|
catwoman
Nov 21, 2002, 2:19 AM
Post #1 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 115
|
Ok, I've got a question for y'all..... why don't you see many big bulky guys climbing? Not referring to overweight guys, but guys that are bulky and muscular. Does the bulk hinder climbing abilities/flexibility? Or is it just the "lifestyle" of most climbers and don't eat protein?
|
|
|
|
|
quickclips
Nov 21, 2002, 2:31 AM
Post #2 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 477
|
Its harder to hold that much weight close to the rock. We want to be leaner. Long muscules work better for endurance sports. And why would you want to pull that much more weight up.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Nov 21, 2002, 2:35 AM
Post #3 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
Because it looks good.
But really, it is because muscle is quite heavy. Same reason not many muscle-bound guys are marathon runners.
|
|
|
|
|
mr_gondola
Nov 21, 2002, 2:41 AM
Post #4 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2002
Posts: 68
|
I don't think that weight is the main reason for long distance runners not having muscles. If you look at sprinters, Michael Johnson for instance, they are pretty jacked, because they are using their muscles for anaerobic ultra muscle recruiting sprinting.
Long distance runners aren't big because of the huge demand of aerobic exercise they put on their bodies.
|
|
|
|
|
jgill
Nov 21, 2002, 2:43 AM
Post #5 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2002
Posts: 653
|
Carolyn, back in the 1950s you did see heavier, more muscular men climbing. Rock climbing was in the process of separating from mountaineering and becoming a valued activity in its own light. There were lots of mountaineers and mountain hikers who fit the description, and who were rock climbers as well. I was one of those, weighing 180 lbs at 6'2", and quite muscular. But as time passed rising difficulty standards (especially smaller holds) took their toll, and now one has to be fairly slim and/or light(with an exception or two) to hang on teeny tiny handholds. Look at Dave Graham, Tommy Caldwell, or Chris Sharma, e.g. Also, look at the superlative young female climbers who top out at 95 - 100 lbs. In general, for the highest levels of difficulty too much bulk is a serious disadvantage. That's not to say that heavier, muscular climbers are precluded, but you'd have to be genetically blessed in other ways to reach the highest levels. On the other hand, heavier, muscular climbers can do quite well at difficulty levels a little below the extreme limits. This is one old guy's take on the subject - I'm sure there are other valid opinions and examples.
|
|
|
|
|
mr_gondola
Nov 21, 2002, 2:44 AM
Post #6 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2002
Posts: 68
|
For climbers though, you'd have to define bulky. I've seen a couple climbers with enormous guns (from powerlifting for arm wrestling) that climb alright. I'm 175lb and 5' 9", which probably isn't ultra bulky but it isn't Dave Graham skinny either.
The main reason for not having bulk is definitely due to strength-weight ratios. If I could be as strong as I am now and 20 pounds lighter I'm sure I'd be able to hold onto some crazy stuff. However, more so for boulderers, I've seen some pretty jacked individuals that could boulder V8 and above...
Perhaps the main thing is just what is important to you, your body type, and if you've done any lifting before climbing and it's already part of your exercising routine (like it is for mine)
|
|
|
|
|
chonk
Nov 21, 2002, 4:31 AM
Post #7 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 5
|
i am a big guy and it is definately harder to put more weight on my hands. When i am pimping out muh v4's i can feel it. I see lite climbers like ultralightweight hiking. When there is 20 less pounds to carry you can hike much farther and faster. bigger guys just need to get stronger, and definately do yoga!
|
|
|
|
|
topher
Nov 21, 2002, 4:55 AM
Post #8 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 477
|
the weight thing hasnt hindered me or several people that i know, I climbed with a guy all summer that was like 240, and 6.4. and was on siting v6. I personaly weigh 190, and am around 5.10. i can hang onto the smalle hold just as well as the next guy. But on that note, if i was this stong and lighter it would be helpful, and that is what i am trying to do.
As for Chris sharma i think that guy is preaty ripped!
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Nov 21, 2002, 5:12 AM
Post #9 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
195 lbs, still redpointing 5.12s.
Works for me
|
|
|
|
|
ford
Nov 21, 2002, 6:00 AM
Post #10 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 10, 2002
Posts: 85
|
Hi, I'm a big bulky guy out to break the mold. I can vouch for the extra weight being a problem. If I was 20 lbs lighter, I could climb MUCHO better. That aside, I have some interesting techniques to take advantage of my upper boddy strength. (translation: bad footwork, relies too much on the big guns.)
For the record, I am 5'3" and 185 lbs. On a GOOD day I can follow 5.9 or 5.10 if it's not too reachy.
Since I am not the super-light gymnastic build kinda stick boy, I like to climb trad and cracks more than those overhanging faces...
bottom line: the above answers are right on the money. The strength to weight ratio is an issue.
---Ford---
p.s. i have pics that PROVE a buff dude can sometimes climb...
|
|
|
|
|
bvoborsky
Nov 21, 2002, 6:26 AM
Post #11 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2001
Posts: 56
|
I use to be into body building then started climbing about a year ago. Now I climb three times a week and play raquetball two times (I hate running). I quit creatine, aminos, protein powders etc. I have lost 40 pounds and am now 6' and 178 pounds (81kg.). I am still big but not bulky. When you are that bulky it hinders flexiblilty, balance and movement.
|
|
|
|
|
legless
Nov 21, 2002, 7:10 AM
Post #12 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2002
Posts: 160
|
this is MY topic! i was a devoted weightlifter when i started climbing...i hit a serious V3 plataue until i realized that show muscle was no good for rock climbing...not only does it make delicate and balancey moves hard...certain kinds of power moves (like locking off on small holds and crossing) are extra difficult too. as soon as i lost about 15 pounds of unnecessary weight room bulk my climbing ability really improved.
anyhow i see plenty of strong looking dudes climbing...but people who have weightroom bulk either lose it once they get serious about improving, or quit climbing cause theyve been stumped on V3 for too long.
|
|
|
|
|
legless
Nov 21, 2002, 7:15 AM
Post #13 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2002
Posts: 160
|
and about the 6`4 dude who is climbing v6---that should be no problem when you are not just built but damn tall also...difficult sequences can just be skipped...the question about that guy is not what level can he climb but can he actually execute technically tricky moves. ive been climbing with this tall guy who has an unbelievable wing span (+7). he has topped out v9 but just the other day in the gym he got punked on a v5 problem that gave him no choice but to follow a difficult sequence rather than skip to his liking.
|
|
|
|
|
catwoman
Nov 21, 2002, 7:21 AM
Post #14 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 115
|
I wasn't necessarily referring to bodybuilder types - just bigger and bulkier. Nevertheless, you all answered my question. I can't understand, though, anyone losing weight just for the sake of climbing -- I mean, if they're already at a healthy (and attractive) weight as they are. I would think climbing's become too big of an obsession if they lose weight just to get smaller holds and harder rated routes. Generally speaking, I personally think bigger bodies on men are more attractive and healthy looking. I find it freaky when I hear climbers bragging about how skinny they are. Many seem downright anorexic. I know others think the opposite, and I'm not trying to start an argument or anything. I was just curious. Thanks for answering!
[ This Message was edited by: catwoman on 2002-11-20 23:22 ]
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Nov 21, 2002, 7:44 AM
Post #15 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
well, the less weight you carry, the bigger your strenght to weight ratio, the stronger you climb. to a limit, offcourse. sadly some people dont know where that is.
CLIMB ON
|
|
|
|
|
funktimonious
Nov 21, 2002, 8:27 AM
Post #16 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 18, 2002
Posts: 330
|
I asked the same question in my own post. You can see what people said there: http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=19428&forum=23
|
|
|
|
|
mr_gondola
Nov 21, 2002, 12:35 PM
Post #17 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2002
Posts: 68
|
Everyone's been saying stuff about super improvements with losing 10-20 pounds...how much of an improvement is there? One, there is a point where you begin to lose strength as well as weight, equalling a stagnation in the strength-weight ratio that you are trying to achieve. Plus, I haven't found that my weight has hurt me much. Every once in a while I think that, but then after some more training or better yet some improvement in technique I improve. No, I didn't climb 5.14f in my first 5 weeks of climbing like some of the spewers on this site who constantly place posts looking for pats on the back, but then not all of us are scrawny teenagers who get to spend all waking hours after school pulling down on plastic.
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Nov 21, 2002, 4:00 PM
Post #18 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
I'm 5'9" and 198, I weightlift usually 3 times a week...I find that I CAN use the teeny crimp holds, but just not for very long, because after about 15-30 seconds my grip go away...so I try to have a solution (somewhere to go) ready that gets me to a bigger handhold quickly, and I don't have to use the crimp very long...I think it's made me use smears more, since I know that'll hold me better than my hands will in some cases.
I've done some overhangs okay, but they've been wrestling matches didn't win them all, or most, either
the other disadvantage (if you can call it that) is that I don't really scoot up the wall like the lighter folks do...
Also, admittedly I am a relative beginner at climbing, and I think I have lessons to learn regarding technique that will improve my climbing more than losing a bunch of weight will, at this point anyway.
[ This Message was edited by: robbovius on 2002-11-21 08:03 ]
|
|
|
|
|
mr_gondola
Nov 21, 2002, 4:35 PM
Post #19 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2002
Posts: 68
|
It's all about just climbing. Being big only hurts you if you are also weak. My grip is pretty good, though not the best, so yeah I can cruise some overhanging stuff and since I climb at the Gunks I've had to hold my own against roofs...but then again... I'm not ultra huge, just heavier than the stick boys.
|
|
|
|
|
wigglestick
Nov 21, 2002, 4:39 PM
Post #20 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 1235
|
Unlike sports like football and hockey where pure mass can be beneficial climbing is a little different. As others have stated it is all about the strength to weight ratio. A 200 lb climber can climb just as hard as a 120 lb climber. But the 200 lb climber had better be much stronger than the 120 lb person. I think I read in some muscle mag once that strength doesn't correlate to muscle size in a 1:1 ratio. Meaning if you double the size of a muscle it doesn't double your strength. By building huge muscles, eventually you will start to see diminishing returns in the strength department. One of the coolest things about climbing is that it doesn't matter how strong you look, only how strong you are.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Nov 21, 2002, 4:47 PM
Post #21 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
The more bulky the muscle, the less flexible it is. Typically, muscular men are that way because they like the look and have put in a lot of work to do so. But often, do not work hard on the flexibility of the muscle. Climbing requires a lot of flexibility and most people do not seek out an activity that already gives them a disadvantage.
|
|
|
|
|
shortfatoldguy
Nov 21, 2002, 5:13 PM
Post #22 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 1694
|
>Generally speaking, I personally think
>bigger bodies on men are more attractive and
>healthy looking.
Sweet vindication. Yes, in the weightroom I do more pulling than pushing lifts so I can climb, but I like having pec's. Besides, short guys have to compensate--it's the law.
D.
[ This Message was edited by: shortfatoldguy on 2002-11-21 09:13 ]
|
|
|
|
|
bitterlotus
Nov 21, 2002, 5:32 PM
Post #23 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 192
|
>Generally speaking, I personally think
>bigger bodies on men are more attractive >and healthy looking.
I agree wholeheartedly!!!
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Nov 21, 2002, 5:43 PM
Post #24 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Just remember, strength is only one component of physical fitness. Because someone is strong doesn't mean they are healthy. In case you're wondering, the others are flexibility, muscular endurance, and cardiovascular endurance.
|
|
|
|
|
texastechclimber
Nov 22, 2002, 3:04 AM
Post #25 of 46
(10761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 83
|
Being only 5.10 and 130lbs helps me alot when climbing. Give me 30 exta pounds and I wouldnt be able to do s#!t.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
