Climbers in the 1000 lb club and 5.13 or higher Senders

See Natasha Barnes. A World Cup level boulderer, she turned into a world class power lifter. She still climbs V9, so she should be able to send most 5.13s. 

Erik Strandwrote:

It sounds like a way off goal with many things to work on ahead of time if you plan to achieve it. For example, sounds like you still need to learn to lead climb. Can’t climb 5.13s on top rope and claim it as an ascent.

I'm looking for people who, or whether strong climbers can, climb 5.13’s and lift the numbers Masich is talking about cause it seems unfathomable to me and my buddy. Whether I can lead, though I can and do lead sport and trad, is beside the point. This search wasn't intended to be about me or training tips for me. Thanks though.

Frank Steinwrote:

See Natasha Barnes. A World Cup level boulderer, she turned into a world class power lifter. She still climbs V9, so she should be able to send most 5.13s. 

Thanks! I see that she also did an episode with the nugget climbing podcast so I'll give that a listen.

Tommy Jwrote:

I'm looking for people who, or whether strong climbers can, climb 5.13’s and lift the numbers Masich is talking about cause it seems unfathomable to me and my buddy. Whether I can lead, though I can and do lead sport and trad, is beside the point. This search wasn't intended to be about me or training tips for me. Thanks though.

Now I’m confused.. your original post suggest that YOU want to achieve this as a goal? You mentioned your current lifting numbers, so it kinda makes sense that we might ask you about your climbing experience/level. Also, the grade you currently send outdoors is pertinent if your goal is to become a solid 13 leader.

What numbers is Masich talking about? Because lifting at the “1000 lb club” isn’t really anything noteworthy. Almost anyone your size should be able to achieve that with just a year or two of training. Climbing solid 5.13, IMO, is way more difficult.

Jason Kimwrote:

Now I’m confused.. your original post suggest that YOU want to achieve this as a goal? You mentioned your current lifting numbers, so it kinda makes sense that we might ask you about your climbing experience/level. Also, the grade you currently send outdoors is pertinent if your goal is to become a solid 13 leader.

What numbers is Masich talking about? Because lifting at the “1000 lb club” isn’t really anything noteworthy. Almost anyone your size should be able to achieve that with just a year or two of training. Climbing solid 5.13, IMO, is way more difficult.

I mean it would be cool, but thats not necessarily why I posted this thread. My curiosity about this topic resulted from lifting with my buddy and learning about strength training benchmarks for climbers. I have used myself as an example throughout the thread in that maybe I could be one of the people that could hypothetically do both, but accept that 5.13 is a long ways off, even if I focused solely on climbing.

Masich has a table in the article I mentioned in an earlier comment that outlines what, at least he believes, strong climbers can do. And he suggests that if you are going to strength train, as he recommends, that you go for these stated benchmarks. I had a hard time believing 5.13 and above climbers can bench their bodyweight 15 times, squat their bodyweight 15 times, and have a 1RM in deadlifting of 2.25 times their bodyweight. So, I made this thread to hopefully learn what climbers are out there that meet these or similar benchmarks - such as the 1000lb club. Hope that makes sense...

Tommy Jwrote:

 had a hard time believing 5.13 and above climbers can bench their bodyweight 15 times, squat their bodyweight 15 times, and have a 1RM in deadlifting of 2.25 times their bodyweight. So, I made this thread to hopefully learn what climbers are out there that meet these or similar benchmarks - such as the 1000lb club. Hope that makes sense...

It's still a little oblique to want to train to these benchmarks, and also have a specific goal to climb 5.13. You can do both at the same time - knock yourself out, if time allows. But you also need to climb, and probably would want to train specifically for climbing. If you have the finger strength to support some meaty legs, you can get pretty far. But these benchmarks aren't really telling the story of the sports specific isometric strength a person has, in mostly the upper body, pulling muscles, not to even touch upon that climbing is skills-based activity. Plenty of strong climbers, plenty of weak ones too.

Tommy Jwrote:

I had a hard time believing 5.13 and above climbers can bench their bodyweight 15 times, squat their bodyweight 15 times, and have a 1RM in deadlifting of 2.25 times their bodyweight. 

Allow me to spray: I've RPed 5.14- (@ age 44) and could pistol squat +50% BW (+75% PR) w/ some training. I've benched close to 2x BW before I started climbing; DL wasn't cool back then & I've no interest finding out how hard 2.25x BW is now. But IMO, strength training is boring and almost pointless: I wish I'd spent more energy on explosiveness, agility, flexibility (the lack of which for climbing, along w/ the muscle bulk, greatly compromises body positions, and can be much more of a detriment than the extra weight), etc. For all the finger strength training one does for climbing, it's still a highly technical endeavor so I'll be sticking w/ that.

I looked up the article you are referring to, and read some background on the author (Steve Maisch, who I had never heard of).  He's clearly very strong, and also climbs hard.

I don't know anyone that climb 5.15, but I would be surprised if many pros would be able to hit his arbitrary strength benchmarks.  It sounds like he is an advocate of a well-rounded approach to strength and fitness, which should help prevent injury and weaknesses in climbing.  That makes sense, and is a nice ideal, but if you look at the people who actually climb hard, it doesn't necessarily follow in real-life (at least not in my experience).  He makes the point that someone who can't bench press their own bodyweight x 15 reps is going to be weak in compression problems.  That's a pretty arbitrary, generalized statement right there.

But you mentioned that his strength benchmarks seem to be an unfathomable goal, for someone who also climbs 5.13.  I would totally disagree with you there - it seems absolutely possible if the person is focused on that as their goal.  Especially if that person started climbing at a young age (there are kids that climb 5.13 easily and with just a year or so of weight training and puberty they could be hitting that goal).  

What do you want to be? A climber or a weightlifter? Cant really do both to your genetic potential, it’s like people who try to be marathon runners and rock climbers. It will just take away from your recovery and adaptation to rock climbing.

Jason Kimwrote:

He makes the point that someone who can't bench press their own bodyweight x 15 reps is going to be weak in compression problems.  That's a pretty arbitrary, generalized statement right there.

No kidding... Let's take Vogue, a stiff Tommy 5.14b: w/ a long V9 compression finish (& more compression moves below). I can compress w/ my hands all day between holds, but one has to move, which mean utilizing toe/heel hooks and whatever other techniques. All feels plenty hard to me, but didn't prevent Paige from sending it in a few weeks of time. There're so many ways of getting past a move in climbing, but it's easy to have a "everything looks like a nail to a hammer" mentality.

Anthony Balestreriwrote:

What do you want to be? A climber or a weightlifter? Cant really do both to your genetic potential, it’s like people who try to be marathon runners and rock climbers. It will just take away from your recovery and adaptation to rock climbing.

There's plenty of people who can run marathons and also rock climb, me being one of them - in Boulder I'm surrounded by people much better than I'll ever be. The reason you don't see more of them is not because of physiology - the two hobbies can be quite complementary, actually. Running is leg dominant; climbing is arm dominant, so you're not in danger of over training. And when you train, you just follow some simply guidelines like: probably best to do a hard run after hard climbing rather than the reverse. 

There's also support for the idea that cardiovascular fitness can help with recovery, not hinder it and maybe it helps just a bit getting to the crag and getting on your climb before others - or getting to a farther crag, faster and enjoying less crowds that way.

The reason you don't see more of it is imho due to  cultural factors: climbers don't want to run and vice-versa - there's not a lot of places you can do both without the majority of your time spend traveling and the cultures don't mix - but road cyclists and trail runners don't mix all that well, so it's not really all that out of the ordinary. There's also the time commitment involved in both, which is hard if you also have (say) a family life and a career. Thirdly, there is the problem with cost of doing two hobbies. But if you're relatively young, live in some specific parts of the world, can live cheaply, and can train wisely (and have a reason to do both - having a mountaineering objective as a goal as an example), you can do well at both.  

Long Rangerwrote:

There's plenty of people who can run marathons and also rock climb, me being one of them - in Boulder I'm surrounded by people much better than I'll ever be. The reason you don't see more of them is not because of physiology - the two hobbies can be quite complementary, actually. Running is leg dominant; climbing is arm dominant, so you're not in danger of over training. And when you train, you just follow some simply guidelines like: probably best to do a hard run after hard climbing rather than the reverse. 

There's also support for the idea that cardiovascular fitness can help with recovery, not hinder it and maybe it helps just a bit getting to the crag and getting on your climb before others - or getting to a farther crag, faster and enjoying less crowds that way.

The reason you don't see more of it is imho due to  cultural factors: climbers don't want to run and vice-versa - there's not a lot of places you can do both without the majority of your time spend traveling and the cultures don't mix - but road cyclists and trail runners don't mix all that well, so it's not really all that out of the ordinary. There's also the time commitment involved in both, which is hard if you also have (say) a family life and a career. Thirdly, there is the problem with cost of doing two hobbies. But if you're relatively young, live in some specific parts of the world, can live cheaply, and can train wisely (and have a reason to do both - having a mountaineering objective as a goal as an example), you can do well at both.  

The body is a unit. You dont have leg recovery and arm recovery being separate things. If your legs are shot from a marathon, you wont be able to climb well and your body will have to use its limited recovery resources to repair your legs rather than say, your finger flexors. So doing both will, in my opinion, take away from your ability to adapt to one of the sports alone. But if you enjoy both and are not a pro or whatever, then why not.

Long Rangerwrote:

There's plenty of people who can run marathons and also rock climb, me being one of them - in Boulder I'm surrounded by people much better than I'll ever be. The reason you don't see more of them is not because of physiology - the two hobbies can be quite complementary, actually. Running is leg dominant; climbing is arm dominant, so you're not in danger of over training. And when you train, you just follow some simply guidelines like: probably best to do a hard run after hard climbing rather than the reverse. 

There's also support for the idea that cardiovascular fitness can help with recovery, not hinder it and maybe it helps just a bit getting to the crag and getting on your climb before others - or getting to a farther crag, faster and enjoying less crowds that way.

The reason you don't see more of it is imho due to  cultural factors: climbers don't want to run and vice-versa - there's not a lot of places you can do both without the majority of your time spend traveling and the cultures don't mix - but road cyclists and trail runners don't mix all that well, so it's not really all that out of the ordinary. There's also the time commitment involved in both, which is hard if you also have (say) a family life and a career. Thirdly, there is the problem with cost of doing two hobbies. But if you're relatively young, live in some specific parts of the world, can live cheaply, and can train wisely (and have a reason to do both - having a mountaineering objective as a goal as an example), you can do well at both.  

I agree that there are plenty of people who run marathons in respectable times, and also climb at respectable 5.13 level. I know some.

But you will never know if the person who runs marathons in X amount of time and regularly sends 5.13b’s would have been regularly sending 5.13c’s, or d’s, if he didn’t run, and, instead, used the freed time to do a more climbing-specific training. Just like you would never know if this person could ran marathons at a faster pace, if he didn’t climb, and used the extra free time for some run sessions.

At the end of the day, it’s about doing what you feel like doing. People who like climbing, and hate running would just climb. People who live running, and don’t want to climb will just run.  And people who want to do both will do both, in whatever proportion they want to do it. Substitute running for weightlifting, or CrossFit, or swimming, etc. same thing  

It’s always self-selected according to personal inclination.

Nobody, as far as I know, has done randomized studies where they took a bunch of climbers who didn’t run, put half of them on a 12-week training regimen that included running, put the other half on a 12-week lattice/power company/ClimbStrong/etc. training program, and assessed the results at the end. 

Anthony Balestreriwrote:

So doing both will, in my opinion, take away from your ability to adapt to one of the sports alone. But if you enjoy both and are not a pro or whatever, then why not.

And that's sort of my point with the 1,000lb club and 5.13 climbing - both are respectable, but no where near elite, so it's not irrationql to think you can't do both at the same time. Harder to do both at the same time, sure, but not close to impossible.

James Wwrote:

Your posts are gobbly gook non-sense - give us some numbers - 1 day RP limit - marathon time and course name - etc - done in the same season or even year.

Edit: Sorry James W, I'm at my post limit for the time on this topic. If you want to see what I'm up to, I'm pretty searchable on the Internet (unlike yourself). Let's go climbing sometime if you're ever in Boulder.

James Wwrote:

^^^^ per comment above - just answer the question - otherwise all I see is long and slow with butt easy rock - you’re right, it’s not hard at all to combine that.

Edit 2: Sorry James W, I'm not here to spray and I don't owe you anything. How you target me through different forum topics is also a little strange. It's not the sort of energy I'm looking to manifest.

Long Rangerwrote:

Harder to do both at the same time, sure, but not close to impossible.

Your posts are gobbledygook non-sense - give us some numbers - 1 day RP limit - marathon time and course name - etc - done in the same season or even year.

^^^^ per comment above - just answer the question - otherwise all I see is long and slow with butt easy rock - you’re right, it’s not hard at all to combine that.

Frank Steinwrote:

See Natasha Barnes. A World Cup level boulderer, she turned into a world class power lifter. She still climbs V9, so she should be able to send most 5.13s. 

Natasha is a beast and knows her sh!t but she’s not part of the 1000 pound club….a good example of someone who added a lot of muscle mass without a significant decrease in climbing performance though!

Lena chitawrote:

Nobody, as far as I know, has done randomized studies where they took a bunch of climbers who didn’t run, put half of them on a 12-week training regimen that included running, put the other half on a 12-week lattice/power company/ClimbStrong/etc. training program, and assessed the results at the end. 

yes but there is a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that at the elite level specificity and transferability are key elements of a training regimen. Tom Randall has an interesting podcast in which he reflects on his own experience training for ultras while trying to keep his climbing as good as possible. The bottom line is that his climbing took a hit ...

proto Gwrote:

Tom Randall has an interesting podcast in which he reflects on his own experience training for ultras while trying to keep his climbing as good as possible. The bottom line is that his climbing took a hit ...

His blog post about that is pretty revealing though, 

https://tomrandallclimbing.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/can-you-be-a-pro-in-two-sports-a-reality-check/

So there's the idea of, "realistic goals". Tom wanted to be a top 5% fell runner (off trail running up and down steep hills - very British) in six months, while also being an elite climber WHILE ALSO owning and running various business, having a family, etc, etc, so on and so forth. 

That is not a realistic goal.

If all he wanted to do is be an elite runner in six months starting from the beginning, that is also not a reasonable goal. He admits that he didn't know how to train, or how to understand his body under this new stress/duress. Those types of things take more than 6 months to figure out all by themselves. 

If his goal was, "run a marathon in 6 months" and that's it: that's a reasonable goal. Maybe in a few years he could become sub elite, sub 3:00hr marathon runner. 

As far as the idea that running took a hit from his climbing. Well, trying to stuff the goal of become an elite running in 6 months certainly did. But Tom is already an elite climber, having sent 5.14 on gear. To maintain this level, training specificity really matters, no question about that. And having two goals at once gets much, much harder. 

Not many people on this forum climb at 5.14 on gear (although there are some), and of those people, I don't know if anyone's goal is to also be an elite runner. But for those at a sub elite level in both (climbing, running), having fun doing both without being burnt out and continuing to progress in both in ways that find fulfilling - def. put me in that group. 

Or whatever the arbitrary group is: climbing 5.13 and 1,000lb club. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No. Harder than doing one, or the other: obviously. Worth it to you? Only you can answer that.

What's your height and weight?  That'll be a big predictor of the ease of you hitting the 1000 pound club.

Interesting thread to me coming from a lifting background growing up without climbing. So, here is my data and blabbering. 

Back in college up to age 25, I was above the 1k lifting level. Not sure if I could jump right in and be at 1k level without a little training, but I could easily do the 15xbw and 2.25dl.

Now at 32, I've recently started climbing 12d/13a consistently. I don't boulder much outside but have some v8 and many v7 moonboard bench marks.

Didn't start climbing until 25 but started lifting around 13. 

Height 5'6". +1" ape. 20mm 7sec max hang 184%bw

Weight 160/165 now. 175/180 college. 

College lifting maxes (455 squat, 355 bench, 315 clean) *we didn't deadlift but this is still 1k mark.

If doing both at this level interests you, shoot for the moon. I think these are realistic goals if the drive is there.

Me being an average Joe with limited time available, I'd recommend to focus on one or the other.

Lastly, something to consider before you go after both is that the muscles you build will stick around and continuously hinder your climbing if climbing were ever to become your#1 focus. Ask me how I know =).