Crossfit and Rockclimbing

Dang dude, you got a lot photos of yourself without a shirt.

What I get from the photos, is that if you have a low body fat %, you don't smile or look happy.

Cheers to that. Grab a beer and lets get this thread to 10 pages.

cleaning cams and taping a few new ones

I'm 5'9" and 6.5 erect. Weight is 152. and i'm not even flexing bro. how much you think my % is?

Brian, we will have to agree to disagree. The fact that hydrostatic testing is sometimes referred to as "the gold standard" only serves to prove how difficult it is to accurately measure body fat percentage. Indeed, the only 100% accurate method would be to kill the subject and then weigh their bones, organs, fat, etc.

This study suggests that the individual error rate using hydrostatic testing can be as high as 5-6%: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/869….

This study suggests that the lower limit for "healthy men" is 4-6%. I'd wager that 99.9% of the population would need to work very, very hard to reach 4-6% by following a super strict diet, i.e. it doesn't happen by accident. We're talking elite athletes and competition body builders, basically.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/800…

I have a medical textbook which states the lower limit for long term survival is approximately 4% (males). I'm sure there are other studies, if anyone is inclined to look them up.

But regardless all the above, that first picture you posted (the one where you're holding the keg above your head) is the best evidence that your hydrostatic tests are underestimating your body fat %. At 4.9% we would see very clearly defined muscles and fiber striations, which are not visible even in your obviously "ripped" state. I don't deny that muscle mass plays a role here, but you're no weakling in that picture and there's enough muscle that we should be seeing them "razor abs" that are all the rage these days. The next picture where you're at a supposed 4.4% is even less believable, since we can clearly see fat stores around your mid section and arms. Essential body fat is around 3% in adult males (this is visceral fat around your organs and such) which means we're left with 1.4%, or just 2.2 pounds of total fat throughout the rest of your body. Now, if you've ever weighed or looked at adipose tissue, it would be immediately obvious that you've got a lot more than just 2.2 pounds spread about your frame in that picture. Estimating body fat % based on a picture can actually be amazingly accurate when it is performed by someone with some experience. As accurate as a hydrostatic test, I would go as far as to say.

Anyway, I'm getting long-winded and none of this is meant as an attack. A few percent here or there, who really cares, unless you're a competitive body builder or an aspiring anorexic? I still believe, and there is quite a bit of literature to back this up, that people grossly underestimate their body fat % (even when testing themselves like you have). These tests are prone to error and serve as an estimate, at best. I'm sure a lot of people are rolling their eyes, because what's the difference between 4% or 6% or 8%? You've got a six pack and you look good. Well, strictly from a physiological standpoint, it is actually a huge difference. And there are crazy people on this earth who dedicate their lives to obtaining absurdly low body fat %, and trust me, they are rolling their eyes at your 4.4%.

Fair enough. There's bound to be error in anything. I was under the impression that hydro testing served as a sort of reference value to judge other methods. I don't really understand praising the amazing accuracy of visual approximations from photos, especially for something as important as a beer bet. Amazingly accurate compared to a true value measured how?

Sorry for contributing to the thread hijack, Daniel

Okay Jason i signed up on this thing with username ChasesBFQ. Ill post to that forum when i can get a decent photo of myself. FWIW, im skinnier than the guy in any of the pics above. By. A. Lot.

PS i got a lot of sun at warped tour so if your havin trouble findin my pic later im the one that looks like a f***ing twizzler.

I have BF tested scores of athletes, mostly elite runners to elite cyclists, and a few body builders. We used hydrostatic testing as the benchmark and another tech was trained to use calipers. What I can tell you from our work is that a) almost everyone grossly underestimates their BF% b) even the most elite runners and cyclists in US rarely tested much below 6% (men) c) some body builders did test lower (I don't remember anyone testing at 4%) and c)caliper testing is highly variable, depending on the number/location of measurements, and the training/consistency of the person measuring d)impedance devices are virtually worthless.

Jason Kim wrote:Brian, we will have to agree to disagree. The fact that hydrostatic testing is sometimes referred to as "the gold standard" only serves to prove how difficult it is to accurately measure body fat percentage. Indeed, the only 100% accurate method would be to kill the subject and then weigh their bones, organs, fat, etc. This study suggests that the individual error rate using hydrostatic testing can be as high as 5-6%: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/869….

Jason, I can't see the entire article you mention here, only the abstract. From the abstract it looks like they are comparing a model to estimate BF% based on 4 parameters (weight, bone-mineral, body water & density...how was that measured...by hydrostatic weighing?) with other standard methods to estimate BF%. The differences in BF%, from the 4 compartment model to hydrostatic testing, were 3.1% (SD 1.2%) for older women and -0.6% (SD 2.3%) for young women. Those values and standard deviations are for the difference between the model estimate and the hydrostatic measurements, not the variation in the measurement itself; e.g. in young women the difference in estimated BF% (between the model and hydrostatic testing) was -0.6% with a standard deviation of 2.3%. Can you tell from the article what the variation in the actual measurement is? How did you/they arrive at 5-6%, and is that 5-6% of the measured value (10% +/- 0.5%) or 5% of the body weight (10% +/- 5%!)?

Brian: Mainly, I wanted to make the point that all the available methods are prone to error, and also prone to overestimation in particular. It's not so much that the visual estimate is amazingly accurate, but that it can be, in my experience, just as accurate as anything else. Given that it is easy and free vs. an expensive test, I think it is worthy of some praise. It only works well in folks who are very lean, though.

Chase: Ok, cool. Please post your results here after you've gotten a few responses and who knows, maybe I will have to take my foot out of my mouth. There is a big difference between being skinny and being very lean. Daniel, I must also apologize for the drift and maybe Chase would be willing to start a new thread. Let's all post photos of ourselves shirtless in an effort to right some wrongs in the various boob threads.

Csproul: You have more testing experience than I, but your results sound about the same. The only person I've ever seen who I would call a legitimate 4% was an outrageously lean body builder, and that was on contest day. I could see veins and striations and all manner of interesting physiology, even in a relaxed state, and this guy wasn't that huge.

I will have to read the article tonight and get back to you. To be fair, I only glanced at the abstract myself, and stumbled across it on another site that was criticizing the accuracy of hydrostatic testing. I believe it was 5-6% of the body weight, which indeed is even more error than I would have expected!

And like body fat %, also prone to gross estimation error. I suspect the root cause for both lies in the same part of the brain. For the record, I am 6.3505 x 10^18 parsecs, flaccid. Have fun with the math.

I have been climbing many years and doing crossfit for the last year.
IT DOES HELP CLIMBING.
I'm climbing high 12's and projecting some 13's.
A crossfit class consists of: warm up, mobility/stretching, workout, mobility/stretching.
I noticed a definite improvement in climbing mobility, high leg raises, stemming, etc.
What you will get from crossfit is a better core, which equals more stability. You train opposition muscles (traps, triceps, chest, finger extensors) which for me helped balance out my "climbing" muscles and in return they got stronger. I had some tendonitis in my elbows and balancing out the triceps got rid of it.
Some of the specific exercises in crossfit, weighted pull-ups, rows, some lifts and pull-up bar hangs are directly related to climbing and grip strength.
Massive cardio increase as well does help fight pump.
You are not going to get good at climbing from crossfit, but it can directly help your climbing get better.
Is it going to help you climb 5.8? Probably not, you will need to focus on technique, but climbs where strenght/mobility is the limiting factor, yes.
It doesn't have to be crossfit, but ANY training outside of climbing to improve mobility, core strength, stability, opposition muscle groups will help your climbing.
Most importantly, HAVE FUN!

I use my hard earned money to go climbing, not pay for exercising and get yelled at. My ex wife yelled at me enough.

7% body fat, 145lbs soaking wet, 31yrs old, with a 6 six pack to boot.

fast and light. now even lighter with out the ball n chain!

you look more like 10% to 12%.

Yer partner with that daisy chain is slowing you down!

Ditch 'em and go out with Slim if you wanna be fast & light!!