Hit a wall with the diet!

Optimistic wrote: Could you expand on that "crux" comment a little? Also, how do you define abdominal definition?

No problem, I simply meant dropping from the 10-12% range to the single digits seems to be where most people have the most trouble, especially if one has never been in that range before. It will take a lot of diligence, and strict programming in exercise and diet, but it will eventually happen.

I asked about your abdominal definition because I can't test your bf% in person. Just a general rule of thumb if you can see your abs (6 pack) you'll most likely be between 10-13% BF. If you have vasculature in your lower abdominals you'll likely be around 7-8% bf. This is not true or accurate in all cases of course. I just wanted to understand where you are in your training process. As I said, as you get closer to your goal, it will become harder to drop percentages

As you are in your transition phase now (I circumspect), you are not yet near your full training load, nor are you performing true strength based training. The transition phase in New Alpinism primes those who have never done (or are far removed from) max strength training before to the movements and workload. In a few weeks when the weights get heavy, you start putting more emphasis toward max strength, AND your training volume increases, you will be more taxed from multiple directions and have to monitor your nutrition more closely to keep performance up to par.

If you have been grading your workouts as per House's recommendations multiple C's in a row can mean over-training, but I'd almost guarantee it also means holes in one's nutrition.

I would add that the most important factor on my journey from 20% body fat to below 10% body fat is sleep. I found that increasing my calorie intake (reverse taper, highest deficit in the beginning, smallest deficit in the end) and shifting my calorie intake towards the evenings allowed me to get quality sleep. Poor quality, or lack of sleep will restrict your ability to lose body fat, increase your urge to eat, and reduce recovery. When you are dieting, you are purposely reducing your bodies ability to recover, be nice and and get an extra hour of sleep over your usual average.

Good luck on the continual weight loss, consistency is key.

Hey Optimisitc, I am a Certified Nutritional Education Trainer and work with people seeking to improve their health and loose weight through improved nutrition. I have experience with athletes as well as people who are fat and sick and frustrated with medication and looking to resolve their problems with dietary lifestyle changes. +1 for Teece303's post that you need to think beyond dieting and focus on eating more nutrient dense foods.

Check out Dr. Fuhrman and his new book "The End of Dieting". You can maintain a BMI between 21-22 for the rest of your life and improve your overall health.

Brendan Kehde wrote:Hey Optimisitc, I am a Certified Nutritional Education Trainer and work with people seeking to improve their health and loose weight through improved nutrition. I have experience with athletes as well as people who are fat and sick and frustrated with medication and looking to resolve their problems with dietary lifestyle changes. +1 for Teece303's post that you need to think beyond dieting and focus on eating more nutrient dense foods. Check out Dr. Fuhrman and his new book "The End of Dieting". You can maintain a BMI between 21-22 for the rest of your life and improve your overall health.

Thanks Brendan, I'll check out that book. Do you mean "less calorie dense"? Also, have you seen this Volumetrics book people have mentioned?

I did have 4 helpings of salad last night, so that's somethin'!

Cutting weight on 1700 calories at 6'2", 179-180#'s is a bit excessive and would be hard to maintain long term especially if you are active outside of work.

Noom doesn't list what calculator they use to determine micro and macro nutrients and how to split those up between carbs, protein, and fats. I use My Fitness Pal which lets me fine tune a goal between busy and slow weeks.

If you are feeling hungry you may not be getting enough fats and fiber rich vegetables. If you don't have enough energy you may be lacking in carbs, and if you are losing strength, not enough protein.

Lyle Mcdonald's site has good info but to really nail down what nutrients and calories you need for your goals this calculator will help.

iifym.com/iifym-calculator/

At 44 yrs and 6' 190#'s, my Basel Metabolic Rate is 1792 calories a day with a office job. When I add in gym time and other activities my Total Daily Energy Expenditure jumps to 2777 calories. In order to drop weight and keep muscle I need to drop down to 2222 calories but since this is just an estimate I usually aim for around 2200 to lose around 1.0 to 1.5# a week.

Once you are done reading Mcdonald's site, BB.com has a couple good forums on nutrition and losing fat.

nutrition
forum.bodybuilding.com/foru…

losing fat
forum.bodybuilding.com/foru…

There's a bunch of Volumetrics books. I have not seen them all but from what I have seen they point in the right direction. I think Dr. Fuhrman's books will incorporate their best principals and offer you a whole lot more information about how to use food to achieve ideal health too.

You can think of your daily food requirements as needing to fill two tanks. One tank is your caloric energy needs that you satisfy with a mix of carbs, protein, and fat. The second tank is the non-caloric health nutrients that you satisfy with a mix of vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, antioxidants and fiber. In order to achieve ideal health (which includes a lean body mass) you must fill both tanks each day.

Less calorie dense, more nutrient dense, whole food plant based, are all terms getting at largely the same thing. They aim to describe foods and a dietary lifestyle that does the best job at filling both tanks simultaneously. And conversely, calorie dense, nutrient poor, processed food/animal based are terms that describe foods or a lifestyle that does a poor job at filling both tanks.

Here's a link explaining the dimensions of hunger. diseaseproof.com/archives/h… You can add complexity to my analogy and think of each of the four dimensions as a "tank".

Making a big salad your main dish is a very easy way to eat well (fills all tanks). Here's a recipe I love. food-school.com/2013/01/04/…

Optimistic wrote: Would you call 8% "super low"? My thought is not much need (at the paltry level I climb at) to get much below 8%. At that point, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to confidently say that whatever is the issue, it won't be my weight! (It's probably not the issue NOW, but dropping to a BMI of 23 just feels like a different universe, so I want to peek just a little further down the road and see how that goes...)

Anything below 8% BF is low and is not really needed for climbing unless you are a boulderer, climbing the upper grades or sponsored and want to look good in the ads. 10 to 15% BF is healthier especially if you are doing 1 to 3 day big mountain, big wall endurance climbs.

I would forget about BMI calculations, it's not a very good indicator of lean body weight depending on how much muscle you have. Going off BF is much better.

+1 to dump the BMI calculations.

I agree with kcradford - strength training and sprints, etc. will help you drop into the sub-10's. However, it sounds like you are wanting to drop weight strictly for the sake of climbing, and you are less concerned about whether that weight is ultimately muscle or fat?

Question for everyone interested in this topic.. (I, too, enjoy tinkering with my body comp to see how it affects performance). Do you believe that dropping 2-3 lbs. of weight has any measurable effect on climbing performance? Let's leave out the freaks that are pushing the standards, for the sake of this discussion.

Seems like a lot of people can maintain 10-12% BF without too much difficulty or suffering, but dropping to 8-9% is a whole different ballgame. It's possible I am just rationalizing an excuse for my own inability to maintain such a low BF%. Anything below 10-11% becomes a sufferfest and I become miserable

Optimistic wrote: I'm guessing (based on a year-old Bod Pod measurement when I was at about the same weight) that I'm in the 10-11% range. Interested to learn more about this "more food, less work" diet, sounds like an awesome improvement over what I've been doing! Thanks for the link, I will check that out...

If you are at 10-11% range, you are done with your calorie restriction diet. It's maintenance now.

The picture is one of the more commonly referenced for body fat composition. Do you look like the guy on the upper right corner?

Jason Kim wrote:+1 to dump the BMI calculations. I agree with kcradford - strength training and sprints, etc. will help you drop into the sub-10's. However, it sounds like you are wanting to drop weight strictly for the sake of climbing, and you are less concerned about whether that weight is ultimately muscle or fat? Question for everyone interested in this topic.. (I, too, enjoy tinkering with my body comp to see how it affects performance). Do you believe that dropping 2-3 lbs. of weight has any measurable effect on climbing performance? Let's leave out the freaks that are pushing the standards, for the sake of this discussion. Seems like a lot of people can maintain 10-12% BF without too much difficulty or suffering, but dropping to 8-9% is a whole different ballgame. It's possible I am just rationalizing an excuse for my own inability to maintain such a low BF%. Anything below 10-11% becomes a sufferfest and I become miserable

My experience has been that 10-12% bf seems to be close to optimal for me as far as performance goes. Below that my strength and energy levels drop off quite a bit, enough to cancel out any benefit by the slightly lower bf%. It's also a massive sufferfest, as you mentioned, and generally results in lower performance as far as training for climbing or other sports go.

Of course, YMMV -- I tend to think people have certain genetic "set points" for their optimal bf% so someone else may be totally comfortable chilling in the high singles year round.

Regarding Jason's question, I am lighter and still don't think 2-3 lbs makes much of difference (104-105 lbs).
I think movement/efficiency etc make a much bigger difference esp in the 5.12 grades (sport).

^ finger strength and bodyweight and technique yeah

for all grades

Regarding the performance advantage of losing 2-3 lbs--

I know that when I get a "power spot" on a difficult move--just a hand lightly on my hip or my lower back, providing a few pounds of pressure at most--sometimes it feels like a *completely* different move, like I am floating. It makes me want to be a few pounds lighter.

I was a skinny kid, and plenty thin all the way through my 30s. At 41 now I am 5+ lbs heavier than I used to be (135-137 instead of <130, at 5'6"), and I struggle to not get any bigger than that. It's kind of brutal. Lots of technical discussion here, but my experience recently has been that trying to maintain a small (300 cals, e.g.) deficit over a multiple-months period is just too hard. I am now trying more of a crash course to get the weight off--an attempt to concentrate the suffering into a shorter period of time. I have been finding over the last several days that I've been surprised how little I can eat, and how non-linear the suffering is. However, social events with food are too tempting--i don't really try to keep myself in check.

It has been interesting to become just another person trying to keep their weight down after a lifetime of having it easy. People who weren't naturally skinny when they were young must really be up against fate. They have my sympathy!

Phil Esra wrote:Lots of technical discussion here, but my experience recently has been that trying to maintain a small (300 cals, e.g.) deficit over a multiple-months period is just too hard. I am now trying more of a crash course to get the weight off--an attempt to concentrate the suffering into a shorter period of time.

You're gonna do what you're gonna do but fair warning you will wreck your shit crash dieting.

It's not like you drop the lbs then go back to eating what you normally eat and the weight stays off.

You are going to have to eat at a deficit consistently for a period of time (depending on how much weight you want to lose) and then afterwards make sure to keep it in check so you don't gain the weight right back.

Calorie cycling may help with the mental side of things. Or creating a deficit through exercise so you can eat a bit more and still be in a deficit.

Ryan Watts wrote: You're gonna do what you're gonna do but fair warning you will wreck your shit crash dieting.

Fair enough! "Crash" may be too loaded a term. Whatever term means enough to *actually* lose a few pounds. Rather than dieting to maintain...