Food for hard training

JCM, I would like to see that. I can't find that index anywhere and have never heard of it before in 10 years of studying nutrition. As I am using bioavailability, and as it's commonly used, it does essentially mean, "the percentage of nutrition your body can absorb before the food reaches the end of your intestines.

Sorry forgot sources. You can read about Bioglogical Value score here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_value  . Egg was thought to be the perfect 100 score until whey came along.

Different scoring systems of protein here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_quality which link to the studies providing it. 

Again I want to reiterate though that my point is that macros are probably more important than protein scores. 

Eric Marx wrote:

JCM, I would like to see that. I can't find that index anywhere and have never heard of it before in 10 years of studying nutrition. As I am using bioavailability, and as it's commonly used, it does essentially mean, "the percentage of nutrition your body can absorb before the food reaches the end of your intestines."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_value

Referring to the unitless version of the BV score, indexed to the egg. Again, there are various different scores out there. The BV is not the best I dex and not the current state of the science, but it is still very prevalent in popular presentations. Some of the other indexes do not allow scores above 1.00 or 100 (etc...), while others do. So scores over 100 are possible. Specifying which score you are using is important, though many general audience sources do not.

This is diverging into irrelevant pedantics though. I generally agree with your approach that if you eat protein mostly from animal sources, in sufficient quantity, you can generally not worry about all this. This is a major benefit of including animal proteins as a major part of your diet,  it just sorts itself out. The vegans have to go deep on the bioavailability and amino acids and all that.

You sound very dogmatic on all this. 

(Edit:  Tony beat me to it. What he said).

I feel like a lot of these comments are missing the forest for the trees. If you want to put on muscle mass, there are only a few things that matter - pushing the muscles to their limit, adequate protein intake, a caloric surplus (or maintenance in some cases), and adequate rest. 

If you are looking for Popeye forearms, diet is probably not a significant factor, as these muscles are small enough to be served by a simply adequate diet. The more obvious issue is that you are probably overtraining - your muscles aren't being given the time they need to recover and rebuild themselves bigger and stronger, and because they are still fatigued when you start your next session, you are never really pushing them to their limit. 

On the other hand, if you are looking to get yoked anywhere other than the forearms, you should pump some iron, brah! The failure point in climbing is almost always the fingers or body positioning. You very rarely push other muscles to their limit, and thus, they will not receive much stimulation to grow larger. If you are lifting weights, then ensuring you consume enough protein and calories may play a larger role. 

Taking another step back, however, we should ask why you want to add muscle mass anyway. More muscles = more heavy = less sendy. As a climber, your focus should always be on strength, not muscle mass - getting the maximum possible force production out of the muscle mass you already have. Sure, Chris Sharma looks like a Greek god, but countless other excellent climbers look like starved vultures. You don't want the biggest lats possible - you want lats that are just big enough to generate the force necessary to do your hardest lock off. Given the factors mentioned before - nutrition and rest - this is exactly what your body will give you if all you do is climb. The main reason climbers should intentionally seek greater muscle mass is for injury prevention - muscle-packed boulder shoulders are less likely to get tweaked when your feet blow and you end up whipping on your arm holding the mantle jug. If you want to gain muscle mass for other reasons - say, to meet a certain aesthetic goal - that is a perfectly fine thing to do. But it is a different question, and the goals of adding muscle mass and sending hard rock climbs might not necessarily support each other.

If, on the other hand, if your goal is as you say - to send - then the answer is obvious. Rest more. Just don't go to the climbing gym for 2 days before your outdoor projecting days. At 17 you will have a truly astounding recovery capacity, but still - it is going to have its limits. Your time is likely better spent - as others noted - getting some sort of job to fund future climbing trips, or hanging out with friends, or applying to colleges, or learning a useful skill, or relaxing in the sunshine, etc. Setting yourself up for success in other aspects of your life will have a much bigger impact on your climbing grade in the long term.

Not sure what you're eating but generally your sessions shouldn't be too long and you need rest days. To see improvements in performance, you will have to lower the volume and/or cross-train to mix things up. If you aren't resting enough, which it sounds like is the case, you're setting yourself up to fail or having sub optimal sessions because you're already tired/fatigued. 

Hitting the weights is really helpful to increase strength, lower chances of injury, and to help overall athleticism. If you're new to lifting, it'll be worth it to look into good lifting technique.

Eric Marx wrote:

I'm not sure where you got your numbers from, but you can't have a bioavailability score greater than 100%. You can't digest 104% of something. The other numbers you've provided are simply wrong, the numbers I've provided, most animal-products fall between 90-95% bioavailable are correct. (Meat, yogurt, chicken, fish, cheese. eggs) You don't need to consider any bioavailability if you're simply basing your protein totals off of animal-products ;) anxiety all gone.

Eating meats vs plant is huge, which is why I specified COMPLETE and bioavailable. Sure, soy is an exception, in that it is complete, with high bioavailabilty, but the ratios of amino acids are all wrong, in that they don't mimic the ratios of animal products, which is what we evolved eating. This is why people can thrive eating only steaks(intense carnivores) but people surviving on only Tofu simply don't exist. Pea protein is also very high in bioavailabiltiy. It's still not a health food product. The idea that a 6 ounce piece of soy is anywhere near as nutritious as a 6 oz piece of steak is laughable, and in this case, very important when talking about fueling intense athletics. 

There's about 10,000 studies demonstrating this to be true. Plant-based eating is a modern phenomena, as such, there are highly-influenced modern studies(last 5-10 years) which chop up data in favorable ways to somehow pretend that humans are better off without animal products, but this will never be true and the studies don't hold up to scrutiny. I bought into that for about 6 years. I'm now 32, train harder and more frequently than ever, I'm less injured and consistently stronger than ever, year over year. Once I stopped counting any form of plant-protein against my daily totals was when the effects really started to take shape.

Starting off saying I would not object to a plant based diet, but per gram, animal products contain many more calories and protein.

Yogurts are a good example of that. In an 8 oz cup of Siggis you can get up to 25 grams of protein. Plant based proteins require substantially more processing to get even close.

That said, I do enjoy eating plant based meals interspersed with animal proteins.

Brice C wrote:

I feel like a lot of these comments are missing the forest for the trees. If you want to put on muscle mass, there are only a few things that matter - pushing the muscles to their limit, adequate protein intake, a caloric surplus (or maintenance in some cases), and adequate rest. 

This is mostly the answer to anyone who is struggling to put on muscle mass. I only push back on "pushing muscles to their limit."

Adaptations don't require max/limit effort. You can leave the gym with gas in the tank and rake in gains all while preventing a recovery hole.

Supplement creatine. Actually it's not really a "supplement," like some sort of pill. Check it out.

Brice C wrote:

I feel like a lot of these comments are missing the forest for the trees. If you want to put on muscle mass, there are only a few things that matter - pushing the muscles to their limit, adequate protein intake, a caloric surplus (or maintenance in some cases), and adequate rest.

regardless of what you’re training for:  you don’t get strong in the gym, you get strong in recovery

Kristian Solem wrote:

Supplement creatine. Actually it's not really a "supplement," like some sort of pill. Check it out.

In almost every sport, no brainer.  You will get large-muscle and (especially) rapid recovery stronger.  Specifically wrt climbing, boosting creatine does lead to weight gain (albeit in the right places - you will look cool), so if your focus is 100% on sending and tiny crimps are on your to-do list, creatine is a mixed bag at the top end for some types of climbing. 

Beer

Brice C wrote:

Taking another step back, however, we should ask why you want to add muscle mass anyway. More muscles = more heavy = less sendy. As a climber, your focus should always be on strength, not muscle mass - getting the maximum possible force production out of the muscle mass you already have. Sure, Chris Sharma looks like a Greek god, but countless other excellent climbers look like starved vultures. You don't want the biggest lats possible - you want lats that are just big enough to generate the force necessary to do your hardest lock off. Given the factors mentioned before - nutrition and rest - this is exactly what your body will give you if all you do is climb. The main reason climbers should intentionally seek greater muscle mass is for injury prevention - muscle-packed boulder shoulders are less likely to get tweaked when your feet blow and you end up whipping on your arm holding the mantle jug. If you want to gain muscle mass for other reasons - say, to meet a certain aesthetic goal - that is a perfectly fine thing to do. But it is a different question, and the goals of adding muscle mass and sending hard rock climbs might not necessarily support each other.

Honestly more weight would probably be a good thing. I'm not positive, but I think my BMI is around the tenth percentile. I am a starved vulture. I had fully accepted that I was just going to have to rely on technique and finger to climb hard, but I'm realizing that that only gets you so far without at least a little raw power. I agree that the "boulder bro" physique should not be aimed for, but currently I can't do a lock off at all, much less lock off on a crimp. I'll switch back to training tech and fingies once I have lats at all. I should add that my goal is to break into the 14s this year.

Your time is likely better spent - as others noted - getting some sort of job to fund future climbing trips, or hanging out with friends, or applying to colleges, or learning a useful skill, or relaxing in the sunshine, etc. Setting yourself up for success in other aspects of your life will have a much bigger impact on your climbing grade in the long term.

Fritz said something similar. I do have a trip fund, and I work as a route setter. I've tried climbing less before and hanging out at parties an shit, but without something to take up most of my time, I find myself a nicotine addict and a pothead. School is not exactly my forte so if I'm not a cragrat I just become somewhat of a loser. I have no idea what I want to do long term, but dirt bagging for a few years while I figure it our doesn't sound too shabby. wow. That got personal fast.

Eric Marx wrote:

Plant-based eating is a modern phenomena

Hi Eric!  I'm delighted to find another area, in addition to guns, politics, and religion, where we strongly disagree. 

The idea that "plant-based eating is a modern phenomena" is ridiculous.  Primates, of which we are one, evolved by obtaining a great majority of their calories from plant sources.  This is still the case for basicaly all primates and aboriginal humans, except those living in very special circumstances, such as polar areas, where plants are largely unavailable.

The whole paleo diet thing is a myth. 

What are decidedely not myths are 1) the link between meat intake and cancer, and 2) the effect of a meat-based food industry on the environment. 

I say this as somebody who eats meat occasioanly, perhaps once a week on average, which is probably about the frequency that primates have been eating meat for the last 60 million years.

Gain muscle? You are a climber not a POWERLIFTER ffs! Eat healthy and nutritious foods and make sure to throw in a good dose of yoga/meditation as well as plenty of rest in order to allow for a good recovery.

JCM and Tony S, "The true percentage utilization"(per the wiki) is what I am saying. aka bioavailabiltiy. The indexing is useless in a real world conversation because if I give a percentage out of 100 you can conceptualize it in your mind. It also makes determining what you're actually digesting very easy to figure out. If I give a random number on an index, it means nothing. 

JCM, I'm not keto or a carnivore or paleo. I'm simply a guy that cares deeply about nutrition and want to help people. Strength athletes need .8g per pound. Climbers are strength athletes. The best sources of nutrition are animal-based, as bioavailability applies not just to protein, but all micronutrition as well. In the study quoted about soy(ref.11 in the wiki) it acknowledges that soy is complete, but deficit in methionine and cysteine. I said this earlier about the amino acid ratios of soy being all wrong. I don't see the utility in throwing around some incomplete numbers about the nutrient level of soy as compared to steak on a topic titled "Food for hard training." which is how the conversation started with Tony S.

As such, there is not an equivalence in counting macros(Tony's point) if you think 20g soy protein = 20g steak protein. It doesn't. Comparing soy to eggs per the chart, you need about 3x the amount of soy protein to match the amino acid profile of a single egg due to the cysteine/methione deficit. So a 20 protein-gram block of tofu has the same net complete protein effect of a single egg which is 6-7g of complete proteins in proper ratios. 

I understand you agree with this, so you realize it's not dogmatic and it's just sound nutritional advice. Telling somebody "Hit your macros" means almost nothing without further context. The OP specifically asked for "food for hard training" not "general caloric advice".

Ah, Bruno, my old friend. I won't be taking any opinions from non-athletes on this subject. ;)

giraud b wrote:

Gain muscle? You are a climber not a POWERLIFTER ffs! Eat healthy and nutritious foods and make sure to throw in a good dose of yoga/meditation as well as plenty of rest in order to allow for a good recovery.

I thought about responding with a similar comment, and fall into the same category of eating healthy and not too much.

For some of us, muscle mass isn’t an issue. We try hard to lose weight if anything.

Others don’t easily gain the size/strength they need even if it’s just to build up power/endurance?

Your diet depends heavily upon your needs.

Lane Mathis wrote:

Adaptations don't require max/limit effort. You can leave the gym with gas in the tank and rake in gains all while preventing a recovery hole.

You're correct - I was a bit cavalier with my phrasing there. But I think we agree that you need to tax the body in order to see adaptations. 

Eric Marx wrote:

JCM and Tony S, "The true percentage utilization"(per the wiki) is what I am saying. aka bioavailabiltiy. The indexing is useless in a real world conversation because if I give a percentage out of 100 you can conceptualize it in your mind. It also makes determining what you're actually digesting very easy to figure out. If I give a random number on an index, it means nothing.  

Regardless of which standard you prefer, the existence of multiple standards mean that you need to specify which standard you are using. One poster was using one standard (without saying which one), and you disputed their numbers based on the standard you use as your preferred reference point (again, without specifying which one). You were talking past each other.

I don't necessarily disagree with your preference for the "true percentage" as a better method, but the fact is that the normalized BV is very common in popular sources, so you need to be aware of it and able to deal with it also. I'd also dispute the idea that a normalized value is meaningless; it can actually be quite useful so long as you clearly indicate what you are normalizing to. Specify your units, real basic stuff. 

And again don't be so dogmatic. "This is the way I see it, which therefore must be the only right way,"

giraud b wrote:

Gain muscle? You are a climber not a POWERLIFTER ffs! Eat healthy and nutritious foods and make sure to throw in a good dose of yoga/meditation as well as plenty of rest in order to allow for a good recovery.

I'd argue that if you want to be climbing 14's you pretty much are exactly a powerlifter, IE you want the most strength to weight you can get (powerlifting is by weight class, I suspect you meant to say "bodybuilder") to the OP, if you are climbing 13C without being able to lockoff I don't think more climbing gym time is going to do much more for you, but if you aren't weight training you are leaving a huge potential upside untouched, there seems to be a misconception that you will gain a ton of weight by lifting, that is completely untrue, you can focus on lifting for max strength and gain very little, if any weight, while getting significantly stronger, in general 5-7 sets of very low reps, heavy weights, maybe even focused ROM, a couple times a week, supplement creatine, and eat enough protein (plenty of good discourse on that in this thread)

I fall into the "starved vulture" body type, and can do a 6 week cycle of this and maybe gain 2-3 lbs. while increasing my overall strength by a huge margin, very much worth the extra weight.

Hank Hudley wrote:

Honestly more weight would probably be a good thing. I'm not positive, but I think my BMI is around the tenth percentile. I am a starved vulture. I had fully accepted that I was just going to have to rely on technique and finger to climb hard, but I'm realizing that that only gets you so far without at least a little raw power. I agree that the "boulder bro" physique should not be aimed for, but currently I can't do a lock off at all, much less lock off on a crimp. I'll switch back to training tech and fingies once I have lats at all. I should add that my goal is to break into the 14s

This is making a lot more sense now, and it might be worth focusing on this. My best guess is that you need to eat more, eat more protein, recover more, and hit the weight room. Doing weight pull ups and rows would help develop this strength in an isolated movement you can focus on, rather than relying on finding that movement pattern in whatever route you are on. 

However, if you're trying to break into 14's, your best bet is probably to develop a relationship with a professional climbing coach, or perhaps to consult a nutritionist/dietician. Old punters like me on the internet won't be able to help you nearly as much as a good professional you have an ongoing relationship with.

Fritz said something similar. I do have a trip fund, and I work as a route setter. I've tried climbing less before and hanging out at parties an shit, but without something to take up most of my time, I find myself a nicotine addict and a pothead. School is not exactly my forte so if I'm not a cragrat I just become somewhat of a loser. I have no idea what I want to do long term, but dirt bagging for a few years while I figure it our doesn't sound too shabby. wow. That got personal fast.

Lol, sounds a lot like life! 

I think you said something really valuable here, which is that you need something to distract you from your bad habits. That's a good thing to learn early on! Lots of people don't figure that out for their whole lives.

If you aren't academically inclined, I think Fritz is right on the money. Start learning some good, honest blue collar work. Route setting is great for a while, but it will wear you out so you can't climb as hard on your projects, and the pay leaves something to be desired. If you learn how to fix cars or pick up some carpentry skills, you'll be able to find a job pretty much anytime where ever you go. You can be your own boss just by posting a few ads offering your services on Facebook or Craigslist. And the skills can be learned on the job, rather than in a classroom. That kind of economic security makes dirtbagging a lot more comfortable and sustainable! And the work itself serves as active recovery for your climbing.