.
Oh wait, what was the name of that really strong Canadian climber that beat Sharma at the last couple of PCA comps - Nels? Yeah, he never climbed routes but he's a hulk.[/quote]
Sharma hovers around 160, nels and jason are ripped, but small. When nels beat sharma at the pca comp he was about 140, 145 max. After the comp he proceeded to to 8 one arm with each arm.
I'm sure some of these guys could climb a 14a at 190 lbs, but they certainly don't weigh 190, like Klem could gain 15lbs and do a 14a I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
May 4, 2011, 6:41 PM
Post #64 of 75
(16021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
I'm going to have a hard time believing vasya vorotnikov is less than 190. that guy is pretty huge (not in height but with muscle)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
May 4, 2011, 7:00 PM
Post #65 of 75
(16010 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: I'm going to have a hard time believing vasya vorotnikov is less than 190. that guy is pretty huge (not in height but with muscle)
ok, just saw some pics and not sure that's true. i just remember seeing him one or two years ago and remembering that he had gotten bigger from the first time I saw him.
|
|
|
|
|
Brooklyn_Mikey
May 5, 2011, 12:21 AM
Post #66 of 75
(15948 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2011
Posts: 8
|
I weigh 220 and I could probably climb it.
But I have like 2% body fat and can bench 315. Lol
(This post was edited by Brooklyn_Mikey on May 5, 2011, 1:00 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
May 5, 2011, 2:17 AM
Post #67 of 75
(15927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
Weight is hard to guess by looking at someone. I'm 5'10 and 165. Someone commented on how skinny I am at work one time and when I told them I weighed 165 they didn't believe me. So we pulled in a few people for a guessing game, and the average guess was around 145. When I stepped on the scale people couldn't believe it. I've always had very low body fat, just lucky genetics. About the only lucky genes I got.....
all that said, climbing seems to be one of the few sports where being skinny is an advantage.
(This post was edited by dynosore on May 5, 2011, 2:19 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
suprasoup
May 5, 2011, 8:10 PM
Post #68 of 75
(15830 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 309
|
Brooklyn_Mikey wrote: I weigh 220 and I could probably climb it. But I have like 2% body fat and can bench 315. Lol
and I weigh 165, bench 320 and can do a pull up with you on my back.
Try not to drown in all that spray,
Supra
|
|
|
|
|
theextremist04
May 7, 2011, 4:43 PM
Post #69 of 75
(15735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2010
Posts: 189
|
dynosore wrote: all that said, climbing seems to be one of the few sports where being skinny is an advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
skiclimb
May 8, 2011, 4:08 AM
Post #70 of 75
(15682 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1938
|
probably this guy
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
May 8, 2011, 3:29 PM
Post #71 of 75
(15640 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
suprasoup wrote: Brooklyn_Mikey wrote: I weigh 220 and I could probably climb it. But I have like 2% body fat and can bench 315. Lol and I weigh 165, bench 320 and can do a pull up with you on my back. Try not to drown in all that spray, Supra
So which 5.14's have you done lately? Or 5.13's? Or 5.12's
|
|
|
|
|
suprasoup
May 8, 2011, 9:03 PM
Post #72 of 75
(15617 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 309
|
enigma wrote: suprasoup wrote: Brooklyn_Mikey wrote: I weigh 220 and I could probably climb it. But I have like 2% body fat and can bench 315. Lol and I weigh 165, bench 320 and can do a pull up with you on my back. Try not to drown in all that spray, Supra So which 5.14's have you done lately? Or 5.13's? Or 5.12's
Check MP. I keep better track over there.
DO YOU EVEN CLIMB?
Supra
|
|
|
|
|
BigBob13
May 9, 2011, 1:01 AM
Post #73 of 75
(15571 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 8, 2011
Posts: 5
|
lazymonkey wrote: sure it does [image]http://www.fat2fitradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/bodytypes.jpg[/image]
I love lifting heavy things. Successful, knowledgeable people in the strength community (not gay body builders) have decided the body type stuff is mostly crap.
I certainly believe that climbing while very heavy is a large disadvantage. I weigh 210 at about 7% body fat. These are not bulshit padded numbers. I have huge strength, unfortunately huge strength is usually worthless in climbing. It hinders my ability to work tough crimpy routes. The only benefit is that huge strength helps a lot on compression boulder problems
(This post was edited by BigBob13 on May 9, 2011, 1:03 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 9, 2011, 4:47 AM
Post #74 of 75
(15521 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
suprasoup wrote: enigma wrote: suprasoup wrote: Brooklyn_Mikey wrote: I weigh 220 and I could probably climb it. But I have like 2% body fat and can bench 315. Lol and I weigh 165, bench 320 and can do a pull up with you on my back. Try not to drown in all that spray, Supra So which 5.14's have you done lately? Or 5.13's? Or 5.12's Check MP. I keep better track over there. DO YOU EVEN CLIMB? Supra
No. She doesn't.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
May 9, 2011, 5:24 AM
Post #75 of 75
(15506 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
curt wrote: suprasoup wrote: enigma wrote: suprasoup wrote: Brooklyn_Mikey wrote: I weigh 220 and I could probably climb it. But I have like 2% body fat and can bench 315. Lol and I weigh 165, bench 320 and can do a pull up with you on my back. Try not to drown in all that spray, Supra So which 5.14's have you done lately? Or 5.13's? Or 5.12's Check MP. I keep better track over there. DO YOU EVEN CLIMB? Supra No. She doesn't. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
