Do I need to stop drinking beer and alcohol to climb 5.12 [Solved! Nope! But I'll cut back anyways]

Calories in/calories out for weight management is true but of little worth for many people. It says nothing to the hormonal effects of different foods—hormonal effects that influence behavior in usually unnoticed ways. Effects like energy levels to get out and do stuff. Effects like what foods you are driven to eat. Effects like your willpower to avoid certain foods. A side effect of the steroid prednisone is fat gain and fat redistribution. How does that square with calories in/out? 

Ted Pinson wrote:

www.biolayne.com/articles/nutrition/is-a-calorie-truly-a-calorie/

I read that article, did not see how it really answered the question.

Complication 1: The digestive tract is not just a mixture of nutrients with human digestive chemicals, and researchers are a long ways from extensive study of its non-human inhabitants ("micro-biome"). So what counts as an "edible calorie" (versus "insoluble fiber" versus "soluble fiber")?
Cellulose? Seems clear that it is "insoluble fiber" for (almost all?) humans, but (mostly?) edible calories for cattle.

Inulin? What about that "soluble fiber"? Perhaps we lack human enzymes to digest it, but many of us have bacteria in our intestines that can feed on it. No doubt different humans have different kinds and blends of bacteria in their intestines. So maybe inulin counts as more of an edible calorie for some humans, while for others much of it passes through undigested (?).

Or maybe some humans have more effective blends of enzymes for digesting some foods.
Also maybe some ingested substances might hinder digestion of some nutrients.

For sure the recent findings are that people with different micro-biomes have different success with maintaining / losing / gaining weight.

Complication 2: Metabolism rate is not constant for the same person. So the "calories out" part of the equation is problematic.
Do some reading about brown fat versus white fat.

Complication 3: We're not robots.
So even if the "Calories In versus Calories Out" were literally exactly true, it's not helpful for a large number of real humans who live out in a complex environment rich in variety of both food and exercise. The CIvCO strategy is sustainable in a laboratory / hospital / prison enviroment, but pretty difficult for humans living interesting lives out in the real world of work + social + travel + exercise to sustain the _motivation_ to keep that "counting" discipline.

So I think it's fair to say that the great majority of "thousands" of nutritionists and other professionals are convinced that CIvCO is not a helpful _actionable_ strategy for the majority of their athletic clients.

Ken

Ted Pinson wrote:The results of literally thousands of scientific nutritional studies have yielded the same results: if you control for total caloric intake, the results are the same.

This is rather misleading, because "intake" is the easy part to measure. The "calories burned" side of the CIvCO equation is the hard part to measure accurately: both difficult and expensive.

For example, in the few studies that really worked on careful measurement of caloric expenditure, some found that some people do way more fidgeting and squirming than others, while spending time _not_ "Exercising". And that
this fidgeting and squirming makes a significant difference in calories burned per hour of non-exercise.

Then there are differences in metabolism rate (not so easily measured).
And the actual calories burned even by specific exercise activities is not so simple.
hint: the simple cheap methods typically over-estimate calorie expenditure in exercise.

So most of those "literally thousands" of studies just didn't _try_ very hard to measure the calorie expenditure side of the formula.

. . (and of course most of them ran only for a short number of weeks, so do not take into account longer-term
. . . adaptations of micro-biome and metabolism and non-exercise fidgeting to the experimental "thing".
. . . And might not apply to the years real-world humans are required to make a diet strategy keep working).

Therefore the exactness of the CIvCO formula is hard to prove. Likely if you come up with complicated enough Definitions of both sides of the formula, it turns out to be somehow True.
But those Definitions are not likely to be easily measurable in experimental studies -- or _actionable_ for real-world humans.

Ken

Wow...page 2 and we're already calling out someone's climbing ability as if it relates to the argument.  

I drink beer, whiskey, and whatever else you got.  I eat whenever I feel like it...baking cookies right now! (Spoiler...I'm going to eat them late at night)  I can also climb 5.12 when I feel like trying that hard.  Does that make my opinion on nutritional science any more valid than Ted's?  Nope, sure doesn't.

There are definitely funner ways to get better at climbing. I think of abstaining from alcohol as a last-ditch effort to maybe lose a couple pounds or improve some nebulous functionality of the body when you need just a little bit extra to do some specific route. It certainly isn't appropriate for long term success!

Warren Harding died of liver failure and FA'd the nose, so I wouldn't think alcohol is a limiting factor in climbing.

I suspect the answer to the original question is yes. Or at least, cut back significantly. One or two beers every night has an effect on performance. I find that when I drink and then climb the next day I feel it. You should at least try it and see how you feel.

Walter Edly wrote: Warren Harding died of liver failure and FA'd the nose, so I wouldn't think alcohol is a limiting factor in climbing.

Aid climbing is for people who can’t perform. 

switch to bacon

Nothing like a good ol MP brawl to entertain me on my break!

I certainly don’t need, or want to loose weight. I probably need to stop being such a baby.

Gotta say, I haven’t heard many strong arguments.

I’ve been starting to think of it more from the perspective that I’m filling myself wit carbs and simple sugars in the evening that’s probably impacting things like muscle growth, healing, and such as I train.

5.12 trad is the goal. Not much sport around here. Over winter, though, I’ll be training mostly in the gym with some trips to read areas.

I do have some .11+ trad in the ticklist, and hard trad 10s, but I’m not consistent. I certainly need to work my headgame, but I also need to work on form, with a focus on generating greater core and finger strength.

Here, why don’t you hear what a 5.14 climber has to say about nutrition:

Tl;dr those carbs (along with protein) are literally exactly what your body needs to get stronger.

Chad Hiatt wrote: Wow...page 2 and we're already calling out someone's climbing ability as if it relates to the argument.  

I drink beer, whiskey, and whatever else you got.  I eat whenever I feel like it...baking cookies right now! (Spoiler...I'm going to eat them late at night)  I can also climb 5.12 when I feel like trying that hard.  Does that make my opinion on nutritional science any more valid than Ted's?  Nope, sure doesn't.

Actually, it does. I'm obviously exaggerating regarding Teddy's lack of climbing ability but I'm sure he would admit he's not a 5.12 climber. Anyone who has actually trained for something would know that simply counting calories means nothing. 

If you are fat and want to lose weight, yes, less calories equals less weight but if you are dieting for performance it's a completely different picture. A few beers worth of calories means nothing to someone training. It would be much more significant to your motivation, sleep, etc but some people actually thrive on the relaxing effects of a nightly beer or two. In my Tri days the German pros were known for incorporating beer into their training. 

Nick, the irony is that I never actually made the argument you’re accusing me of.  In fact, I brought that up to argue that a beer at night likely WON’T have an effect, because again: it’s total calories consumed vs burned, NOT what/when they are that matters for weight loss.  You are making it seem like fat loss doesn’t matter, but that’s literally the only thing relevant to drinking (unless you’re drunk and/or hung over while you’re actually climbing).  Assuming he wants to cut a few pounds to be lighter (thus increasing his strength:weight ratio), cutting out unnecessary calories is a good place to start.  Otherwise, if he’s already at a healthy weight, it will probably have no effect, but might not be great for his liver/bank account.

Point me to the one-dimensional “scientific” studies I cited or nutritional products I marketed.  You’re arguing with the air and resorting to ad hominem attacks because you have no actual logical argument or understanding of the fundamental science.

Tradiban wrote:

Actually, it does. I'm obviously exaggerating regarding Teddy's lack of climbing ability but I'm sure he would admit he's not a 5.12 climber. Anyone who has actually trained for something would know that simply counting calories means nothing. 

If you are fat and want to lose weight, yes, less calories equals less weight but if you are dieting for performance it's a completely different picture. A few beers worth of calories means nothing to someone training. It would be much more significant to your motivation, sleep, etc but some people actually thrive on the relaxing effects of a nightly beer or two. In my Tri days the German pros were known for incorporating beer into their training. 

The point is that people like Teddy that don't have experience in the particular matter at hand turn to simplistic and one demensional "scientific" studies to try and prove their viewpoint when in real life the reality is more individual and nuanced. There is way too much of this crap on MP and in marketing of "nutritional" products, hence "junk science".

Who said anything about training?  That sounds like a good way to get injured.  We're talking about beer. 

Ted Pinson wrote: Nick, the irony is that I never actually made the argument you’re accusing me of.  In fact, I brought that up to argue that a beer at night likely WON’T have an effect, because again: it’s total calories consumed vs burned, NOT what/when they are that matters for weight loss.  You are making it seem like fat loss doesn’t matter, but that’s literally the only thing relevant to drinking (unless you’re drunk and/or hung over while you’re actually climbing).  Assuming he wants to cut a few pounds to be lighter (thus increasing his strength:weight ratio), cutting out unnecessary calories is a good place to start.  Otherwise, if he’s already at a healthy weight, it will probably have no effect, but might not be great for his liver/bank account.

Point me to the one-dimensional “scientific” studies I cited or nutritional products I marketed.  You’re arguing with the air and resorting to ad hominem attacks because you have no actual logical argument or understanding of the fundamental science.

All the "studies" you post are junk because they lack an experienced interpretation. You can't just google the topic at hand and pick the first thing you see to prove your point. 

All your arguments lack an experienced perspective, just tossing out data proves nothing. 

So you’re saying the “studies” I posted (I never actually posted any studies) are junk because I posted them?  Lol.  You realize that this is blatantly ad hominem and not actually an argument, right?  You should probably also know that I didn’t “google the topic at hand,” I actually went specifically to Layne because I’m familiar with his work and know that he 1) is actually a PHD nutritionist and researcher 2) is also a professional bodybuilder and has personal experience in training 3) does not push any one fad diet and in fact spends a lot of his time debunking junk diets.

Ted Pinson wrote: So you’re saying the “studies” I posted (I never actually posted any studies) are junk because I posted them?  Lol.  You realize that this is blatantly ad hominem and not actually an argument, right?  You should probably also know that I didn’t “google the topic at hand,” I actually went specifically to Layne because I’m familiar with his work and know that he 1) is actually a PHD nutritionist and researcher 2) is also a professional bodybuilder and has personal experience in training 3) does not push any one fad diet and in fact spends a lot of his time debunking junk diets.

So you can certainly tear down my personal credentials (I’m a lowly 5.11 climber who only TRs 5.12), but you can’t really do that for him or for Manuel Huber, who climbs much harder than you ever will.  So unless you have an actual argument that does not involve my ticklist, kindly shut the fuck up and go troll somewhere els

Calm down tiger. When you overspray like you do you're going to have to be open to criticism.

All I'm saying is that you over compensate for your lack of experience with vaguely relevant data.

Ted Pinson wrote: I’m a lowly 5.11 climber

Ted, honesty is far more important than the grade you climb. Unfortunately, you've called into question everything you ever said.

Ted Pinson wrote:Actually, no.  The results of literally thousands of scientific nutritional studies have yielded the same results: if you control for total caloric intake, the results are the same.  This goes for low carb, high carb, paleo, keto, vegan, etc.  That being said, running a caloric deficit while still taking in sufficient nutrients is easier on some diets than others.  If the OP wants to drink 2+ beers a night and not gain weight, he will have to cut in other areas...which might mean not taking in enough protein or complex carbohydrates to recover properly and get stronger.
Don, you are confusing nutrition with weight loss. If you did that and ran a caloric deficit, you would absolutely lose weight...but you would also be malnourished.

You would be wrong here because "calories" are actually a shorthand measurement, anyway, and don't accurately represent the effect of any given food on the human body. Calories were originally measured in a bomb calorimeter where the food was incinerated and the energy released was measured. Now food manufacturers do it simply by adding up the macronutrients in the food with the formula 4 Kcal/g for protein, 4 Kcal/g for carbohydrate, and 9 Kcal/g for fat. Alcohol is calculated at 7 Kcal/g. But food in real life isn't quite that precise, nor does our body metabolize 100% of every nutrient that goes into it. And that doesn't even get into the hormonal and metabolic effects of different types of foods.