Climbing hard at 200+lbs?

Now you're just cherry picking. Its a complex issue.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:But if you don't have a lot of fast twitch fibers in your legs, you will never be a fast runner (or conversely in your forearms, send 5.13a)

But to the OP’s question... yes, you can absolutely climb 13’s with a larger frame.  One of the most notable FA’ers here in the southeast (Doug Reed) was 6’3”+, had a -lot- of muscle, and put up countless 13’s at the NRG and RRG. He also used every inch of his height to his advantage, which is why a lot of his routes are notoriously sandbagged.  Seth Tart was over 6’ and -very- built whe he put up NC’s first 5.14.  However, if the question the OP is actually asking is “can I climb 5.13 without training and with an extra 15lbs around my waist”, the answer is, probably not.

Mark Paulson wrote:
You’ve drifted from “you’ll never send 5.13a without a lot of fast twitch muscle” ....

Never said that. I did suggest that some will never, ever be able to climb 5.13 due to their own particular genetic inheritance as certainly some are not remotely gifted with finger power. Where exactly the cutoff grade is unknown but my guess is that many will never be able to climb much past 12- despite how much they train.

Slopers v. crimps is another physiologic issue altogether, not the least of which is that ~14% of the population do not have a Palmaris Longus which does affect sloper strength.

All climbing is hard at 200+ pounds. Grade on your curves, butter bean!

The physiology discussion/debate is fascinating, but seems a little elite and esoteric for what I'm wondering.

I do want to clarify -- I'm by no means "fat". I'm not 'shredded' but I am 'cut' with decent physique. Point taken that if I want to send 5.13a, dropping 10-15 lbs will be super helpful. My BMI is currently ~26, but it looks like any lower than 24 (190 lbs), and I'm going to start having serious health and nutrition issues. And BMI just seems like such a rough metric to obsess over for how varied human bodies can be.

So, yeah, I don't aspire to *elite* ability. I'm aiming for competent all-around ability (trad/sport/boulder/alpinism) with some decent crusher strength and skill that will open up as much possibility to enjoy interesting terrain. Happy to add some 10 mile runs, hangboarding, core training, and antagonist work into the mix if that makes it all possible and reduces likelihood of injury.

I'm mostly eager to hear about larger frames putting on the necessary muscle to climb 5.13. Haven't heard too many folks chime in with "I'm 6'1" and 200lbs, able to technique my way up the occasional 13-", but it sounds like there are a couple dedicated heavy crushers chiming in, and all this back & forth is leading to a couple additional sources of inspiration. So thanks!

I'm especially interested in hearing from those folks with anecdotes and words of wisdom like "I plateuad in 5.12- and was injured all the time for years before I realized I needed to strengthen my X and stabilize my Y. Workouts focused on Z made a huge difference. Be sure not to V or you'll injure your W."

So far I'm hearing:
1) Hangboard for finger strength
2) Ensure proper antagonist balance in the musculature
3) Bump up the bouldering grades
4) Strengthen the core
5) Refine technique
6) Endurance when everything else is in place (time restricted eating, maybe)
7) Cut weight, within reason, especially during a "hardest send" attempt, but keep good nutrition always

We all know Sharma, Ondra, and Ashima are in many ways self-selecting mutants perfectly suited to the sport.

(Funny enough, I got started climbing after visiting Rat Rock in Central Park. My first few sessions included witnessing a ~5 yr old Ashima casually crimping through heinous v6 crimps Yuki sequentially pointed out for her. It was obvious she was going to be elite.

Her internal and external sense of discipline was also astounding. I remember getting her in trouble for inviting her to play tic-tac-toe in the dirt and distracting her during training time. Tears were shed. Oops!)

Toni Lamprecht may have some of that physiological freak-ness somehow enabling his elite sends, but his biostats definitely make 5.13- seem plausible without starving or risking catastrophic injury.

https://arcteryx.com/athlete.aspx?country=us&language=en/ToniLamprecht  

This guy is my newest "professional" source of inspiration for heavy hard sends.

This is some neat analysis, too:
http://sandhoefner.github.io/climb.html

TJ B: I echo what others have said about focusing on technique and strength/power at this point in your development. Bouldering is a great way to do this. Just remember to be careful and listen to your body. If holds feel painful, back off. Those holds will feel better in time, but there's plenty to climb that will help you progress without risking the massive delays caused by soft tissue injuries. Hangboarding is a risky proposition for the newer climber, proceed with caution. And in the 5.10 / V0 / V1 range, the less dynamic & more static your climbing movement is, the more likely you're developing an understanding of good technique.

Hit me up if you're looking for a Morrison bouldering buddy. It's rad there - though it can also be a bit of an ego-bruiser. I visited the Black Hole a couple months ago, and some of those grades can be technical and stiff! Definitely not as easy on the ego as gym problems. Not to mention the crushers casually spitting out beta like "lock off on that deep crimp" or "slap to the good sloper" when the holds seem virtually non-existent.

Gavin: Yup, Epee! (2011 National Champions, Notre Dame represent!) Foil and Sabre are cinematic and cool and all, but epee has an elegant, simple beauty. No right-of-way rules, no subjective rulings by referees, no contrived target areas and next level equipment complexities. Whoever hits the other one first gets the point. And physical height and tactical patience provide a big advantage - which was always a boon for me. Fencing is awesome.

Ben: Thanks for the good vibes and pointers. Good motivation to re-engage with core workouts. Haha point taken that there's a difference between Dunne's training weight and peak performance weight. And yeah! The mental game is one of the hardest, most gratifying parts of the sport. Nothing better than finding a weird kneebar / hit scum / heel hook that makes the impossible feel possible.

BMI is not very useful.  If anything get a dexa scan or water displacement bodyfat test.  Even a 7 sight caliper test would give you a more accurate number to work with.  

Colonel Mustard wrote: All climbing is hard at 200+ pounds. Grade on your curves, butter bean!

That reminded me that I used to argue seriously wuth the crew for the need to have a handicap system with ratings like golf does.

How about a letter for every 5 pounds past 190?

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

Sorry, not false. Not everyone can develop the isometric power in proportion to their body weight needed for harder moves. This IS based fundamentally on inherited physiology.

Are there some "endurance" 5.13s they might be able to do with easier moves? Yes. Are they going to do the majority of 5.13s no. Power is Power and it is based on fast twitch fibers.

BS, almost anyone can climb most 5.13 if they get fit and have decent technique. 

Campusing at 200+ pounds is a recipe for a torn rotator cuff

MorganH wrote:

BS, almost anyone can climb most 5.13 if they get fit and have decent technique. 

Citation?

You brainiacs can spout off all of the metrics you want, it is still easier to lose weight than it is to gain the mythical finger/lockoff/whatever strength you seek.

I am 6'2" with a fairly beefy build @ 210, I know I can weigh as little as 160 lbs and still be strong, albeit very skinny. I also know it would mean a lot of missed meals and beers. At 160 lbs. I could probably climb in the mid .11's without really working at it, since I can on-sight most .10 a/b/c right now. Really hard 10's and easy 11's I'll probably have to hang if it is really sequential and/or burly.

My point is if you have a specific climb you are training to do, and you are almost there, but just can't quite do the crux, losing 10-15 lbs is going to come quicker than the strength needed to send.

A 26 BMI is pretty high for a sport climber...pretty low for a traddie   

My road biking buddy has a BMI of 22 when not training and 19 when riding more than 300 miles per week. Which to him is about 10-12 lbs. and he thinks he is on the high end of BMI for competitive amateurs in his age group.

Aweffwef Fewfae wrote: "However, fiber type alone did not determine the performances of the elite athletes. For example, two athletes with similar best times for the 42.2 km marathon distance (approximately 2 hr 18 min) had 50% versus 98% ST muscle fibers. Subsequent work (Foster et al. 1978) revealed that endurance running performance was better related to an athlete's maximal O2 uptake (VO2max; r= −0.84, −0.87, and −0.88 for 1-, 2-, and 6-mile times, respectively). Indeed, while an athlete's muscle fiber type is an important morphological component and is related to several contractile and metabolic properties (see Table 1), other physiological factors (e.g., VO2max, maximal cardiac output, and speed/power output at the lactate threshold) are more likely to determine the upper limits of endurance capacity "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC521732/

No offense, but I would expect fast twitch muscle helps someone win a marathon to the same extent that I would expect a top fuel drag car to win the 24 hours of LeMans.  

As for BMI, unless two people have the same overall morphology, it is a worthless means of comparison.  Thus, using it as a metric to compare diverse populations does not work.

JNE wrote:

No offense, but I would expect fast twitch muscle helps someone win a marathon to the same extent that I would expect a top fuel drag car to win the 24 hours of LeMans.  

As for BMI, unless two people have the same overall morphology, it is a worthless means of comparison.  Thus, using it as a metric to compare diverse populations does not work.

Totally agree with the BMI comment, but it is a useful tool to compare ones own performance. At 28 BMI I climb like shit and I am popping tendon pulleys in my fingers. At 23 BMI I can float up 5.hard.

Buck Rio wrote: You brainiacs can spout off all of the metrics you want, it is still easier to lose weight than it is to gain the mythical finger/lockoff/whatever strength you seek.

I am 6'2" with a fairly beefy build @ 210, I know I can weigh as little as 160 lbs and still be strong, albeit very skinny. I also know it would mean a lot of missed meals and beers. At 160 lbs. I could probably climb in the mid .11's without really working at it, since I can on-sight most .10 a/b/c right now. Really hard 10's and easy 11's I'll probably have to hang if it is really sequential and/or burly.

My point is if you have a specific climb you are training to do, and you are almost there, but just can't quite do the crux, losing 10-15 lbs is going to come quicker than the strength needed to send.

A 26 BMI is pretty high for a sport climber...pretty low for a traddie   

My road biking buddy has a BMI of 22 when not training and 19 when riding more than 300 miles per week. Which to him is about 10-12 lbs. and he thinks he is on the high end of BMI for competitive amateurs in his age group.

You're capable of going down by 50 pounds? That's amazing!

I could barely climb 12.a at 200lbs.  It felt terrible, hurt really bad, and I felt like I was going to die.  That being said here are 2 guys are crush at a +200lbs weight

https://www.climbing.com/news/no-excuses-two-heavy-climbers-crushed/

I also weigh 175 now.  Climbing feels much better.  My issue wasn't genetics.  It was beer, pizza and tacos.  

Good luck and keep crushing!

Brother Numsie wrote:

You're capable of going down by 50 pounds? That's amazing!

It'll never happen, but my first climb in 1986 I weighed 157 lbs. I could probably realistically get to 175 now, and not be emaciated.

All this talk about weight loss is making me hungry.

These threads often mention John Dunne. I lived in his hometown in the late 80s when he was in his young prime and saw him train and boulder. There are three caveats relevant to his status as standard bearer for big men climbing hard. Firstly, whilst he was big by climber standards, he was not fat and, as others have said, would drop another ~15lbs before a major ascent. I never saw him in this state but he can’t have had much body-fat left. Secondly, he had amazing technique, especially footwork, he was really inspiring to watch climb. Thirdly, he had more than his fair share of injuries. Parthian Shot, as the name suggests, was his final fling before shoulder surgery.

Come to think about it, I'm amazed no one has brought up Steve Petro yet. Last I saw him he was prolly 220

Brother Numsie wrote: Come to think about it, I'm amazed no one has brought up Steve Petro yet. Last I saw him he was prolly 220

That guy is massive!