Body Fat Percentage: point of diminishing return?

"5'8", 135lbs"
"6'0" 160lbs"
"6'2" 152"..or even"167lbs"

Wow, you guys are skinny, but everyone is different. I definitely can't do hard moves if I get too light which has happened twice, once on a road trip of 2 months and once after a 2 week trip to do alpine routes in the Sierras. Who knew that doing 15-20 miles days and 1500-2000' of climbing every other day could drop so much weight.

And, yes you will know it when you hit it. Though as others have alluded to, you can continue to see improvements for a short while even when too light, then your body will crap on you.

5.3
120 lbs
17% body fat (I'm a girl ok)

And I climb pretty hard and I love a good steak, I drink wine and eat chocolate!!!!!

About 15 years ago a competition climbing friend and medical pathologist, in his effort to get his body fat to the medical minimum, said he took blood draws daily and trained and starved until he started to see changes in blood protein, what he called muscle metabolates, then he would back off a bit. He was really prone to injury so he was never in prime climbing shape, but I dont think he climbed any better for his extremely low body fat.

JLP wrote: What's missing in these posts is the fact that the fitter you are, the smaller your fuel tank can be. Your body is more efficient. Some % of your body composition is energy storage (quite a bit of it, really). An unfit lardass is going to hit the "point if diminishing return" a lot sooner, but will still look like a lardass.

Not sure I really understand what you are getting at here?
I was more talking about people I know that have had eating disorders and justified continuing with them because they actually climbed harder for a couple of months before their body really started to break down and they could not do anything.

I feel like I'm being called an "unfit lardass".

6'
178-184 lbs
9%*

* of alcohol in my beer; >6% is just light-weight.

Reid Kalmus wrote:Who cares what grade you climb. Go out, have fun and scare yourself a little. Eat healthy to be healthy. Diet if you must, but climbing is supposed to be fun not a chore...

Yeah, I need to stay away from the training forum.

Reid Kalmus wrote:Who cares what grade you climb. Go out, have fun and scare yourself a little. Eat healthy to be healthy. Diet if you must, but climbing is supposed to be fun not a chore...

That's an interesting part of this for me, Reid: the flinty New Englander in me keeps wanting to say, "this is really hard, and don't I have such an admirable appetite for suffering!" But really, it IS actually quite fun. I'm in better shape than I have been since I was like, 20, or maybe since ever, and psyched to be losing weight that I've been trying to get rid of without success for two or three years. So just in a general fitness way, it's fun.

And it's also fun to be committed to really improving myself, to being really focused on a goal, and enduring a little bit of discomfort get move toward the goal.

And lastly, I do care what grade I climb because there are a whole lot of completely awesome routes out there that are a whole lot harder than 5.8 or 5.9 (eg Astroman out West, Yellow Wall right in my hometown, to name 2 of thousands), as well as routes that aren't super hard but where you really want to have your act together when you go do them (eg Casual Route on the Diamond, Sunribbon Arete on Temple Crag). Not because they're rated 11 or whatever, but just because they're amazing routes that happen to be quite a bit harder than I can lead right now. The East Face of the Third Flatiron is undeniably a fabulous route...but c'mon, wouldn't you rather be hiking the Naked Edge?

Anyway, seems like if I'm lighter and stronger, getting up those routes is at least a little more likely, so that's the plan.

For sure an interesting discussion. I'd have to somewhat agree w/ the folks saying that you'll know the point of diminishing returns when you get there... the problem being that, diet is only part of that equation. Usually to get down to a sub 8% body fat takes quite a bit of diligence w/ diet and quite a bit of activity.
So basically when you're body craps out it's burnout and everything goes in the shitter at once.

Another problem w/ keeping a low body fat percentage is that being very lean and recovering from high intensity training are not all that compatible. If you're keeping your body fat really low your body thinks it's starving (extreme oversimplification) and therefore doesn't heal and repair as well as if you've got a few extra pounds on your frame.

All the body fat talk aside. I know that I can climb "harder" routes when I'm heavier. I've varied from as low as 150 pounds up to 190 keeping pretty much the same percent body fat. The reason being is that I've got a +5 ape index so the extra weight (being mostly muscle mass in my upper body)allows me to fully use my reach because my shoulders are stronger; even though the scale says I'm heavier.
Food for thought.

There's a reason weight specific sports (boxing, wrestling, MMA, Muai Thai) have different dieting and exercise phases. I've done two of the above (wrestling, Muai Thai) and with both you ate more and didn't concern yourself with weight when trying to make performance goals, i.e. getting stronger, developing stamina, conditioning. Then about a month to 2 months before a fight or tournament we upped the fiber, protein and water and changed over to cardio to burn the fat off. In more extreme situations we often cut out sodium (which I don't recommend) to reduce weight. After cutting weight once, I'll never do it again. That shit sucks.

I'm 6'3", 175 lbs, and some hokey website told me my body fat was 13.73% (all they asked for was my weight and waist measurement). I suspect my actual body fat is a fair bit lower as I'm quite lean and fairly muscular. So I guess what I'm saying is I have no idea what my actual body fat is.

The heaviest I've ever been is 200 lbs about a year ago. I hadn't done any real exercise for about a year because of an injury, but when I hit the 200 lb mark I decided it was time to get off my ass. I started taking a multi-vitamin everyday, stopped eating fast food, and began bouldering at the gym twice a week.

As far as optimal weight, up till now 175 lbs has been my goal. I floated around 180 for several months, but I hit 175 about a month ago when I started climbing routes 3+ times a week. Now that I've hit my goal and I'm maintaining it without too much effort (I don't really watch what I eat except to try and moderate the fast food), I've started to wonder if I could shed another 5 lbs. I guess I'll just keep climbing and see what my body does. I don't feel like I've hit the "point of diminishing returns" yet, but I think I'm pretty close.

Concentrate on a good healthy diet, instead of some arbitrary number. Every body will respond differently and among men, a lower limit will be in the range of 5% to 9% approximately. If you feel constantly hungry, or tired or getting injuries, or sick or getting colds, you are too light, add a few percentage points. if you are constantly cold, I'd wonder if you are not too light.

If you are constantly worrying about what you are eating ( unless there is a concern about cholesterol, triglyceride or other adverse markers) , see a psychologist....I start to wonder if you have an eating disorder.

Eat a healthy diet...Given 30years of fad diets in the US you have a hard time understanding what is a healthy diet, see a registered dietitian. Advise off the web ( except for sites like WebMD or Mayo Clinic) tends to be crap. Enjoy life. Get out and climb.

Myself, I enjoy good food bd enjoy making good food, had home made pizza last night, and BBQ'ed lobster, with a homemade penne salad with blue cheese, and walnuts the night before along with some watermelon and a glass of wine.

If you want to know my stats, my body always ran on the lighter side. I'm 5'10"/11" and have sat at 150+/-5lbs at 5-6% body fat since I was 16 except when I was living/climbing/running in Japan living on a high carb /protein/ lo fat diet. I also don't get cold in the winter ( probably a high metabolism), don't get injuried ( except breaking my foot last winter which messed up my knee because of an insurance company not wanting to pay for PT after the broken foot, which means I am now recovering from surgery).

I'm finding it interesting that a number of responses seem to equate ANY limitations on what they're eating, or any increase in training and fitness, with needless suffering, unhappiness, or even a life-threatening mental illness.

Meanwhile, it does look to me like the people who really excel in our sport, or indeed in any sport, are rather fit and quite aware of how they feed and train their bodies. It's true that some people stay pretty fit naturally, but I think for most, some planning and discipline is required to do harder climbs, particularly if they also work and have families.

Also, I heard Adele totally flailed on the Enduro Corner, so I've stopped using her training regimen.

I'm 6'4" and 164 lbs.
Conductivity method says I'm at 10%, but I think that sounds high.
20 years of lacto/ovo/pescatarian - whatever 'flexatarian' diet. 12 years of working while standing all day instead of sitting at a desk.
I've got lots of stamina, but the thing that sucks is that I cannot withstand cold temperatures. I also bleed all over OW climbs since I have no padding whatsoever.
YMMV

Gregger Man wrote:I'm 6'4" and 164 lbs. Conductivity method says I'm at 10%, but I think that sounds high. 20 years of lacto/ovo/pescatarian - whatever 'flexatarian' diet. 12 years of working while standing all day instead of sitting at a desk. I've got lots of stamina, but the thing that sucks is that I cannot withstand cold temperatures. I also bleed all over OW climbs since I have no padding whatsoever. YMMV

Conductivity/impedance says I'm about 16%, calipers and other methods suggest around 11%. I agree based on your height and weight, I doubt you're 10%.

I've read that conductivity is unreliable for at both ends of the weight spectrum, and maybe for everyone else as well. Seems to have not much correlation with the other ways I've calculated it for myself, and also will vary wildly depending on the level of hydration in the skin on my feet. For example, if I've just taken a shower but fully dried off my feet, the measurement will be way different than if I'd been walking around my house barefoot for a few hours.

Various sources seem to say that calipers are the most reliable EASY measurement to make. CT or MRI obviously do a nice job, but some folks might not have access to those modalities on a weekly or monthly basis. I was actually thinking that when I get to a spot that seems like a good stopping point I'd do a pool density test for scientific interest/curiosity/fun, but even that is a bit out there: costs a few hundred bucks probably better spent on a climbing trip.

Brent Apgar wrote:For sure an interesting discussion. I'd have to somewhat agree w/ the folks saying that you'll know the point of diminishing returns when you get there... the problem being that, diet is only part of that equation. Usually to get down to a sub 8% body fat takes quite a bit of diligence w/ diet and quite a bit of activity. So basically when you're body craps out it's burnout and everything goes in the shitter at once. Another problem w/ keeping a low body fat percentage is that being very lean and recovering from high intensity training are not all that compatible. If you're keeping your body fat really low your body thinks it's starving (extreme oversimplification) and therefore doesn't heal and repair as well as if you've got a few extra pounds on your frame. All the body fat talk aside. I know that I can climb "harder" routes when I'm heavier. I've varied from as low as 150 pounds up to 190 keeping pretty much the same percent body fat. The reason being is that I've got a +5 ape index so the extra weight (being mostly muscle mass in my upper body)allows me to fully use my reach because my shoulders are stronger; even though the scale says I'm heavier. Food for thought.

My own encounter with the "starvation" thing (I alluded to it elsewhere) was that when I hit a plateau with my weight loss, I broke through it by INCREASING the amount I was eating by about 10-15%...along with really increasing the amount of cardio (including interval training) that I was doing. Before the calorie increase I was eating very close to my calculated basal metabolic rate, and my body was not amused. No way would I have been able to increase my training load the way I did without eating more...relaxing the calorie restriction some was both effective and made the whole thing much more enjoyable.

My understanding is that if you push too close to your basal metabolic rate, your body will undergo hormonal changes that will substantially increase the efficiency with which your body digests food, wringing every possible calorie out of what you eat. My prior thinking had been that there was just a simple 1:1 correlation between calories eaten and calories burned, but both my reading and my direct experience suggest that this is not so.

JLP wrote: No - sorry. I generally click on people's profiles before quoting them, btw. My point is the other end of the spectrum will feel the same way. Lots of pix of Alex Honald with his shirt off on the net the past few days. Seems to me that if you don't look like that (I don't) and have the fitness to climb 3 big walls in a day, then there's probably still some room to improve....In your case - rapid weight loss over just a few days - aka a crash diet - you probably just needed to recover some water and glycogen. That can take more than a week if you were really depleted, can easily sum up to 10+ lbs, and you would definitely feel wiped out. It doesn't have much to do with what we're talking about in this thread, though.

Looking like Honnold and being able to, or wanting to be able to do 3 walls in a day are not the same thing. If you want to boulder harder or do harder sport climbs, the ability to do 3 walls is not going to help that much versus others stuff you could be training, just saying.

As for my weight loss, when it happens it is defiantly not intended but a result of whatever activity I've been doing, probably over a period of 2-6 weeks, and it sucks. Eventually can't do hard moves, I will say I can hang on forever though, no good if you can't do the crux of a route though.

I know where my ideal climbing weight is and am almost never at it because I would have to quit riding my bike, 5 pounds lost in 2 months right there. Also avoiding the holidays is useful for me, though I don't, add 5-10 pounds. I boulder harder about 5 pounds heavier than what I would say is ideal for routes. Maybe I should have part of my quad removed...

Jake Jones wrote:I'm 6'2" and weighed in at 182 this morning. However, I have a slight gut, small love handles, and skinny legs. I'm guessing my body fat% is somewhere around 20%, maybe a little less. Height and weight proportions are often a good indicator of body fat percentage, but not always.

A potentially more accurate answer is just $5.25+shipping from your door!
amazon.com/Accu-Measure-Fit…
Although based on my own calcluations for myself (I'm an inch taller than you and weighed 186 when I started the new regime), my guess is your guess is very close to right.

Chuck is right, and he climbs hard, I've seen it. And I really don't. But to clarify my post, I came to climbing 3 years ago, after 4 years of doing 2 full ironmans each year. My weight was never below 160 even doing cardio all day both weekend days and morning/evenings during week when racing ironmans.

In climbing I saw myself getting fat due to the lack of significant cardio and my own trend toward a poor diet. So I got serious about my diet to stabilize at a weight that is right for me. I'm very ectomorphic so my ideal weight is my own, not yours. Maintaining there has been easy. But if you do want to cut weight in a healthy way my diet above with some sensible variations (nonfat Greek yogurt and almonds in place of egg weights- careful w fruit!).will work 100% of the time for people who work it 100%....personally I enjoy at age 43 using climbing as motivation to be thin. To me, being thin feels better than having 5 lbs of blubber on waist and face....

One can also adopt the training program those of us who have come to appreciate the taste of good beer adopt: start only climbing moderate trad routes put up at least 10+ years ago by the greats of a given climbing area while always referring to them as "classic" and "sandbagged" and talking about how this is real climbing and all of the new hard sport routes or boulder problems are contrived, while you hang out at the bar drinking a half dozen or so local beers. It is a pretty fun training routine if you mix in the occasional run and/or bike... Probably home from the bar that evening after climbing. So far it is working for me and I am 6'1" 179.9lbs.

LeeAB wrote: Looking like Honnold and being able to, or wanting to be able to do 3 walls in a day are not the same thing. If you want to boulder harder or do harder sport climbs, the ability to do 3 walls is not going to help that much versus others stuff you could be training, just saying. As for my weight loss, when it happens it is defiantly not intended but a result of whatever activity I've been doing, probably over a period of 2-6 weeks, and it sucks. Eventually can't do hard moves, I will say I can hang on forever though, no good if you can't do the crux of a route though. I know where my ideal climbing weight is and am almost never at it because I would have to quit riding my bike, 5 pounds lost in 2 months right there. Also avoiding the holidays is useful for me, though I don't, add 5-10 pounds. I boulder harder about 5 pounds heavier than what I would say is ideal for routes. Maybe I should have part of my quad removed...

Are you saying the bike is giving you extra muscle mass? I think I got that also, although I'm hoping to be glad of it on the walk in to the Cirque of the Towers.

Anecdotally (although a triathlete I work with confirms it), I feel like my knees have become massively more stable since I started riding a bike...my running stride feels so much more solid and good now that I'm biking as well.

David Horgan wrote: Are you saying the bike is giving you extra muscle mass? I think I got that also, although I'm hoping to be glad of it on the walk in to the Cirque of the Towers. Anecdotally (although a triathlete I work with confirms it), I feel like my knees have become massively more stable since I started riding a bike...my running stride feels so much more solid and good now that I'm biking as well.

Yes, and you will be glad for it as long as you do some walking or running before hand. Hiking jars the muscles differently than cycling and I'm always really sore after my first day out in the mountain, though it quickly gets better about 3 days of hard hiking in. You don't get winded as quick even when you are getting wrecked though which allows you to wreck yourself even more, Yippie.

As for knees, I have a torn meniscus and partially tore my ACL along with breaking the head of the fibula so my knee is not so good, weather it is more stable or not I have no idea.