Food for hard training

Nick Bogan wrote:

Chicken, rice, broccoli, bread, oatmeal, pancakes, beans. Basically lots of carbs and protein. If your trying to stack on the muscle you should at least consume 1g-1.5grams of protein per pound of body weight. Carbs are like the bust of energy to work out and protein stacks on the muscle. Good fats help too like milf, cheese, beef. I’m not a professional by any means with this. My physique does speak for itself though.

auto correct doing wonders in the food department 

Grant Kleeves wrote:

I'd argue that if you want to be climbing 14's you pretty much are exactly a powerlifter, IE you want the most strength to weight you can get (powerlifting is by weight class, I suspect you meant to say "bodybuilder") to the OP, if you are climbing 13C without being able to lockoff I don't think more climbing gym time is going to do much more for you, but if you aren't weight training you are leaving a huge potential upside untouched, there seems to be a misconception that you will gain a ton of weight by lifting, that is completely untrue, you can focus on lifting for max strength and gain very little, if any weight, while getting significantly stronger, in general 5-7 sets of very low reps, heavy weights, maybe even focused ROM, a couple times a week, supplement creatine, and eat enough protein (plenty of good discourse on that in this thread)

I fall into the "starved vulture" body type, and can do a 6 week cycle of this and maybe gain 2-3 lbs. while increasing my overall strength by a huge margin, very much worth the extra weight.

What actually workouts do you? I do weighted pull ups almost every session but other than that I've never really touched weights.

JCM wrote:

Regardless of which standard you prefer, the existence of multiple standards mean that you need to specify which standard you are using. One poster was using one standard (without saying which one), and you disputed their numbers based on the standard you use as your preferred reference point (again, without specifying which one). You were talking past each other.

I don't necessarily disagree with your preference for the "true percentage" as a better method, but the fact is that the normalized BV is very common in popular sources, so you need to be aware of it and able to deal with it also. I'd also dispute the idea that a normalized value is meaningless; it can actually be quite useful so long as you clearly indicate what you are normalizing to. Specify your units, real basic stuff. 

And again don't be so dogmatic. "This is the way I see it, which therefore must be the only right way,"

How about you start having a rational discussion and stop tossing insults about dogmatism around? Or should we just devolve the conversation into meaningless and repeated insults?

I understand we were speaking past eachother, that's why I asked for the source and addressed it. We can move past the pedantics and onto what matters:

You can address the points I've raised about soy/beef/eggs and bioavailability if you like and explain why they are incorrect. I'll certainly change my mind then, as I've done about 100,000 times in my life to inch closer to the truth. Calling me dogmatic when all I've done is read and interpret data(data I was already aware of and studied deeply) doesn't change anything, and makes you come off like somebody who doesn't want to have a conversation.

The ultimate point is that if you want the best "food for hard training" there is nothing more efficient and complete than animal products. Sure, you can eat 3 pounds of tofu a day to make up for protein deficiencies compared to steak or eggs, but misleading a person asking for nutritional advice by suggesting soy and steak are similar and all you need to do is "hit your macros." isn't helpful. Obviously, you didn't do that, Tony did, and I addressed that too. 

We agree, so what's your problem? lol

@ Eric, 

Giving anybody, especially an adolescent, the nutritional advice to eat more meat and animal products is terrible.  

If they followed your advice, their risk for heart disease, and many cancers, would increase, and their longevity and quality of life would decrease. 

That's not speculative conspiracy--that's hard data. Look up the health effects of a diet based on animal products, including red meat, processed meat, eggs, and so forth, compared to a diet based primarily on plant sources.  

That's not even getting into the environmental stuff.

(And bear in mind that I'm not a vegetarian...I eat meat once of twice a week, mostly poultry).

Your whole thing--a big muscle bound guy with tattoos, a cop, a religious fanatic, a politican conservtive, loves to shoot guns and bows, believes in eating lots of fresh meat and eggs and so forth, pulls hard on plastic and single pitch sport routes--you're like a parody of yourself.  

Stop giving nutritional advice to young people when you don't know what you're talking about.

Bruno, you are certainly one of the strangest people I've ever encountered, I love you, be well.

Hank Hudley wrote:

What actually workouts do you? I do weighted pull ups almost every session but other than that I've never really touched weights.

bench-press, squats, and deadlifts will get you strong, throw in some overhead presses and rows for shoulder stability, I'm sure someone will say that none of these apply to climbing but IMO they will get you whole body strong, and that will do more for your climbing than any specific exercise, I got a fair amount out of weighted pullups, but at a really high weight, low rep per set workout, not something I'd do more than maybe twice a week.

Eric Marx wrote:

How about you start having a rational discussion and stop tossing insults about dogmatism around? Or should we just devolve the conversation into meaningless and repeated insults?

I understand we were speaking past eachother, that's why I asked for the source and addressed it. We can move past the pedantics and onto what matters:

You can address the points I've raised about soy/beef/eggs and bioavailability if you like and explain why they are incorrect. I'll certainly change my mind then, as I've done about 100,000 times in my life to inch closer to the truth. Calling me dogmatic when all I've done is read and interpret data(data I was already aware of and studied deeply) doesn't change anything, and makes you come off like somebody who doesn't want to have a conversation.

The ultimate point is that if you want the best "food for hard training" there is nothing more efficient and complete than animal products. Sure, you can eat 3 pounds of tofu a day to make up for protein deficiencies compared to steak or eggs, but misleading a person asking for nutritional advice by suggesting soy and steak are similar and all you need to do is "hit your macros." isn't helpful. Obviously, you didn't do that, Tony did, and I addressed that too. 

We agree, so what's your problem? lol

I generally agree with your advice and eat in a similar way myself. But I disagree with your level of certainty. I think you are too confident in "the science says this". The state of the science in human nutrition is much shakier than you present.

As to the term dogmatic, I don't think it is a meaningless insult, but rather a reasonable critique of the argument you present. It certainly isn't meant as an insult, just a pointed critique. A quick OED definition of "dogmatic" is "inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true". That's kinda what you're doing, no?

By contrast,  the best-informed voices in this field (and in most fields) are those that can account for what we know, how well we know it, the unknowns, the complexity, the individual variability.  Even Dave Macleod (a big proponent of animal protein) is careful to point out the wide range of variability in what diet different people respond best to.

You and I actually probably have very similar diets. I eat a lot of animal products, vegetables, and fruit. It works great for me. But the difference is that I would be unwilling to stand on a soapbox and shout that this is the best diet. There are possible downsides to this level of animal product consumption that should be considered also. To me the tradeoff is worth it, but it is complicated.

Your advice is good. Just chill on the whole "this is the one true way". Say instead "this is what works for me, there's some evidence that supports it, I'd suggest giving it a try." That's really the best we can do with diet stuff at this time.

My observations of great climbers in your age group tell me that you should just eat Snickers and have fun, and you will crush. 

As someone who has studied nutrition in college, I agree that this conversation is missing the forest for the trees or has really derailed. OP probably just needs to rest more and lift more (like Grant Kleeves mentioned). 

Food wise, I'd suggest keeping suggestions simple and accessible. Most of the beginning conversation has been (simple and accessible) but honestly even the mention of BV is pedantic and overstated. If you haven't mentioned good sources of carbohydrates, veggies, fruits, etc. then you've missed the mark on dietary advice again lol.

Jason L wrote:

As someone who has studied nutrition in college, I agree that this conversation is missing the forest for the trees or has really derailed. OP probably just needs to rest more and lift more (like Grant Kleeves mentioned). 

Food wise, I'd suggest keeping suggestions simple and accessible. Most of the beginning conversation has been (simple and accessible) but honestly even the mention of BV is pedantic and overstated. If you haven't mentioned good sources of carbohydrates, veggies, fruits, etc. then you've missed the mark on dietary advice again lol.

For sure, we've definitely derailed and are just arguing minute details amongst ourselves now. Which is fun in its own way. Were not here on MP to be productive, are we?

 Returning to OP, the basic consensus points that most posters probably agree on are:

1. OP is probably doing too much volume if their goal is strength gains. Dialing back the volume would allow for higher quality sessions and better recovery.

2. Speaking of recovery, give yourself time to rest - proper rest days. At 17 they don't need as much as us old guys, but even the young aren't invincible and will benefit from rest days. Making sure to get enough sleep is important to.

3. Eating enough in general is important if trying to build strength. This includes sufficient protein. At 17 they should can start by just trying to eat enough and avoid excess junk food, and they should be fine. Over time, start paying done attention to how different foods make you feel, and adjust accordingly.

4. Some supplemental lifting to build muscle and balance out to have a robust body is good. But don't let this totally replace climbing. Keep on the wall the main focus, if climbing improvement is the goal.

Any disagreements? Anything I miss, in terms of the core points? There is of course nuance and details to fill in; just going for general outline here.

Hank, while we're spraying you down with life beta, I feel compelled to share this possibly unpopular tidbit.

Lettuce tastes good. Problem is, the human stomach is still developing until age 26. Eating too much "lettuce" before then could make it harder to digest things later in life.

Perhaps consider tapering down or off for the sake of your future stomach function. I'm not saying forsake all vegetables completely forever, but maybe find the path of moderation.

JCM, thank you for the thoughtful response, now we're getting somewhere. I'm going to address what you're saying a bit out of order, but follow the reasoning to the end please. We can agree to disagree after this because I know my reasoning is sound and would be "dogmatic" in this. Sorry in advance for the wall of text, please read it haha:

Obviously, there's a level of detail when it comes to discussing diet in terms of variations in people, exceptions, methods of cooking(which applies to all foods), the changing/developing nature of nutritional science, and our own authority on the subject that isn't expedient to get into in a forum setting where you're essentially trying to encapsulate all of your learning into a few paragraphs to assist somebody asking for help. I could create a 10-hour long youtube video about my own experience with nutrition, the way my diet has changed, my learning, my ideas, all the studies, all the references, and so on and so on. None of that would really matter, what matters is giving clear, concise advice in a rational, digestible way. Referencing something as simple as bioavailability is "too pedantic" by MP standards(as an aside, it's funny to think we shouldn't care about how much nutrition we actually ABSORB from the food we eat), so I don't think MP would be ready for that level of learning. Presenting the facts as we know them(which may be subject to change) is just an efficient way of doing it. I don't find a statement like "This works for me so give it a try." particularly helpful, because we need to speak to the rules, not the exceptions. SethG hilariously noted that the OP could thrive on Snickers at that age, which has a grain of truth to it. Meaning a gummy-bear fueled 17 year old could provide that advice and simply subtext it, "This works for me."

We're not looking for what, "Works for you." We're looking for WHAT WORKS based on human biology. I know you won't like that statement, but keep following me. :)

I disagree that the science is shakier than I present, though it is developing. I find this "fear of commitment' to true ideas is actually a by-product of the scientific revolution. We believe if we study something so deeply, we can continue to study it and study it and study it, and certain things may change if we just study it a bit more, so we'll never say, "We've arrived at the truth." Certain things ARE incontrovertibly true. Soda will ALWAYS be less nutritious than steak. Bread will always be less nutritious than eggs. Refined sugar will always be worse than brussel sprouts. These are easy incontrovertible truths for us to agree on, because the disparity is so vast. What if we bring the disparity closer? Spinach vs. Steak. Still steak. Soy vs. eggs. Still eggs. Steak vs. eggs? Not sure, honestly. Soy protein vs pea protein? I'm not sure. Grass-fed steak vs, factory farmed steak? Grassfed. Organic vegetables vs. non-organic. Organic. Certain truths are incontrovertible and can't be studied away.

Athletes NEED fuel. Athletes NEED water. There actually ISN'T much variation in individuals on these metrics, barring medical exceptions. An athlete who tells you he performs well drinking a single glass of water a day is STILL dehydrated. Your biology isn't different. An athlete who tells you they perform just fine on incomplete plant proteins is STILL malnourished. Your biology isn't different, you don't have a gut super-biome that suddenly makes plant-based eating more efficient, and if you do, we should study you because that would be remarkable. Biology exists as it is, and we have certain needs to meet if we want to push that biology to its limits, as athletes. I can't make a coherent argument that I'm special and need less water. I can't say I need less protein. I can't say I need less complete proteins. Or less iron, or less B12 or less Vitamin D and on and on.

So yes, until the very fabric of reality changes, animal products will always be the best sources of fuel for athletes, especially those undergoing hard training. If you want to increase longevity, I wouldn't recommend an animal-based diet, or rock climbing, or anything particularly stressful at all. Brisk walking and protein intakes around .4 would be a good start if you want to live to 100. 

I'm willing to hear rational, intelligent, well-constructed arguments as to why this isn't true. But simply popping on here and saying, "I studied nutrition in college and this is pedantic"(Jason) is not an effective argument. So did I, so now what? I've also continued my education since then, and very, very deeply since an ACL tear a few years ago. Is appealing to my authority a good argument? No.

All of that said, thank you JCM, for the opportunity to collect all of these thoughts. I genuinely love this. Now, back to my 6oz grass-fed sirloin and roasted broccoli dinner. Before the next poorly-constructed peer-reviewed study(which is the state of most modern studies) shatters my worldview.

I'm not reading this thread because it probably full of shite, so I give you this advice. 

2g-2.5g of protein per kg of body weight, eat a calorie surplus, 4000kc should do. 

Timing doesn't matter, don't change your diet on rest days. 

that guy named seb wrote:

I'm not reading this thread because it probably full of shite, so I give you this advice. 

2g-2.5g of protein per kg of body weight, eat a calorie surplus, 4000kc should do. 

Timing doesn't matter, don't change your diet on rest days. 

I’ll show my wife that a 32 oz Porterhouse per day are essential for my 4000kc diet   

I learned A LOT about nutrition and training over the last 6-7 years training and racing mountain bikes. Here's what I think applies to climbing. 

Carbs are your friend. Eat them (or drink them if you train in the morning and don't want to get up 3 hours before your session) before, during and after your sessions. Carbs immediately after an effort will help replenish glycogen stores quickly which is important if you want to go hard the next day. Beyond that, eat a balanced diet and you'll be fine. Perhaps a little extra protein if anything. I have legs that make it hard to find pants that fit and I never worried about my protein intake. But then again I like steak. Unless you have a good amount of body fat, don't try to cut weight. It's hard to do without undermining your efforts. Pro cycling coaches used to say you could run a 300-500cal daily deficit to lose weight without screwing up your training, but unless you track calories closely and really know your body, it's easy to be counterproductive with it. 

It's not diet, but rest is THE most important part of training. Especially sleep. Good quality, abundant sleep. No food or alcohol within 3 hours of sleep (ideally no alcohol ever). They both cause hormone spikes that will degrade sleep quality. The key to training is being able to go hard af as much as possible, and you can't do that if you're not rested. Rest up, do the high intensity work first, then volume, then rest. Repeat. Eat well on your rest days and drink lots of water. 

Li Hu wrote:

I thought about responding with a similar comment, and fall into the same category of eating healthy and not too much.

Pretty much. Back in the 80s when we were youngsters and clipping 7b to 8b (5.12b-5.13d) routes we were donut eating champs! ;) Training (bouldering) and climbing every single week of the year was the main focus. Food wasn't a priority back then for us. Obviously I eat good food too but wasn't obssessed about macros, micros, proteins, carbs & fat %.