scott_harpell Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 Person A can squat 350 lbs once (their max). Person B can squat 150 lbs once (their max). Person A can therefore do more repetitions than person b at say 50 lbs. Not necessarily Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 But if you're chasing alpine, mtneering, or anything that requires an approach I'd say put on all the lean muscle mass you can. Just my 2 fat ass cents. This is why Ihab rocks out in the mountains: Quote
scott_harpell Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 Person A can squat 350 lbs once (their max). Person B can squat 150 lbs once (their max). Person A can therefore do more repetitions than person b at say 50 lbs. Not necessarily The guy lifting 350 is likely doing hypertrophy training and would tired more quickly than a guy who was well conditioned and could only lift say 200. Quote
Dru Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 You kids can count all the calories you want... I would argue the more you weigh (muscle not fat) the more weight you can carry on your back and still be efficient in the mtns... in addition to staying warmer. It’s like giving a 100 lb pack to a 180 lb person and a 130 lb person... the 180 lb person is going to be able to hike faster with that weight. I guess if hard trad/sport is your game cool... enjoy your wheatgrass shake. But if you're chasing alpine, mtneering, or anything that requires an approach I'd say put on all the lean muscle mass you can. Just my 2 fat ass cents. nope. muscle is inefficient at staying warm. even worse at altitude. and a poor source of energy compared to fat. Quote
RuMR Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 Face it NOLSe...you're gonna have to cut weight if you want to climb 5.12 in the mountains instead of doing hikeups... Quote
AJScott Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 I am 6'6'' and 185, I got a 21.4 BMI from that webpage. Length is Strength I like my wieght right now, but would like to be at 190, I need more upper body strength for the brown route at the climbing gym. Quote
fern Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 Bogen's link says I need to lose 40lbs. Anyone know Hugh Herr's surgeon? City Park here I come! Quote
Dru Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 Bogen's link says I need to lose 40lbs. Anyone know Hugh Herr's surgeon? City Park here I come! ice climbing next weekend, i'm sure we can arrange for an avalanche burial and some frostbite! which particular extremities would you like to lose? Quote
ChrisT Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 Hah! You and me both. You know that kd lang song "Big Boned Gal" ?- I think she wrote that about me. Quote
John Frieh Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 Face it NOLSe...you're gonna have to cut weight if you want to climb 5.12 in the mountains instead of doing hikeups... Guess I could start with taking out the 2 gauge prince al... Quote
Bogen Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 Did you girls change it to female? Did you double-check your mearurements? I think that the only variable in that calculation that corrects for body size is the neck measurement, there must be some more accurate calculators incorporating calf and forearm measurements, which also don't store as much fat... Quote
ChrisT Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 I don't believe a computer can calculate what's ideal for me. It's bogus IMO. Petite I ain't but for probably the first time in my life, I am happy with body size, shape and weight. Call it acceptance. And I still like big tall men. Quote
RuMR Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 i'm glad you've come to terms with a slow metabolism...seriously, its ok...really it is... Quote
Bogen Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 I doubt if any of us here are in bad shape, but I bet we all think about weight 5 or 6 hours into a nasty approach, or when we're trying to crank off that damn little- sloper... Anyway, don't get too touchy about it, you're right not to entrust your self-image to a calculator. link It seems that the navy employees must pass this body fat test. Understandably, many have taken it to task. Background: The U.S. Navy employs equations that use height and body circumferences to estimate percent body fat. However, many sailors question the accuracy of the Navy’s body fat estimation equations. Many individuals believe that skinfold-based equations are more accurate than circumference-based equations. This perception may be due to the fact that skinfold-based equations are more commonly used in settings such as health clubs. There may also be a psychological effect, since an individual being measured with skinfold calipers can see the fat fold pulled up by the assessor. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of the Navy’s circumference-based equations with the accuracy of three well-known skinfold-based equations: Behnke and Wilmore; Durnin and Womersley; and Jackson and Pollock (men) or Jackson, Pollock, and Ward (women). The criterion for accuracy was percent body fat determined using a four-compartment body composition model. Results: These results indicate that the Navy’s circumference-based equation is equal or superior in predicting four-compartment body fat when compared with commonly used skinfold equations. It is true that for some individuals body fat may be more accurately predicted using a skinfold equation than using the Navy equation. However, in the absence of a criterion measure against which to compare the skinfold and circumference equations, it is not possible to tell which prediction is more accurate. Given that the standard error of estimate for the Navy equation is lower than that for any of the skinfold equations tested, there is a greater likelihood that the Navy equation will provide the better body fat estimate. Quote
scott_harpell Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 I did dunk tanks when I was an athlete. Supposedly they were the most accurate. Quote
glassgowkiss Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 You kids can count all the calories you want... I would argue the more you weigh (muscle not fat) the more weight you can carry on your back and still be efficient in the mtns... in addition to staying warmer. It’s like giving a 100 lb pack to a 180 lb person and a 130 lb person... the 180 lb person is going to be able to hike faster with that weight. I guess if hard trad/sport is your game cool... enjoy your wheatgrass shake. But if you're chasing alpine, mtneering, or anything that requires an approach I'd say put on all the lean muscle mass you can. Just my 2 fat ass cents. nope. muscle is inefficient at staying warm. even worse at altitude. and a poor source of energy compared to fat. you guys need more time reading and less computer time. both statements are dead wrong. dru- muscle tissue is what generates heat, not fat. the reason you feel cold is oxygen level in your bloodstream. staying warm is not related to your total body mass. off course a smaller person will radiate heat faster, but it will also warm up faster with movement. this first statement is soooo bs. now why would you need a big pack in the mountains anyway? with modern gear your gear should not go over 35lbs anyway. sorry pal, but i can tell you have never been on a harder pitch (12 and up). bacause if you climbed such stuff you'd know that your forearms is what goes first. higher the body mass harder your forearms work. both of you need to freshen' up on some basic physiology and excercise physiology. werd Quote
glassgowkiss Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 A different approach: Person A can squat 350 lbs once (their max). Person B can squat 150 lbs once (their max). Person A can therefore do more repetitions than person b at say 50 lbs. Now imagine that 50 lbs is a pack. Person A can hike faster and longer with 50 lbs on their back than person b. The only reason I suggested lean muscle mass is that its strength without the bulk so its impact to your rock specific climbing skills will be minimal. not true at all! you are comparing apples and oranges. maximum power has to do with fast twitch fibers and endurance has to do with slow twitch fibers. so person b workout format might be endurance, hence they can squat more with 50 lbs then person a. now this is my experiience, that a 180lbs person will do fewer pull ups then a 130 lbs pesron (the same fitness level of course). and show me how many people over 200 lbs can do a single pull up with let's say 45 lbs on their belt. now i am not that strong, but i can crank at least 4 at this moment without mouch weight training in the past 5 years. Quote
drater Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 and show me how many people over 200 lbs can do a single pull up with let's say 45 lbs on their belt. You can start with me, 203 this morning on the scale (after a lengthy piss & big brown coiler) and weighted pullups are a big part of my training program. Don't have Olympic weights as I train at home, so don't use the 45# plate barometer but usually do one warm up set with just bodyweight, 1 set to failure with 25# plate, 1 set to failure with 2 25# plates, and 1 set to failure with 3 25#plates. Done twice a week, 1 day pullups/1 day chinups. Can obviously do more reps with pullups as biceps are in better biomechanical position to assist but today was chinups and still managed 7 reps with 50# and 4 with 75#. Although I could do a lot more reps when I weighed 175 a few years back. Don't believe the lies children, shit really does change after 30. Quote
RuMR Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 no doubt about that...as far as moving weight, i'm way stronger now than i was in my 20's.... climbed harder back then though... Quote
Dru Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 You kids can count all the calories you want... I would argue the more you weigh (muscle not fat) the more weight you can carry on your back and still be efficient in the mtns... in addition to staying warmer. It’s like giving a 100 lb pack to a 180 lb person and a 130 lb person... the 180 lb person is going to be able to hike faster with that weight. I guess if hard trad/sport is your game cool... enjoy your wheatgrass shake. But if you're chasing alpine, mtneering, or anything that requires an approach I'd say put on all the lean muscle mass you can. Just my 2 fat ass cents. nope. muscle is inefficient at staying warm. even worse at altitude. and a poor source of energy compared to fat. you guys need more time reading and less computer time. both statements are dead wrong. dru- muscle tissue is what generates heat, not fat. the reason you feel cold is oxygen level in your bloodstream. staying warm is not related to your total body mass. off course a smaller person will radiate heat faster, but it will also warm up faster with movement. this first statement is soooo bs. now why would you need a big pack in the mountains anyway? with modern gear your gear should not go over 35lbs anyway. sorry pal, but i can tell you have never been on a harder pitch (12 and up). bacause if you climbed such stuff you'd know that your forearms is what goes first. higher the body mass harder your forearms work. both of you need to freshen' up on some basic physiology and excercise physiology. werd If you have 5% body fat where is the energy going to come from to warm you up? Probably from burning muscle. Whereas if you have a higher fat content you can burn fat to stay warm and keep your muscles strong. Training for altitude? Cheeseburgers Quote
drater Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 (edited) no doubt about that...as far as moving weight, i'm way stronger now than i was in my 20's.... climbed harder back then though... Yeah, same here but I've seen enough +40 hardmen (&hardwomen) to know it doesn't have to be that way. Of course, the absense of gainful employment and family responsibility had weigh (punny, huh?) more to do with it than weight. Edited December 8, 2004 by Blowboarder Quote
RuMR Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 amen to that...i was basically climbing ALL of the time back then...now i'm sitting here on cc.com spraying about climbing.... Quote
glassgowkiss Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 so blowboarder you are in a minority. rudy- this might have to do with strenghth vs proprioception training (time spent on rock). also don't forget that you can climb only as hard as your weakest link will let you (forearms). your maximum power might be up, but how you use it ia a question. pure strength/endurance training only gives you a good base. climbing (on real rock!) makes you efficient at it. this is what gives you ability to use as little strength and still stick the hold. Quote
specialed Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 Who fucking cares bitches just go climbing. Quote
Dru Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 Who fucking cares bitches just go climbing. Admit it, you just ate a cheeseburger Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.