Finding the right weight at an older age

Lighter IS better.  The human body was designed to thrive on a very low cal diet.

Nick Drake wrote:

What's the definition of "harder" and most people though? If it's slightly overhanging techy sport the weight portion of "power to weight" is obviously the ticket, but there are plenty of routes that are assisted by the ability to burl through a bit. I'm thinking of Alli Rainey's change in style and physique here. My thought would never be to go out and intentionally target hypertrophy, but simply to not be so concerned over weight that I'm in a constant calorie deficit. Allow enough recovery to get more frequent high quality climbing in.

At the end of the day though I also think weight/BMI gets focused on far too intently. I would say that for majority of climbers tactics and head games are the elephant in the room (that's hard to focus on with and quantify). It muscle nor fat mass doesn't matter if you freak out 4 feet above your last bolt, they don't matter if you are just campusing through moderate feet, your precision of footwork is shit, if you try to tech/intermediate your way around any power move, if you try to power move through any technical sequence, or if you're me and you spend weeks on the same damn route because you're blind and miss a key hold that turns a V5 move into a v3 move.......

I see these things happening in the intermediate 5.11+ to 13- range, even from a few partners well into the 13s. A lot of them have had the specific habit their whole climbing career and never address it. Most of them get sucked into weight management and physical training. If you're putting 80% of your effort into getting minutiae of physical training that might account for 5-20% of success while not addressing the psychological and technique factors.

I know you see a much broader spectrum of climbers and certainly have a hell of a lot more time on the rock. Am I way off base here and just projecting my experience on other people? 

For sure, a climber can screw up a lot of things technically or be psychologically not ready for hard climbing. I'm assuming for my argument that the climber has that more or less in hand. Then the next step is making sure you aren't carrying more than you need and that your fingers are strong enough to handle that load easily. Sure burl can help but only so far and it's certainly not mandatory for fairly hard climbs. For me that means 13+ and up.

Seriously dude, if you feel healthy and perform better and climb harder, then you are doing ok imho.

The truth is some people sometimes want you to be mediocre and stay within the comfort zone. But you are in your 50s so you know this way better than us. 

djh860 wrote: Lighter IS better.  The human body was designed to thrive on a very low cal diet.

Not really true. Fat is a good thing not a bad thing. However humans have gotten to the point where we don't have to work for food and can get way to much fat.

Nick Drake wrote:

What's the definition of "harder" and most people though? If it's slightly overhanging techy sport the weight portion of "power to weight" is obviously the ticket, but there are plenty of routes that are assisted by the ability to burl through a bit. I'm thinking of Alli Rainey's change in style and physique here. My thought would never be to go out and intentionally target hypertrophy, but simply to not be so concerned over weight that I'm in a constant calorie deficit. Allow enough recovery to get more frequent high quality climbing in.

At the end of the day though I also think weight/BMI gets focused on far too intently. I would say that for majority of climbers tactics and head games are the elephant in the room (that's hard to focus on with and quantify). It muscle nor fat mass doesn't matter if you freak out 4 feet above your last bolt, they don't matter if you are just campusing through moderate feet, your precision of footwork is shit, if you try to tech/intermediate your way around any power move, if you try to power move through any technical sequence, or if you're me and you spend weeks on the same damn route because you're blind and miss a key hold that turns a V5 move into a v3 move.......

I see these things happening in the intermediate 5.11+ to 13- range, even from a few partners well into the 13s. A lot of them have had the specific habit their whole climbing career and never address it. Most of them get sucked into weight management and physical training. If you're putting 80% of your effort into getting minutiae of physical training that might account for 5-20% of success while not addressing the psychological and technique factors.

I know you see a much broader spectrum of climbers and certainly have a hell of a lot more time on the rock. Am I way off base here and just projecting my experience on other people? 

I'm 34 6'1 155#. BMI and body fat similar to the OP. I've always been this build. I feel like I have sufficient lower body power, but feel underpowered on my contact strength and upper body. I lose a lot of holds when I'm tired. Crimps, pockets and edges are useless. I'm living for slopers and jugs. I'm looking to gain endurance and strength in my weak areas as well as improve my technique. 

Contact strength would be something to train. I think cardio might be helpful for climbing to help manage the stress and fatigue from longer pitches and tough moves. I don't think packing mass on to your frame is a smart idea. Gravity seems to be the biggest competition out there. The comment about being blind is hilarious and hits really close to home. I love turning a 5.10 into a holy cow just by missing something. I also think my lack of experience at harder grades generally makes routes harder for me. The more I do them the easier they get, but there are things I miss that kill my ability to grade up. 

John RB wrote: I've been trying to tune my weight for good climbing performance.  I'm 6' tall, 55 years old, and here's the thing:

I recently went from 174 lbs to 158 lbs and I can feel the difference when climbing at my limit (16 lbs matters on the steep stuff, right?).  And my girlfriend loves my chest/abs now, which makes me happy of course.  

Hi again. For reference: I'm also 6' tall. Historically, I've hovered around 155-160lbs, although recently I've put on some muscle and I'm up to about 165, so it sounds like your weight is not unhealthy or abnormal to me. You're definitely on the thinner end. 

FWIW, I lost around 55 lb, from 220 to 165(which is still borderline overweight according to the bmi chart), at 5'10", never had visible abs, and people were telling me i looked sick.  i was in the best shape of my life and felt great.  ive gained 5-10 lbs back and maintained that for almost 2 years, and think of myself as pretty healthy.  if you feel good, fuck 'em.  the average american doesnt know what healthy looks like.  

: how do you balance trying to look healthy with maintaining low body fat in order to climb well?  Would you gladly walk around looking like a cancer patient if you could send 1-2 grades harder?”

If climbing is your everything than you will do anything for it. I personally see life as far too rich to make anything that high of a priority other than my wife and son. I have still managed to slowly but consistently up my grade. “Everything in moderation including moderation!”

Paul Deger wrote: “Questions for you folks: how do you balance trying to look healthy with maintaining low body fat in order to climb well?  Would you gladly walk around looking like a cancer patient if you could send 1-2 grades harder?”

I balance it with pizza.

Pertinent to the topic at hand. climbing.com/people/peaches…

Ryan Pfleger wrote: Pertinent to the topic at hand. climbing.com/people/peaches…

Peaches is a great writer, and I always learn something from him.

OT, but wtf is wrong with the big toe on his left foot in that picture??

John RB wrote:

Peaches is a great writer, and I always learn something from him.

OT, but wtf is wrong with the big toe on his left foot in that picture??

That toe is mutant! Or perhaps a really bad case of bunions.

Buck Rio wrote:

That toe is mutant! Or perhaps a really bad case of bunions.

probably broke it and didn't get it fixed right

Buck Rio wrote:

That toe is mutant! Or perhaps a really bad case of bunions.

Yes, those are bunions. I speak from personal experience. That's what decades of wearing tight-fitting rock shoes and standing on tiny edges can do to you.

Martin le Roux wrote:

Yes, those are bunions. I speak from personal experience. That's what decades of wearing tight-fitting rock shoes and standing on tiny edges can do to you.

I think you must have to be pre-disposed to them. I spent all of the 90's & 00's in VERY tight fitting shoes, and I have some horrible feet, but nothing like that dude. I have arthritis and bone spurs and am short a couple of nails, but all of my toes face roughly the same direction.

Buck Rio wrote:

I think you must have to be pre-disposed to them.

Yes, that's what my podiatrist said. The consensus seems to be that the underlying risk depends on your foot structure, which is inherited, but whether you actually develop them is affected by factors such as tight shoes and spending lots of time on your feet. Apparently they're also common among ballet dancers.