Starting diet late

[willblack]

Hey folks. I have now done a couple Rock Prodigy cycles, and every aspect of my training has gone super well with the exception of cutting weight. I find that I start my diet super motivated at the start of my power phase, stick with it for two weeks and lose about 5 pounds, which makes a noticeable difference in my campusing and bouldering, but then life happens and I go off the wagon for several weeks, still putting good effort into my workouts but not dieting. Then about a week before the end of my PE phase, I get back to it and lose a pound or two before it's time to send. I just find it difficult to maintain a rigorous diet for  six weeks. There is no doubt in my mind that dieting does wonders for my performance (I'm 6'5" and in my strength phase I usually weigh 165). With how big I am, it's obviously crucial to do everything I can to maximize my strength-to-weight ratio, but if I can't adhere to my diet I question the logic of starting so early. I'm considering starting my diet on the last week of my strength phase next time, which will hopefully allow me to start my sending phase right as I'm getting burnt out on dieting. Obviously it's a trade-less of a chance of being at the lowest possible weight, but better chance of sticking with the diet. What does everyone think of this? And what about how it will affect my strength phase? I enjoy feeling like I'm really crushing in my power phase, but isn't training heavy and sending light a good way to go?


Thanks y'all

[Jesse W.]

That's not a terrible idea, but another thing you may think about is just trying to clean up your diet in general so that you lose a pound every week or two for throughout the year (on average, as you'll have weeks where it fluctuates) and then you won't have to be so strict to cut the needed weight at the end of your cycle.

One other thing, at 6'5" and 165lbs, I wouldn't consider you that big. If I were your height and weight I'd get my bodyfat tested and would focus more on optimizing my body composition at that weight, trying to get your bodyfat low and improving your ratio of lean body mass, which may keep your weight the same but could increase your strength. At your current height and weight you're already at the low end of "normal weight" via BMI (not the most useful measurement, but a good general gauge) if you were to drop to 155lbs you'd be at the top end of "underweight" and that would definitely contribute to making it hard to attain/hard to sustain for any reasonable period of time.

[amalec]

For reference, both Chris Sharma and Ondra are about the same height. Sharma is about 165#, Ondra is about 150#. Those seem like brackets of reasonable BMI for top climbers. I plugged in some other climbers (Woods, Traversi, etc.) and tended to get similar BMI ranges (20.2-22.4)

The same BMI brackets at 6'5" are about 170#-189#...

[willblack]

Mar 15, 2015 9:09:28 GMT -7 Jesse W. said:

"That's not a terrible idea, but another thing you may think about is just trying to clean up your diet in general so that you lose a pound every week or two for throughout the year (on average, as you'll have weeks where it fluctuates) and then you won't have to be so strict to cut the needed weight at the end of your cycle."

For the most part, I eat really well, I just eat a lot. 165 seems to be the best weight for me to hangboard, as I don't seem to recover as well at a lighter weight so I don't necessarily want to be lighter than 165 all the time.

"One other thing, at 6'5" and 165lbs, I wouldn't consider you that big. If I were your height and weight I'd get my bodyfat tested and would focus more on optimizing my body composition at that weight, trying to get your bodyfat low and improving your ratio of lean body mass, which may keep your weight the same but could increase your strength. At your current height and weight you're already at the low end of "normal weight" via BMI (not the most useful measurement, but a good general gauge) if you were to drop to 155lbs you'd be at the top end of "underweight" and that would definitely contribute to making it hard to attain/hard to sustain for any reasonable period of time."

I'm definitely not super big, but I consider it important to get lean for climbing because, being tall, I have a lot of non-muscle lean weight. I'm definitely at a healthy and fit weight when I'm 165, I just notice that I climb harder at a lighter ( though arguably less healthy and less sustainable) weight. The reason I say my goal weight is 155 is more because this is where I believe my body fat percentage will be optimal based on measuring BF% at different weights. I guess the thing I'm not so sure about is whether it is preferable to diet in the power phase even if it doesn't affect my weight when the time comes to send. On one hand, being at a heavier weight would probably allow me to recover more and build more strength, but I wonder if training heavy would also diminish the gains in "neuromuscular coordination" that is supposedly a goal of power training.

[jessebruni]

You say in your original post that you stick with your diet for two weeks but then "life happens". In my own reading it sounds like that is your problem right there. The diet you're undertaking doesn't sound sustainable. "Life happening" should be able to fit within the confines of your diet, or else you need to have the discipline to stop life from happening (good luck explaining to your wife why you're not taking her out to dinner on the anniversary though ). I think life happening is inevitable and the best diet plans around that fact. If you fall off the wagon one day that's okay, your diet isn't ruined, you just have to get back on the wagon. If you indulged during your diet and had a few slices of pizza fine, eat healthier next meal. Your diet isn't ruined by one single meal, it's ruined by a lot of bad meals.

Now having said all this if you're trying to go from an active body fat level to an athletic body fat level (i.e. 18-15% down to 8-10%) it may take more than just dieting. It may take committing to a few lifestyle changes. If you're a regular soda drinker, or you put down a case of beer each week, you should probably ask yourself what you prefer more, drinking or sending. You can have both to some extent, but I guarantee you that you'll have trouble maintaining an athletic body fat level if you don't eat like an athlete. That basically means rarely eating sugar, rarely drinking alcohol, rarely consuming any empty calories, and rare meaning something like once a month or less.

Another thing to note is that weight loss may not really be your issue. 165 lbs at 6'5" sounds quite lean to me, though perhaps you just have a naturally lean body type. Before you commit to losing even more weight you should seriously consider whether weight is actually what's causing you to fail or perhaps it's weak fingers, weak pulling muscles, poor technique, etc.

Good luck on your quest man!

[MarkAnderson]

In my experience, finding the right diet is a matter of trial and error. Everybody is different. Try some different things and see what works for you. This forum is full of good suggestions that are worth a try.

Regarding dieting during the Power Phase, that's typically what I do, and it works fine. If I diet too hard, I will usually have 1 or maybe 2 workouts in which I feel loopy and my performance suffers. But I haven't noticed any long-term issues.

It's definitely much harder if you have to lose a lot of weight in a short amount of time (like, if you're trying to perform on the Campus Board, so you want to be at your goal weight by the third week of your Power Phase). The most enjoyable/least miserable approach is to take your time and aim to reach your goal weight mid-way through your Performance Peak. It's really easy to go overboard with dieting, so be sensible. You don't need to diet like crazy every season. For someone at your height/weight, losing 5 pounds is probably enough most of the time. Consider your goals and save your will power for the seasons in which you really need that extra 5 pound edge.

[slimshaky]

interesting thread, at 6'5" and 165 i would definitely not call you heavy. i am in the 6'2" to 6'3" range and my fighting weight is around 159 for burl routes down to around 155 for more endurancy routes. i am wayyy twiggy. actually, this last couple months i got up to 166 and thought i looked like conan, (but everybody at work still thought i looked twiggy).

i am very fortunate that i don't have to work too hard to stay within a certain range, but it does take effort for me to drop down to my lower fighting weight. if work is super busy, i am usually eating out at lunch, and i crave comfort food and margaritas/beer/milkshakes when i get home late. in general, i let myself eat pretty much whatever i want during my strength phase, and then i try to clean it up a bit during my power phase.

i think one of the really good pieces of advice that mark and mike have mentioned is trying to get out and take a walk, maybe even a couple times a day. this helps in several practical sorts of ways that i don't think they have mentioned. for example, if i head out for my lunch walk at around 11:20, then i am out of my office before folks come by and ask if i want to go grab a burger/bbq/etc. that sort of thing - an idle body is the devil's buffet zombie.

[climber511]

There is some kind of sweet spot between dieting to lose weight and working out to become stronger. If strength per pound of body weight is the critical aspect to climbing (and I think it is within certain general guidelines) - there may come a point where increasing strength could be better than losing more weight. At 6' 5" and 165# I would guess you might be a candidate for increasing overall and specific strengths more so than becoming even thinner.

[robdebruyn]

I have to agree with some of the posters above. I'm just shy of 6' and I consider 155 to be my optimal fighting weight (and I rarely get there!). My girlfriend thinks I'm too thin (twiggy, as slimshaky puts it) at that point. My legs are like pencils, and I don't carry much extra fat. I can't imagine stretching myself out another 5 inches at that weight. My weight usually hovers somewhere between 160 and 165, which has never seemed like an issue to me, although maybe it's because I climb at Rumney, where most climbs trend toward boulder problems separated by good rests. Maybe if I were projecting endurance routes it would be a bigger deal. But still, 6'5" at 155 lbs seems awfully thin.

I remember hearing several climbers on the Training Beta podcast say that they notice a difference between feeling "light" and feeling "strong". They all said they'd rather feel strong. Especially if you're finding the dieting to be particularly hard to maintain, I guess I would ask if you see any noticeable performance benefits, and if so, are they worth it?

Then again, I hate dieting, so maybe I'm just trying to validate my half-hearted commitment to that aspect of the program

[MarkAnderson]

Mar 17, 2015 6:01:52 GMT -7 robdebruyn said:

I hate dieting, so maybe I'm just trying to validate my half-hearted commitment to that aspect of the program

This is very insightful and likely correct. However, you don't need to validate your half-hearted commitment.  Unless you're getting paid for it, climbing is meant to be fun. There's nothing wrong with weighing (pun intended) the pros and cons of dieting relative to your performance goals and simply deciding that dieting is not necessary, or not worth the discomfort.  For example, you might decide that you can send your project in 3 days at 160 or 5 days at 165, and you don't mind committing the extra days.  On the other hand, maybe your project is an airplane flight away and you only have 4 days to give, so you really do need to be at your best if you want to send.  For people who are already at a healthy body weight, dieting is meant to be a last resort to give you that extra edge to send, both because it's not sustainable in most cases, and it's not cumulative.

That said, there is something "wrong" (or at least "incorrect") with pretending like weight doesn't matter though. Then you really are deluding yourself. 

[jorgemendoza]

You guys are mighty giants!... My DL likes to pretend that I am 5'7", but I am 5'6" (Ha!). Currently, I am hovering in 162~165lbs because bread is so effing delicious.

I have struggled with my weight number for more than 15 years. Before I started climbing, almost 3 years ago, I was at my lowest weight. I weighed 145lbs. I used to mountain bike and trail run daily, and my diet was sustainable (read, good food in reasonable quantities). Three years ago, a lighter me was a weaker climber. Now, I am about 20lbs heavier, but I like to think (pretty sure) that most of that weight was added as muscle into my upper body. My cyclist legs are still latent, and even after eliminating cycling and running, those sexy heavy legs are still there.

My goal is to get to 155lbs. How did I get to this number? Easy peasy. I bought some fat calipers and got AN IDEA of what is my fat percentage. It is around 12% according to seven-point, three-point and one-point measurements. If I lose 6 pounds, I will be under 9% fat percentage, and that's great. I recommend you to get some fat calipers along with a scale and tape measure, these are useful tools.

I started keeping a log of weight, waist girth, hips girth (I have mighty, impossible-to-get-rid-of love-handles)and fat percentage. I do this weekly on Wednesdays. I chose these areas, because that's where I see that I have most of my accumulated fat. Perhaps in the future, I will focus on my legs... but that's when I get close to V-ridiculously hard.

I hope you find this helpful.

[robdebruyn]

Mar 17, 2015 12:51:45 GMT -7 MarkAnderson said:

Mar 17, 2015 6:01:52 GMT -7 robdebruyn said:

I hate dieting, so maybe I'm just trying to validate my half-hearted commitment to that aspect of the program

This is very insightful and likely correct. However, you don't need to validate your half-hearted commitment.  Unless you're getting paid for it, climbing is meant to be fun. There's nothing wrong with weighing (pun intended) the pros and cons of dieting relative to your performance goals and simply deciding that dieting is not necessary, or not worth the discomfort.  For example, you might decide that you can send your project in 3 days at 160 or 5 days at 165, and you don't mind committing the extra days.  On the other hand, maybe your project is an airplane flight away and you only have 4 days to give, so you really do need to be at your best if you want to send.  For people who are already at a healthy body weight, dieting is meant to be a last resort to give you that extra edge to send, both because it's not sustainable in most cases, and it's not cumulative.

That said, there is something "wrong" (or at least "incorrect") with pretending like weight doesn't matter though. Then you really are deluding yourself. 

This is well said, and contains some good points that perhaps I didn't make as clear. I'm not trying to say that weight doesn't matter, since (as climber511 pointed out) strength-weight ratio is so important. I had a friend that lost a lot of weight over the course of ~2 weeks being really sick. Didn't climb a lick during the two weeks, but lost around 15 lbs. On his first day back, he sent all three of his projects, all at higher grades than his previous best redpoint. Obviously, crash dieting isn't healthy, and definitely not sustainable, but seeing that was eye-opening. 

For this season, I view all of my goal routes as stepping stones, or training for larger goals, and therefore not "important enough" to commit to the discomfort. I do have some lofty mid- and long-term goal routes that mean quite a bit to me, and if being uncomfortable and changing lifestyle is what it takes to send those when I get to them, then I'll definitely do it. I just haven't gotten into any mega-projects that have required me to pull out all the stops just yet. 

[MarkAnderson]

Mar 18, 2015 5:59:07 GMT -7 robdebruyn said:

Mar 17, 2015 12:51:45 GMT -7 MarkAnderson said:

This is very insightful and likely correct. However, you don't need to validate your half-hearted commitment.  Unless you're getting paid for it, climbing is meant to be fun. There's nothing wrong with weighing (pun intended) the pros and cons of dieting relative to your performance goals and simply deciding that dieting is not necessary, or not worth the discomfort.  For example, you might decide that you can send your project in 3 days at 160 or 5 days at 165, and you don't mind committing the extra days.  On the other hand, maybe your project is an airplane flight away and you only have 4 days to give, so you really do need to be at your best if you want to send.  For people who are already at a healthy body weight, dieting is meant to be a last resort to give you that extra edge to send, both because it's not sustainable in most cases, and it's not cumulative.

That said, there is something "wrong" (or at least "incorrect") with pretending like weight doesn't matter though. Then you really are deluding yourself. 

This is well said, and contains some good points that perhaps I didn't make as clear. I'm not trying to say that weight doesn't matter, since (as climber511 pointed out) strength-weight ratio is so important. I had a friend that lost a lot of weight over the course of ~2 weeks being really sick. Didn't climb a lick during the two weeks, but lost around 15 lbs. On his first day back, he sent all three of his projects, all at higher grades than his previous best redpoint. Obviously, crash dieting isn't healthy, and definitely not sustainable, but seeing that was eye-opening. 

For this season, I view all of my goal routes as stepping stones, or training for larger goals, and therefore not "important enough" to commit to the discomfort. I do have some lofty mid- and long-term goal routes that mean quite a bit to me, and if being uncomfortable and changing lifestyle is what it takes to send those when I get to them, then I'll definitely do it. I just haven't gotten into any mega-projects that have required me to pull out all the stops just yet. 

That sounds like the ideal strategy to me.