Like most climbers, I suppose, I'm always looking for the next big (slightest) advantage that I can get. Frequently that comes down to "strength" and "technique." In terms of strength there are generally two options: (1) get stronger, and / or (2) get lighter. In case you were wondering, it is incredibly difficult for an athlete of moderate to excellent physical condition (physique) to improve both categories at the same time; exceptions apply. Perhaps my word choice was a bit poor there, as Mark Twight might say; "Physique is a consequence of fitness." Anyway, for the last month or so I've been (loosely) following this plan.
As much I want to stick to my guns and tout that "You can't outwork a ****ty diet", I did a little research recently that makes me think that that statement is highly dependent on how much "work" and how much "****." Over the last 14 days I've spent 6 days at the crag. I kept a log of what I ate over a four day period. What is interesting (to begin with) about that span is that it captured two extremes of my lifestyle. That is, the "workout" (crag) days had a much higher energy demand than a typical training session at an indoor gym. On the other hand, the "rest" days were absolute couch-potato days which are much different than a typical day where I would still be walking around campus to classes and such.
On the couch-potato days I ate ~1500 calories of (most) healthy foods (lean meat, nuts, fruit, vegetables, and a few starchy carbs). On the crag days I consumed a whopping 3900+ calories. For reference I weigh about 170 lbs and about 5'8". Granted, a lot of those ~4000 calories did not come from "healthy" sources. Wendy's and Dr.Pepper are my post-crag guilty pleasures. But it was quite an interesting observation to note that while I was actually at the crag I was in more of a
The last 10 years or so of recreational activities have been consumed by weight-class-based sports (wrestling, MMA, BJJ, boxing, etc...). I've tried really hard to break the 170 lb. barrier on many occasions. My peak fighting weight (before cutting any water weight) was ~167 lbs. Typically I'm pretty comfortable in the 170 - 175 range and start to raise an eyebrow if things get any higher than that. Going from 175 to 160 lbs is only a 4.5% decrease though it took (perceptibly) more than an 80% increase in effort. In terms of getting "stronger" or "lighter", then, that puts me / us in a strange position. In particular, I am of the stocky muscular build and will probably, unless something goes terribly wrong, never attain the coveted string-bean tendons-of-steel body type. Fortunately, a revelation occurred to me a a couple months ago to put things in perspective.
If I lose, say, 10 lbs and my climbing does not improve, what difference did the weight loss make? On the other hand, if my climbing drastically improves but I happen to gain a few pounds in the process, who cares?
Of course, this leads me to what should be a fun post on defining climbing "success." But alas, that is for another time (coming soon).
Recently I've re-read Eric Horst's "Training for Climbing" which expands upon the principles in his "How to Climb 5.12." I've been trying to wed the things I'm (re)learning from the his books as well as my previous track records / experiments. I agree with Horst that trying to climb low carb is a terrible idea. The biochemistry is fairly straight-forward, at least sometimes. The most readily available source of energy for the body is glucose (e.g.: some form of carbohydrates). So I think my current project will look something like this:
Goal:
- Get stronger. I'm fairly lean already. If I happen to loose a few pounds, cool, but my priority is improving my performance.
- Trying to publish something that is an accurate mirror of what I actually practice. Often times I publish something and inevitably start to go astray, not necessarily awry, but the prescribed "plan" is not longer an accurate descriptor of my current practice. I'm trying to find something that I can stick to since I've already found a variety of things (evidenced in this blog) that "work."
*Updated 6/1614: As I (partially) anticipated, my baseline, being based on a couch-potato day, was too low of an estimate for a day of mild activity (much more common than potato-ing it) without additional exercise. I also speculate that the additional carbohydrate addition on "workout days" was a bit too aggressive. Other updates shown in blue-italic font.
- Protein: 100g (1.4g/Kg - upper end of Horst's recommendation)
- Carbohydrates: 100g (Generally the maximum on most 'low carb" diets)
- 140g: This is no nearly "low carb" and the keto-fans can rant all they want, but while there are no "essential grains", they do / can serve a very useful biological function. Anyway, all I did here was add another (generous) serving of carbohydrates to my previous estimate.
- Fiber: In an attempt to weed out garbage carbs from helpful ones I usually check the 'Dietary Fiber' content. If it is less than 4, its probably not that good for you. 4 is kind of an arbitrary number, but taking a look through my cabinets, it seems to be good cut off point. The exception being one of those daily servings of carbs can be of a high glycemic index and low fiber (this is for quick absorption post-workout).
- Fat: 77g (Between 1g / Kg and 1g / Lb of body weight)
- I find this to still give good balance on non-training days. This leaves me with a diet containing a little less than 42% fat which is still the largest caloric contribution of any macronutrient on non-training days; which was my plan from the start.
- Calories: 1500 (baseline for a couch-potato day)
- With the recent carb buff this has been bumped up the the mid 1600 range, so ~1650 calories.
- Protein: 100g (Same as above)
- Carbohydrates: Add ~0.5g / Kg of Body Weight / Hour of Exercise
- This accommodates varying degrees of daily activity
- Its up to you to decide what counts as "activity" and understand the difference between hungry (biological need for fuel) and bored.
- Initially I set this at 1g / Kg but that was bit too aggressive and my base non-training days were too conservative. The new updates have a somewhat low protein content but are fairly balanced (~24/34/42 Protein/Carb/Fat). As training hours increase for the day, marcronutrient ratios scale to a much higher carbohydrate content (>60%) while protein drops fairly low (although attempts should be made to keep it around 15%) and fat content levels off at about 20% which should still be sufficient.
- Fat: 77g (Same as above)
- Calories: *** (Dependent on exercise / activity level - AS IT SHOULD BE!)
- Mostly Low GI (Glycemic Index) carbohydrates on crag days and throughout regular (training or rest) days
- High GI meal within 2 Hours of training session
- Avoid (not exclude) refined grains, sugar, and things that don't grow.
- Load up on vegetables
- Fruits / Grains / Beans / Other Starches per above GI guidelines
Contemplating a mobile app to keep track of things:- I actually find this extremely neurotic and compulsive and works against the sustainability of changes most people seeking in spite of coveting "the dieting secret." However, I'm explicitly seeking performance improvement, sustainability is an afterthought.
- A simple checklist on my phone does the trick. After sketching some sample daily menus I was able to, as before, chunk things down into terms of X servings of Vegetables, X servings of lean meat, X servings of fat, etc... and simply check off each item throughout the day. The neurotic part only has to happen once and sooner or later you'll probably have the list memorized anyway!
No comments:
Post a Comment