|
jomagam
Apr 16, 2010, 4:39 PM
Post #26 of 101
(5388 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Posts: 364
|
blurricus wrote: When you starve your body, and it begins to eat at the muscles, it is wise enough to eat at the muscles that you don't use as often. So, running would NOT target the legs, as your body would know you're using them. Is there any scientific evidence for this, or is it more like a something that passes a gut check ?
|
|
|
|
|
poomasta
Apr 16, 2010, 4:52 PM
Post #27 of 101
(5381 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 176
|
I, too, would like to hear an answer on this...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 16, 2010, 5:04 PM
Post #28 of 101
(5373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
blurricus wrote: jomagam wrote: Along the same lines, does anyone know if you can target muscle loss ? In other words will you lose leg muscles if you go running when you're starving, or will your upper body get smaller ? Or it's all genetic/random/etc ? When you starve your body, and it begins to eat at the muscles, it is wise enough to eat at the muscles that you don't use as often. So, running would NOT target the legs, as your body would know you're using them. And if we all believe in Tinker Bell, she won't die! Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 16, 2010, 5:08 PM
Post #29 of 101
(5369 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jomagam wrote: blurricus wrote: When you starve your body, and it begins to eat at the muscles, it is wise enough to eat at the muscles that you don't use as often. So, running would NOT target the legs, as your body would know you're using them. Is there any scientific evidence for this, or is it more like a something that passes a gut check ? If that passes your "gut check" you might want to go see a gastroenterologist. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Apr 16, 2010, 5:16 PM
Post #30 of 101
(5358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
jomagam wrote: blurricus wrote: When you starve your body, and it begins to eat at the muscles, it is wise enough to eat at the muscles that you don't use as often. So, running would NOT target the legs, as your body would know you're using them. Is there any scientific evidence for this, or is it more like a something that passes a gut check ? The great boulderer, Bob Murray, and one of his climbing partners, Frank A---, became serious dieters back in the '80s. Murray at his slimmest was around 6'2" and maybe 150. Friends of his told me stories of Murray using food as a motivator, slicing a Snickers bar into thin strips and then placing them on the holds of a project. Frank A--- damaged his heart with the dieting, and he had to quit climbing. Karen Carpenter is not a model for climbing fitness.
|
|
|
|
|
eric_k
Apr 16, 2010, 5:23 PM
Post #31 of 101
(5350 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2006
Posts: 190
|
If you are strong enough than maybe try using a light weight vest while climbing easy stuff. Like others said before, the extra weight is needed to recover properly from workouts, if you don't have the extra weight than sickness and injury will start to come soon.
|
|
|
|
|
blurricus
Apr 16, 2010, 5:34 PM
Post #32 of 101
(5341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2009
Posts: 46
|
Well, as an avid athlete, I've had many conversations with physical trainers and physical therapists on these subjects. Muscle atrophy, muscles being used as fuel. I especially know the running one well, as I run marathons. During a marathon, your body WILL begin eating muscle eventually. And it goes for what it views as the useless ones first. So, you can believe what you want. If you really want to starve yourself, go out running, and think that your legs will be eaten first, I think you'll find yourself quite mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 16, 2010, 6:16 PM
Post #33 of 101
(5327 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
blurricus wrote: Well, as an avid athlete, I've had many conversations with physical trainers and physical therapists on these subjects. Muscle atrophy, muscles being used as fuel. I especially know the running one well, as I run marathons. During a marathon, your body WILL begin eating muscle eventually. And it goes for what it views as the useless ones first. So, you can believe what you want. If you really want to starve yourself, go out running, and think that your legs will be eaten first, I think you'll find yourself quite mistaken. No. When energy expenditure exceeds energy intake chronically, muscle catabolism is increased throughout the body. Chronic exercise, especially strength exercise, has an opposing effect on the muscles being exercised. However, if you are dieting and exercising, both processes are occurring in the exercising muscles, in competition with each other, in a sense, and at least some of the catabolized muscle may be replaced. But because both processes are occurring, it is difficult to build, or even to maintain, muscle mass while dieting, even in the muscles being exercised. Furthermore, for the type of running that most people do to lose weight—namely, aerobic—running isn't all that anabolic in the first place. Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 16, 2010, 8:51 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jomagam
Apr 16, 2010, 6:50 PM
Post #34 of 101
(5309 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Posts: 364
|
Jay, so a good way to get rid of treetrunk legs is to hike 20 miles on the days when you're not climbing and not eat any protein before/during the hike.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 16, 2010, 6:58 PM
Post #35 of 101
(5305 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jomagam wrote: Jay, so a good way to get rid of treetrunk legs is to hike 20 miles on the days when you're not climbing and not eat any protein before/during the hike. You'd be better off not hiking, and maintaining an adequate protein and carbohydrate intake. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
ClimbClimb
Apr 16, 2010, 7:30 PM
Post #36 of 101
(5286 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 389
|
karmiclimber wrote: On my weight watchers, I eat 1300 cals a day. I lost 6 lbs. in the first week . ...of water weight.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Apr 16, 2010, 7:33 PM
Post #37 of 101
(5283 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
angry wrote: You might be too old to recover from this but you need to drop all your weight, get up off your death bed, and start rebuilding from scratch. Really, there are three options. 1. The Lance Armstrong method, get cancer (cancer isn't necessary but chemo is). Once recovered only train the specific needs for your routes. 2. Heroin addiction. This one is fairly easy I hear. Shoot up, party like a rock star, vomit a lot, sleep in some rain gutters, blow a hobo to share his junk. Rehab, start climbing, and maybe even write an inspirational novel about the journey. Try not to get any diseases and don't inject any bubbles/rat poison. 3. Anorexia/Bulimia, not just for women anymore. Don't eat and vomit all the time. You look so fat, you're so fat, why aren't you skinny like all your friends, you are so fat. You're welcome. Teh. Herion is SO out. Anorexia, crystal meth paid for by mommy and daddy, and living in the bouldering room of your nearest gym is IN.
|
|
|
|
|
karmiclimber
Apr 16, 2010, 7:34 PM
Post #38 of 101
(5282 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2004
Posts: 1058
|
Haha. Cute. Actually, it had more to do with me quitting quitting cigarettes...the damn things are so addictive. I'm gonna die.
|
|
|
|
|
ClimbClimb
Apr 16, 2010, 7:37 PM
Post #39 of 101
(5275 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 389
|
See, this is like the whole "technique vs. fitness" debate, this weight-loss business...Everyone wants to send harder stuff, but I am not sure I'd ever go to the extent of getting less strong / looking worse for the sake of climbing performance. Which is what losing weight off a 175 lbs/6'2" frame would sound like a recipe for... a/k/a "skinny bouldering dude".
|
|
|
|
|
jeepnphreak
Apr 16, 2010, 8:46 PM
Post #40 of 101
(5260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2008
Posts: 1259
|
jt512 wrote: Oy, that guy is wordy. You might want to consider this. Jay Damn it, I was hopping that my diet of fat fried butter sticks dipped in chlotate was going to make me a bette climber.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 16, 2010, 8:49 PM
Post #41 of 101
(5258 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jeepnphreak wrote: jt512 wrote: Oy, that guy is wordy. You might want to consider this. Jay Damn it, I was hopping that my diet of fat fried butter sticks dipped in chlotate was going to make me a bette climber. It hasn't helped your typing much either. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Apr 16, 2010, 8:49 PM
Post #42 of 101
(5257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
jeepnphreak wrote: jt512 wrote: Oy, that guy is wordy. You might want to consider this. Jay Damn it, I was hopping that my diet of fat fried butter sticks dipped in chlotate was going to make me a bette climber. A Bette Midler climber.
|
|
|
|
|
jeepnphreak
Apr 16, 2010, 11:39 PM
Post #43 of 101
(5220 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2008
Posts: 1259
|
jt512 wrote: jeepnphreak wrote: jt512 wrote: Oy, that guy is wordy. You might want to consider this. Jay Damn it, I was hopping that my diet of fat fried butter sticks dipped in chlotate was going to make me a bette climber. It hasn't helped your typing much either. Jay Yeah I know, being dyslexic sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Apr 16, 2010, 11:53 PM
Post #44 of 101
(5217 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
karmiclimber wrote: Haha. Cute. Actually, it had more to do with me quitting quitting cigarettes...the damn things are so addictive. I'm gonna die. cigs are an appetite suppressant. they're great. "i feel like chocolate.... oh wait, no i don't i never crave chocolate, only smokes."
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 17, 2010, 7:02 AM
Post #45 of 101
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
k.l.k wrote: jomagam wrote: blurricus wrote: When you starve your body, and it begins to eat at the muscles, it is wise enough to eat at the muscles that you don't use as often. So, running would NOT target the legs, as your body would know you're using them. Is there any scientific evidence for this, or is it more like a something that passes a gut check ? The great boulderer, Bob Murray, and one of his climbing partners, Frank A---, became serious dieters back in the '80s. Murray at his slimmest was around 6'2" and maybe 150. Friends of his told me stories of Murray using food as a motivator, slicing a Snickers bar into thin strips and then placing them on the holds of a project. Frank A--- damaged his heart with the dieting, and he had to quit climbing. Karen Carpenter is not a model for climbing fitness. Hey Kerwin, Did you forget Frank's last name? Or, are you purposely not making it public? Just curious--I knew Frank pretty well BITD when I lived in Tucson. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Apr 17, 2010, 3:44 PM
Post #46 of 101
(5166 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
curt wrote: k.l.k wrote: jomagam wrote: blurricus wrote: When you starve your body, and it begins to eat at the muscles, it is wise enough to eat at the muscles that you don't use as often. So, running would NOT target the legs, as your body would know you're using them. Is there any scientific evidence for this, or is it more like a something that passes a gut check ? The great boulderer, Bob Murray, and one of his climbing partners, Frank A---, became serious dieters back in the '80s. Murray at his slimmest was around 6'2" and maybe 150. Friends of his told me stories of Murray using food as a motivator, slicing a Snickers bar into thin strips and then placing them on the holds of a project. Frank A--- damaged his heart with the dieting, and he had to quit climbing. Karen Carpenter is not a model for climbing fitness. Hey Kerwin, Did you forget Frank's last name? Or, are you purposely not making it public? Just curious--I knew Frank pretty well BITD when I lived in Tucson. Curt No, I just didn't know if he'd want his next employer to turn up that story off a random Google search. Let alone the other crap on this site.
|
|
|
|
|
jomagam
Apr 17, 2010, 4:45 PM
Post #47 of 101
(5148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Posts: 364
|
jt512 wrote: jomagam wrote: Jay, so a good way to get rid of treetrunk legs is to hike 20 miles on the days when you're not climbing and not eat any protein before/during the hike. You'd be better off not hiking, and maintaining an adequate protein and carbohydrate intake. Jay That doesn't compute for me considering your previous post: When energy expenditure exceeds energy intake chronically, muscle catabolism is increased throughout the body. Wouldn't I want a lot of muscle catabolism while my energy expenditure greatly exceeds my intake (close to zero) in a 20-mile 6-hour hike ?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 17, 2010, 4:59 PM
Post #48 of 101
(5144 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jomagam wrote: jt512 wrote: jomagam wrote: Jay, so a good way to get rid of treetrunk legs is to hike 20 miles on the days when you're not climbing and not eat any protein before/during the hike. You'd be better off not hiking, and maintaining an adequate protein and carbohydrate intake. Jay That doesn't compute for me considering your previous post: When energy expenditure exceeds energy intake chronically, muscle catabolism is increased throughout the body. Wouldn't I want a lot of muscle catabolism while my energy expenditure greatly exceeds my intake (close to zero) in a 20-mile 6-hour hike ? You've ignored the very next sentence.
In reply to: When energy expenditure exceeds energy intake chronically, muscle catabolism is increased throughout the body. Chronic exercise, especially strength exercise, has an opposing effect on the muscles being exercised. So, if you specifically want to lose leg muscle, then exercises, such as hiking, that use the leg muscles almost exclusively, are not the way to do it—especially combined with protein restriction. Your approach will lead to muscle mass loss primarily from the upper body, which is the exact opposite of what you want. To lose muscle mass specifically from the legs, you want to maintain a high-protein, high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet, and to do exercise that emphasizes the muscles you want to maintain. That would be your best bet, anyway. If you didn't get your "tree trunk" legs by doing exercise, you might just be stuck with them genetically. Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 20, 2010, 3:52 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jomagam
Apr 17, 2010, 5:37 PM
Post #49 of 101
(5136 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Posts: 364
|
Jay, I ASSumed that hiking is not a strength exercise and like you say at the end of that post: the type of running that most people do to lose weight—namely, aerobic—running isn't all that anabolic in the first place. Man, biology is complicated...
|
|
|
|
|
poomasta
Apr 19, 2010, 10:48 PM
Post #50 of 101
(5062 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 176
|
ClimbClimb wrote: See, this is like the whole "technique vs. fitness" debate, this weight-loss business...Everyone wants to send harder stuff, but I am not sure I'd ever go to the extent of getting less strong / looking worse for the sake of climbing performance. Which is what losing weight off a 175 lbs/6'2" frame would sound like a recipe for... a/k/a "skinny bouldering dude". there is no "ideal" weight for everyone of a certain height. i guarantee you i would not look unhealthy at 165 based on my body type (again, I'm mostly skinny legs). I have a friend who is 6'3" and weighs 200 lbs, but if you looked at us from the waist up, you wouldn't see much difference...in fact i would guess you'd think i weighed more than him. why? dude's a runner with some serious leg mass why i'm sporting some relative twigs. the BMI scale (as silly as it may be) has 144 lbs as the cutoff for "underweight" at a height of 6'2"...and while i don't see any way that could be healthy for me, maybe it is for someone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|