Overtraining for older guys?

JPL,

If I listened to you and was 30% body fat to get down to 193 pounds I would have 4% body fat.

BMI is a horrible calculator for an ideal weight. It doesn't work for muscular builds.

Why don't you post up your height, weight and a current picture so I can see what climbers supposed to look like.

Chad Miller wrote:JPL, If I listened to you and was 30% body fat to get down to 193 pounds I would have 4% body fat.

No. JLP's not the kindest guy here but he's right. Even if you don't climb at all and just focus on weight loss, your climbing grades will skyrocket. I'm a scrawny 150 pounder though so what do I know...

Mike Belu wrote:Building new muscle in the 30s or older isn't like when you're younger (of course). Some older guys can crush, but (IMO) most have been climbing for a long time, so they've had decades in some cases to work technique, and muscle memory. Starting from ground zero in your 30s or above is not a fair comparison to some of the guys who have been climbing forever.

It's not true, unless you are starting from an absolute zero (a total couch potato). I know a guy who started climbing in his late 70s and he crushed at the time I met him (he'd been climbing for only 3 years and was 80!). He'd be still crushing now, but he's got a sailboat.

JLP is clueless.
You like the exrx site and find it helpful, when the bmi test they give you calculates by using only height and weight. It's impossible to calculate bmi with just that input. It tells you nothing.
He's also arrogant to think a larger man can't have low body fat, or even preform on the same level as a little man with less body fat.
I bet there are plenty of women out there (and men) who with higher bmi would crush many ectomorphs at many activities.
Keep it up, Dude. Post your worthless trash like it was written by an athlete, and ignore the empirical data that surrounds you.

jon weekley wrote:JLP is clueless. You like the exrx site and find it helpful, when the bmi test they give you calculates by using only height and weight. It's impossible to calculate bmi with just that input. It tells you nothing. He's also arrogant to think a larger man can't have low body fat, or even preform on the same level as a little man with less body fat. I bet there are plenty of women out there (and men) who with higher bmi would crush many ectomorphs at many activities. Keep it up, Dude. Post your worthless trash like it was written by an athlete, and ignore the empirical data that surrounds you.

Uhhh...BMI is calculated using only (square of) height and weight (mass). It is not body fat %.

Now whether BMI is a meaningful measure is a different matter.

jon weekley wrote: when the bmi test they give you calculates by using only height and weight. It's impossible to calculate bmi with just that input.

Dude, that is the definition of BMI.
200+ lbs & all muscle? Take a look at the physique of light-heavy to heavy weight boxers, NFL secondaries and see how you stack up. When you approach 250, it's absolutely scary. Think Mike Tyson, Ray Lewis, Arnold in his prime.

doligo wrote: It's not true, unless you are starting from an absolute zero (a total couch potato). I know a guy who started climbing in his late 70s and he crushed at the time I met him (he'd been climbing for only 3 years and was 80!). He'd be still crushing now, but he's got a sailboat.

Climbing hard at 80 is awesome and an inspiration. What did you see him climb?

For me, I was very athletic into my early 20s, but the sports and training I did didn't have a focus on the movement or muscle groups that climbing does. Then, I went dormant for a very long time (and perhaps became a barfly), so it was pretty much couch potato. The first year of climbing, it was just climbing what I could at the gym, but not really working to get better.

This spring I hope to be in the 190 range and hopefully climbing higher grades. I'm 6'2" as well.

Diet is my greatest challenge.

So in that case what's the relation between bmi and bf%?

"Think Mike Tyson, Ray Lewis, Arnold in his prime."

All those guys have one thing in common: they have skinny legs!!!!!

jon weekley wrote:So in that case what's the relation between bmi and bf%?

The Wikipedia page has a pretty good explanation, including an explanation as to why it is not always the best measurement for tall people or exceptionally lean/fit people (see limitations and shortcomings).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_…

The CDC page also has some good information:
cdc.gov/healthyweight/asses…

jon weekley wrote: "Think Mike Tyson, Ray Lewis, Arnold in his prime." All those guys have one thing in common: they have skinny legs!!!!!

um, no.

JLP wrote: Actually, the vast majority of information on exrx is empirical, from measuring athletes. More empirical: Denial of diet and fitness basics + claim that your body is a special exception = manboobs.

Show us your manboobs!

jon weekley wrote: "Think Mike Tyson, Ray Lewis, Arnold in his prime." All those guys have one thing in common: they have skinny legs!!!!!

You are completely delusional if you think Arnold had skinny legs. You don't have to take my word for it -- he was a bodybuilder -- his measurenents are online.

For reference, Arnold in his prime was 6'2" 235lbs at ~10% bf (look it up). This being the result of years of training to be an elite athlete in a sport (if you call bodybuilding a sport) based almost entirely on big muscles and low bf%. Also, by his own admission, by being a walking pharmacy as far as steroids go.

Unless this describes you, you will not be 235 lbs at 10% or even anywhere in the ballpark. Sorry if this bothers you. 200lbs 10% is a fucking monster, especially without drugs.

That being said, if you don't believe me, go ask a nutritionist or dietician or whoever you want. Or just keep speculating based on nothing, this is the Internet after all.

doligo wrote: um, no.

Actually, I was comparing them to my legs, not your little twigs.

You are completely delusional if you think Arnold had skinny legs. You don't have to take my word for it -- he was a bodybuilder -- his measurenents are online. <

Apparently you know nothing of bodybuilding.
Arnold was probably not even 235 when he competed for the Sandow trophy. His legs were only 32". (Some of today's sprinters have bigger legs). By todays standards he likely would not even win the state championship.

Tyson was 220, but he carried it in his upper body. His legs were noticeably smaller in comparison. Presumably this was from road work.

Ray Lewis: Same thing. He was 220 when he won the super bowl. He was very quick with super lateral speed that did not come from squats.

My point: These guys could very easily have been heavier by not having such skinny legs.

Mike Belu wrote: Climbing hard at 80 is awesome and an inspiration. What did you see him climb? For me, I was very athletic into my early 20s, but the sports and training I did didn't have a focus on the movement or muscle groups that climbing does. Then, I went dormant for a very long time (and perhaps became a barfly), so it was pretty much couch potato. The first year of climbing, it was just climbing what I could at the gym, but not really working to get better. This spring I hope to be in the 190 range and hopefully climbing higher grades. I'm 6'2" as well. Diet is my greatest challenge.

I think at the time I met him, he was at least a solid 5.10 climber, led both rock and ice. Not hard for modern standards, but in the context of older age/shorter experience, I think it's very impressive.

Mike, if you are really serious about your intentions, I would listen to JLP and focus on losing weight first. Maybe even stop climbing for a couple of months. Living in Midwest and having full-time job, I think it would be unrealistic to work on both at the same time. You'll need to do at least 30-40 min above average intensity cardio (running works the best, non-weight-bearing activities like swimming and biking are not very effective) 5-6 times a week and lift weights 3x a week.

As far as diet goes, try to eat same meals every day. If you look into skinny people's food habits they pretty much eat same things every day. Say, oatmeal for breakfast, turkey sandwich for lunch and chicken + rice for dinner (this is just an example, you can find foods that work for you best). The idea behind is that you train your brain/stomach to recognize when you are satiated. The problem with many diet plans is they try to make you excited about 200 cal foods and make you prepare different foods every day every meal, but your brain goes "wait a minute, what was that? I want more!"

jon weekley wrote: You are completely delusional if you think Arnold had skinny legs. You don't have to take my word for it -- he was a bodybuilder -- his measurenents are online. < Apparently you know nothing of bodybuilding. Arnold was probably not even 235 when he competed for the Sandow trophy. His legs were only 32". (Some of today's sprinters have bigger legs). By todays standards he likely would not even win the state championship. Tyson was 220, but he carried it in his upper body. His legs were noticeably smaller in comparison. Presumably this was from road work. Ray Lewis: Same thing. He was 220 when he won the super bowl. He was very quick with super lateral speed that did not come from squats. My point: These guys could very easily have been heavier by not having such skinny legs.

I'm not talking in the context of modern bodybuilding (obviously?) but in terms of comparison to normal people. 32" legs are skinny? That's bigger than my waist -- I'd have a hard time calling that "skinny legs".

This site isn't about bodybuilding but if *you* know anything about it you know as well as I do that the OP's claims of bf% (e.g. "I would be 4% at 193") are ridiculous.

I stick to my previous statement: drop 50lbs, you won't even touch single digits I guarantee you.

EDIT:

I realize this may have come off kind of dickish so I want to clarify I didn't mean it that way. I actually was in a similar situation to the OP (weight wise at least). In college I was that dude who spent way too much time at the gym trying to get "big". I topped out around 230lbs (at 6'2", same as OP) and was strong like bull, so I figured I must be like you know 16% or so. Then I started dieting down to get in shape...turned out I had way more weight to lose than I thought. Ended up ~170lbs in high single digit bf%. Going from ~12% to ~9% was absolutely brutal and in retrospect totally not worth it. Now i'm ~175lbs probably 12-13% -- a much more sustainable state for me. Picked up climbing afterwards so I can't say really how it affected that but I can't imagine it hurt.

Chad Miller wrote: I could get down to 220 pounds but I'd be below 10% body fat at that point and it's not realistic.

i'm not sure how you are calculating body fat but those numbers just don't align. i'm 6' and 178 and i'm not near 10% body fat (although i'd like to be). granted you're 2" taller than me, but it still doesn't add up.

i think the most important thing in your routine is cardio and a lot of it. you need to lose the extra weight first and foremost if you want to take climbing to the next level.

a couple of years ago when i got back into climbing i was about 15 pounds heavier than i am now and it sucked.

now that i've leaned out, i'm stronger and continue to increase my endurance.

BTW, you're far from an "old guy" at 35 ;)

jon weekley wrote: Actually, I was comparing them to my legs, not your little twigs.

You are sweet, I'm flattered. I have always had big legs, if I were a guy I'd probably make a good wrestler.

Ryan Watts wrote: I'm not talking in the context of modern bodybuilding (obviously?) but in terms of comparison to normal people. 32" legs are skinny? That's bigger than my waist -- I'd have a hard time calling that "skinny legs". This site isn't about bodybuilding but if *you* know anything about it you know as well as I do that the OP's claims of bf% (e.g. "I would be 4% at 193") are ridiculous. I stick to my previous statement: drop 50lbs, you won't even touch single digits I guarantee you.

If you look at this graph, which shows data points for BMI vs %BF for males, you'll see just how (un)likely this is:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:…

At 6'2"and 193 lbs, the BMI is 24.8
Find that BMI and look at 10% BF. You'll find that there are people in that data range, and even a few with lower BF%, but it is far from the norm. Not one data point is 4% at that BMI. Even if we accept that BMI is overestimated for tall people, <5% BF (maybe even <8-10%?) is still outside the norm for these data.