delete

deleted 

This feels like a landmine...and I think you're probably focusing on the wrong things like your friends are telling you.

I've done the inBody and the "Bod Pod," but not the Dexa.  I will tell you that any effort I have ever put into losing body fat has resulted in lower energy, poorer performance, increased irritation, and NEVER a better send.  I have similar body stats to you.

If you're in decent shape (which your scan data implies), then your limitation between 5.12 and 5.13 is going to be strength, skill, and tactics.  Guess what: you can't get stronger in a calorie deficit.  Also, full body/arm strength-to-weight ratio is a lot different than finger strength.  I still can't one-arm hang off of a 1.25" campus rung for 10sec (an old "standard" I heard about that's supposed to be "5.13a strength") but have sent 5x 5.13s, including a 5.13b.  (I'm a full-time engineer and only get outside once a week.)

Two final thoughts for you:
1, fat is an energy source. It's not all bad.
2, losing fat without losing muscle is extremely challenging.  Personally, I've never been able to do it.  My strength-to-weight ratio would always go DOWN during times of focused weight loss.

I work in a university research lab that has DEXA, BodPod, hydrostatic weighing, and yes, even bioelectrical impedance for assessing body composition. We do these types of performance vs. body weight/% body fat assessments on a fairly regular basis. I suggest you use a standardized strength assessment for climbers and see how your strength changes with changes in body weight/% fat mass. Every person will have a tipping point where decreases in body weight/% fat mass will lead to a decrease in performance (assuming that the % body fat is higher than desirable to start with).

To correct a point made by Charlie S., strength can improve despite a caloric deficit. Because strength/force production is dependent on neural recruitment in addition to muscle mass, improvements in neural recruitment can improve force output despite decreases in muscle mass. But, if a caloric deficit leaves you with chronically low energy then improved neural recruitment doesn't really mean all that much. Recommendations are no more than a deficit of 300-500 calories per day if you do choose to try this approach.

As Charlie S. also pointed out, it is difficult to lose fat mass without also losing muscle mass. I don't remember the particulars at the moment, but a researcher from the University of Rochester showed that in relatively lean individuals reductions in body mass were close to 50% lean mass/50% fat mass.

Final note: I used to work for the U.S. Army and we wanted Special Forces operators around 12% body fat. Definitely different physiological requirements than climbing 5.12-5.13, but the idea was that individuals with lower % body fat were less resilient and more prone to injury/illness. Being extremely lean may not be optimal for all-around health and performance.

Kipp Fwrote:

I weigh 174.7lbs, total body fat 16.6%,...Maintaining most of my lean tissue, I have to lose about 20lbs of fat *just to get to 12% BF. 

Did ChatGPT tell you 4.6% of 175 = 20? IME, 8lbs is may be worth 1 letter grade @ your weight, assuming you've optimized most other facets.

If it's easy enough for you to maintain 12% BF yearlong, then do it. It's way too much effort for me. And I doubt I even got there @ my best (RP 5.14-), though I was lighter (your fingers don't really care if the weight is muscle, fat, water, or the morning constitution).

In short, your buddy is right.

In theory yeah losing fat is a way to performance gains, but unless it’s something you have experience doing and know is easy for you, I wouldn’t think about it.

For most people it takes an incredible amount of effort to lose fat and maintain or gain muscle. You are almost certainly better off focusing on getting stronger and or improving your technique and tactics. 

Kipp F wrote:

No; it is a simple calculation based on inevitably losing 1-2lbs of the lean tissue figure I posted above while achieving 12% body fat  

14- redpoint with a BF above 12% as a male makes me pretty darn curious..

I think he's just a little confused by your math, as am I.  First of all, I was under the impression that "lean tissue" was, by definition, total body weight minus total body fat.  Based on your dexa results, your total body weight is 174.7lb, your total body fat is 29.0lb, and your lean tissue is 137.8lb.  This means you have 7.9lb of "other" weight, which isn't lean tissue or body fat.  Maybe this is something specific to how dexa scan data is presented, I'm not sure.

Regardless, lets say you were to cut down to 12% body fat, losing 2lb of lean tissue and maintaining your 7.9lb of "other" in the process.  You would then weigh 163.3lb, with 19.6lb of body fat, 135.8lb of lean tissue, and 7.9lb of "other" weight.  That's a total weight loss of 11.4 lb, quite a bit less than 20 lb.  Unless you meant losing 1-2lb of lean tissue per pound of body fat you lose (which might be more realistic if Robert Gregory's comment is accurate)?  Sorry if my math is off.

(For the record I am also dubious that maintaining a lower body fat percentage would be helpful for your performance but I am not a doctor.)

Kipp Fwrote:

deleted thread drift 

Is this what you do when you don't get the answers you want?

You might want to also lock the thread to avoid further replies