Would dropping 10lbs really make that much of a difference?

Don't ask but I randomly just saw that some of the hardest boulderers out there are like 140lbs, some 5'10''. Which blows my mind. Here I am thinking being 5'9" 160lbs was light weight. I mean it seems stupid to ask but this is a valid question. Train to get stronger? Or bike every day and lose 10lbs? I mean sure do both, but I'd love to hear other peoples thoughts on this. Have you ever considered this?

Maybe this is only applicable with bouldering since you need to have short bursts of intense energy. Whereas lead or trad climbing is more gradual energy usage over time. 

The answer is going to be "it depends".  Are you 160lbs of muscle or are you carrying a few extra pounds because of those extra beers and burgers? For me, when I'm carrying an extra few pounds, it's indicative of my overall health and fitness so I would definitely benefit by shedding them.

It definitely depends on the person but for most it's a lot easier to lose 10 lbs. than it is to train hard enough to be 10 lbs. stronger, if you are already super lean it may be a wash but most people can drop 5 lbs pretty easy and it makes a noticeable difference in climbing, for me I can get away with being heavier bouldering, hanging on fingertips for a long time sport climbing is where I can notice a couple of pound difference, some of my hardest sends have been after long backpacking trips where I was completely worked but really light...  

I feel like biking every day would have me 10 lbs heavier in a couple of weeks but maybe that's just me?

Daniel Patterson wrote:

Don't ask but I randomly just saw that some of the hardest boulderers out there are like 140lbs, some 5'10''. Which blows my mind. Here I am thinking being 5'9" 160lbs was light weight. I mean it seems stupid to ask but this is a valid question. Train to get stronger? Or bike every day and lose 10lbs? I mean sure do both, but I'd love to hear other peoples thoughts on this. Have you ever considered this?

Maybe this is only applicable with bouldering since you need to have short bursts of intense energy. Whereas lead or trad climbing is more gradual energy usage over time. 

Good answers so far. I recently found an old journal from 11 years ago, and made this idiotic non-correlation. I was 24 lbs lighter and climbing 8 grades harder, so your answer = 3lbs per grade. I'm sure someone on the internet will sell me some anti-aging and stronk pills to further equal out the equation....

Your BMI is 23,5 and that's a healthy ratio. 

Losing a couple of pounds could just as easily hamper your climbing, depending on what kind of mass you lose. 

Yes

Dropping 10lbs of fat is huge and can be worth 1-2 V grades for people who are relatively fit.

But losing it is a one time effect and takes effort to maintain. On the other hand training is very cumulative, so it's absolutely what you should focus on if you care about long term progress.  Also while being super lean is good performance, at some point it becomes detrimental for training.

If you're curious I would recommend getting a DEXA scan (~$50) to find out what weight 10% bodyfat would be. It's usually way lower than people expect.

Short (term) answer is likely yes. Climbing is gravity-dependent. Less weight equals less effort. A lot of sports are like this. Climbing is nothing special.

Longer answer is it depends. It's not that easy simply to lose unhelpful fat while keeping necessary muscle. And not all muscle is helpful to climbing. Carb intake is necessary to do work so actual training is a poor idea/unworkable on a calorie-deficit diet. Best bet is to A. get a sense of current actual bodyfat percentage, B. calculate likely progress toward a desirable #, C. eat healthy natural food with a small but consistent caloric deficit (250-500 max) built in and D. see how you feel after a few months. A before/after comparison for basic strength assessments is good too, as that provides an outside benchmark to consider in appraising a diet's effects.

I feel like I was on the heavier side for a climber, 6'2" and was at 196 lbs in June. When I was about that weight, and climbing in the gym pretty often (3x /week) I was climbing around 11+. 

Started counting calories, and am now down 15 ish pounds. I am more focused on hunting right now, and have been climbing *maybe* once a week. But still climb the same grade. So weight can for sure make a difference!

There are 3 ways I see to climb harder grades -- get lighter, get stronger, get better. If you've never tried one of those methods, there's probably a lot of low hanging fruit you can use to improve quickly. And each of those 3 ways has its diminishing returns (and can even make you worse if you take it to the extreme). Which one of those will help the most and where to allocate your limited effort will depend on a lot of factors, such as movement technique and tactics, body composition, how long you've been training. So it's hard for people to answer the question 'would dropping 10 lbs make a difference' without knowing where you are at personally.

If you've never dieted before, try watching your calories for a month or 2. With tracker apps it isn't as hard as I thought it would be. It might be low hanging fruit to improve your performance. Just time your food intake before your climbing sessions to keep your energy levels up, and mix in some high intensity workouts (weight lifting)--I've heard this will help keep you from losing as much muscle mass as you drop weight.

James Arnold wrote:

Good answers so far. I recently found an old journal from 11 years ago, and made this idiotic non-correlation. I was 24 lbs lighter and climbing 8 grades harder, so your answer = 3lbs per grade. I'm sure someone on the internet will sell me some anti-aging and stronk pills to further equal out the equation....

this is kind of interesting.  when i was a serious climber and trained for climbing, i analyzed my data quite a bit and my rough takeaway was that i generally went up a letter grade with every 5 lbs stronger on relevant hangboard grips.

but, getting back to the OP - yeah, when you are climbing near your limit 10lbs is a shit ton of weight.

You could narrow this question down further even within sport / trad. For pockety places like Wild Iris or 10zzz, less total weight means less strain on your tendons when you're yarding on monos. Since tendons are avascular, they take longer to develop (and heal).

I spent a good amount of time there a couple years ago and weighed 134 pounds at 5'10" -- I'm usually 145. That style of climbing felt a lot easier with ten pounds reduced.

Right now I'm training for an all-day mountain bike race in September and have been using creatine hcl to develop leg muscle for it. I'm at 153 lbs with a similar body fat percentage, and still feel good on long pitches, but notice a difference when pulling on monos.

Bouldery-shouldery stuff? Not a big difference. Offwidths, hand cracks and off-fingers? Not a big difference. Tips and knuckle locks? Yeah. Enduro pumpfesfs? Significant. Slab? Someone else would have to weigh in on that.

When I've spent more effort on trying to max my climbing grade in the past, I've intentionally cycled my weight. I'd maintain a higher set point most of the time while training to prevent injury and maximize energy. When it came time for redpoint burns, hardest onsight, the big trip, or whatever, I'd plan to drop from 175lbs to about 168lbs (I'm 6'3"). This usually gave me a boost on hard-for-me climbs, but I could only maintain that weight for a week or two before the wheels would fall off. Under that weight, and I'd be sick or injured. But in my case, that lower weight didn't tend to matter as much as training intelligently, sleeping sufficiently, eating well, and all the other things that go into effective recovery. 

These days I carry more muscle from things like alpine climbing and backcountry skiing, so I don't climb quite as hard but I'm more durable. A lot depends on the specifics. As Eric said above, can you get lighter, stronger, or better? Stronger and/or better might be more beneficial than lighter in the short run, and will likely be in the long run as well.

Daniel Patterson wrote:

Don't ask but I randomly just saw that some of the hardest boulderers out there are like 140lbs, some 5'10''.

So you're looking at genetic outliers who won the Climbing Ability Lottery and you're wondering if you can be more like them if you change one obvious external characteristic and do so easily.  

The answer is no.

IIRC Matt Fultz was 160lbs / ~21.7 BMI when he sent Hypnotized Minds V16, which is one of the most finger-intensive boulder problems out there. 21.7 isn't tiny, but it's pretty light, and it's inline with pretty much all the top climbers I've seen (in person / subjectively, or when their stats are published). He's talked about body weight and composition in his various Nugget interviews, all of which are good. I'd recommend giving them a listen.

Suffice to say, the better you are at climbing and the less fit you are to begin with, the more you'll benefit from achieving a more athletic body composition. But one thing to keep in mind is that most elite climbers started very light—which, due to genetics, we didn't—and added just enough muscle to get through power moves. It's a lot easier to go up than down. Depending on where you start, going down healthily and productively could likely be a multi-year process, not something you just "do" for a season.

slim wrote:

this is kind of interesting.  when i was a serious climber and trained for climbing, i analyzed my data quite a bit and my rough takeaway was that i generally went up a letter grade with every 5 lbs stronger on relevant hangboard grips.

For my body type (& current portly build), losing 5 lbs (easily up to the next 20) would be much more beneficial than gaining the equivalent finger strength on many types of moves, as a thinner build would allow me to get into positions I can't otherwise, to the point I'd probably climb harder w/ quite a bit lower relative body strength (which will happen at certain point of weight loss).

To OP, you likely will climb harder -10 lbs, maybe more, but how much is that worth to you? I got a day job & it ain't climbing.

Being lighter is going to help your climbing in all dicisplines. The issue is getting too thin too quickly/too much. Taking up a cardio that isn't rowing probably isn't the answer, as you're going to be adding muscle that isn't useful for cranking.

If you've got extra fat (I sure do), you can gain a lot by eating in a more healthful fashion. Less ice cream, beers, ect will go a long way if you cut it out for a few months. But eating disorder is such a huge issue in this culture (specially for women), and cutting pounds and counting calories can become an incredibly destructive force.

Anecdotally, I've noticed that I send much more easily when I'm 150lbs at 5 10. But with a physically intense job, it feels safer for me to stay at 160.

Personally, when I'm on the negative side of the 250 +/- 15 I've maintained for ~3 decades now, I definitely notice better climbing.

But that's much more of a correlation to the ramped up physical activity level and improved nutrition, not a causal relationship.

Long Ranger wrote:

So you're looking at genetic outliers who won the Climbing Ability Lottery and you're wondering if you can be more like them if you change one obvious external characteristic and do so easily.  

The answer is no.

This answer doesn't make any sense. In fact, it demonstrates that 10lbs really does make a difference. If it didn't, not all of the strong boulderers would be light. He is not asking how to become the best in the world. He is asking if 10lbs would make much of a difference. It depends - you always want to work on the weakest link to make the greatest improvement. If your fingers are weak but you have good technique, a little time spent on a hangboard or on a decent strength or power program might have the biggest payout for you. If you have pretty good technique and a decent amount of finger strength, dropping weight might have the biggest payout. But regardless - yes, 10lbs will make a big difference depending on the type of climbing. 

I get into this conversation now and again- and it's convenient when people see me doing weighted pullups with something LESS than a 45lb plate- "Does ___lbs (a relatively benign way to ask 'why are you pissanting around with that tiny dumbbell, bro?') really make a difference?" and ask this question. To which I reply with a request: Try a single max set of pull-ups with just body weight AND good form. How many super-controlled standard grip pullups can you do? After that, wait ten minutes, get as close to 'fresh' as you can, now add a 10 lb dumbbell to your harness and see if that number is the same. The response I usually get after the second (weighted) set- "Holy shit". Even with this rough, rudimentary gauge of pullups, one can see a decided difference in strength gain or loss with 10 lbs. Yes, for the average climber- speaking for someone in the 5.11 range, or let's say someone that flashes in the 10+ range and projects somewhere in the 12- 12+ range, yep, 10 lbs makes a difference. The lighter you are to begin with the more of a difference 10 lbs will make. Proportion and all.

Daniel Patterson wrote:

Don't ask but I randomly just saw that some of the hardest boulderers out there are like 140lbs, some 5'10''. Which blows my mind. Here I am thinking being 5'9" 160lbs was light weight. I mean it seems stupid to ask but this is a valid question. Train to get stronger? Or bike every day and lose 10lbs? I mean sure do both, but I'd love to hear other peoples thoughts on this. Have you ever considered this?

Maybe this is only applicable with bouldering since you need to have short bursts of intense energy. Whereas lead or trad climbing is more gradual energy usage over time. 

I'm about the same height & weight as you. I can say for sure that when I was climbing my best (long trad, aid, ice and alpine) around 145# range. Now with family and career, keeping a 145# weight has been impossible, even when I do well on intermittent fasting and exercise.

To lose weight, you should do both diet and exercise. You need to bike a lot to lose 10lb because bikes are super efficient. Unless you are already a good runner, I think reasonable amount running + diet will get you there. If you can recover, then you can easily train to get strong as well.

Personally, I get about 5-6 hours of free time max during the week. I try to my best to climb when I have a larger block of time like 2 hours or so, but when I only have 30-45 minutes breaks, I just go for a run or Peloton.

Hope for Movement wrote:

This answer doesn't make any sense. In fact, it demonstrates that 10lbs really does make a difference. If it didn't, not all of the strong boulderers would be light. 

Are strong boulderers strong boulderers because they are light? 

Or, are they that way because they've trained in a way that makes them become strong boulderers, and how they look is just what that looks like (a result of the training)? 

If you believe it's the latter, then why would you even entertain the former?