\*I'm writing this as a person who has posted in this sub for a few years now. In the past most people who posted here were active in training and had been climbing at a high level. As such, most people that posted here were already relatively trim; many clocked in at pretty low BMI's. Over the last couple years (this past year especially) a lot of newer climbers have shown up on this sub with a variety of different body compositions. In writing this post I was thinking of the older archtype of climbharder posters.
Historically, when climbers have posted here questioning whether they should lose weight they were already at a pretty healthy/low BMI. In almost all of those situations I recommend looking at their training and their climbing before considering weight loss. The reason for this isn't political correctness; the reason is that if you are sitting at a relatively healthy BMI and you want to know how to climb V9, then you should get better at climbing. Climbing is a long term game and dropping weight for the sake of sending a grade harder doesn't make you better at climbing. You might send that V9, but then you'll have the same problem as before, but with V10.
There are plenty of reasons to lose weight in climbing. The last few times I've been injured I've been about 10-15 pounds heavier than where I usually sit. That said, losing weight from where I usually sit incurs a lot of negative training effects. I'm much more prone to fatigue, my fingers feel tweaky and don't recover as well between sessions. Now if I dropped another 10 pounds and didn't get hurt, I'm absolutely certain I'd crush. The cost in terms of my ability to train consistently and to climb well isn't worth it to me though. I might not send my proj next month, but if I'm healthy and can maintain my training consistently, then hopefully I'll send stuff a lot harder than my proj over the next few years.
Also, as a therapist, I really question what losing weight for an immediate performance gain does to a climbers relationship with the sport and with their body. Improving in this sport is very much not an instant gratification game. I think it is challenging to lose a bunch of weight, experience an immediate performance gain, and then jump back into slow progression (we see this with climbers who max hang for the first time and come away with huge noob gains). I think it's possible to do it well, but it seems like an easy trap for many people to fall into.
> Historically, when climbers have posted here questioning whether they should lose weight they were already at a pretty healthy/low BMI
Yeah I think this is the crux of the issue. This question isn't getting asked as much by people for whom it is the lowest hanging fruit to be improved upon (perhaps because it isn't really in question, I'll make no commentary as to why). But the question almost always comes from someone already at a healthy weight/BMI.
I do see an overarching theme in this thread that perhaps wasn't as addressed is: weight loss is something that unlike increases in strength can easily turn counterproductive. Gaining more finger strength or pulling strength rarely won't hurt you, but losing weight past a certain point will.
I would say that there probably is a degree of training pulling fingers/pullups where you would get similar effects of poor recovery: if you're doing so many fucking pull-ups you may get really good at pull-ups, but you'll be so drained you can't recover for your actual climbing. But I concede its much much easier to get this point of 'impacting recovery' with weight loss than other strength aspects.
However I do think that some people are overestimating how early this effect occurs, but it varies by person.
> Also, as a therapist, I really question what losing weight for an immediate performance gain does to a climbers relationship with the sport and with their body. Improving in this sport is very much not an instant gratification game.
Hm, is weight loss really the only way that you can make quick progress in climbing though? I've seen people similarly feel much better on the wall after a round of fingerboard training or flexibility training, etc. I don't see the point in telling people you must progress slower than X rate or else it's bad for your mental.
>Hm, is weight loss really the only way that you can make quick progress
in climbing though? I've seen people similarly feel much better on the
wall after a round of fingerboard training or flexibility training, etc.
I don't see the point in telling people you must progress slower than X
rate or else it's bad for your mental.
I state this literally the sentence after what you quoted. I think both are a challenge for people to navigate. I'm not telling people it's bad for your mental to progress quickly, but I am saying it's easy to develop a relationship with the sport that is frustrating, unenjoyable, and unsustainable. It also walks people into a relationship with weight loss that is tricky to navigate, in a sport where disordered eating prevalence is high.
The thing is it doesn't even taking disordered eating for calorie restrictions to wreck many athletes and cause injury. Calorie restrictions are tough to train around. Additionally, bodyweight is realistically the only metric you mentioned that can have a major impact on an individual's health beyond the scope of climbing. So to try to disentangle in such a way that limits that impact is inherently more complex. In other words, bodyweight systemically affects the ability to develop every other metric mentioned.
All this to say, what you're asking about is maybe more complex than what anyone is really studying wrt serious scientific inquiry, so don't hold your breath on any meaningful discussion happening anytime soon.
Sure, but focus on body fat percentage, not BMI. Muscle is also weight. I don't see that as healthy, especially if you have life balance in mind not just climbing 9c
BMI as a metric is not very good and I can't imagine a single metric that relates height and weight that would not be hamstrung by it's assumptions. Ideally, we would love to see a comprehensive body composition test, but that would be too expensive and (more imortantly) useless. You don't need a study to see that elite climbers all have relatively low body fat and are on the leaner side. Just look at the videos.
Then there are details of "what" they climb. If you are climbing 50m pumpfests on overhanging pocketed limestone, losing weight would have bigger impact than if you are compressing a 5-move prow somewhere in a granite paradise.
Let's set aside the political correctness for a second. I am sure somewhere in the world there is a climber sending V12s with 25% body fat, but most people like that should consider losing weight. I'd also think that anything past 10% does not make a much difference and the climber should focus their efforts elsewhere.
I'd like if people elaborated on their body composition when they talked about what a weight loss/gain did for them.
Because people seem to be divided in two groups (wow, people differ?!) where some increase climbing performance and some get weaker or injured, during weight loss.
Could bodyfat percentage be a better indicator of when it's healthy to lose weight than just BMI?
Yes body fat is the only metric i'd even think could be somewhat allowable / worth discussing. And even then kind of sort of dangerous and pointless for most here.
*especially* since I would guess like 95%+ people aren't even climbing hard enough where it's worth the discussion of optimizing beyond losing extra fat to be standard ish healthy.
If you're overweight in terms of fat, obviously getting to a healthy composition is a great idea climber or not.
But if you're in a somewhat wide healthy zone it's not worth talking about imho and as we see in tons of comments in these threads is dangerous.
Come back if you're trying to push past v12 and want to micro optimize your diet
or better yet go to Fultz whose GF/wife? is the one making all their food and it's crazy health diet stuff (and looks super depressing to me lmfao. i need that sugar glycogen. sour gummies for the send)
Plenty of other climbers crush on hamburgers too lmfao.
Being healthy could also look like D woods just stop drinking wine and raving for a bit and boom. A month of failing later and you climbed ROTSW
\> Yes body fat is the only metric I'd even think could be somewhat allowable / worth discussing.
I would totally agree if it were not for the fact that body fat is hard to accurately measure. Displacement, and x-ray based techniques are accurate but expensive and requires a trip to a facility that has the equipment. Skin-fold \_can\_ be accurate if administered by someone skilled, again, a visit, and cost. Any other method is either unproven, or wildly imprecise, or both.
Amazon's AI based image analysis system seems quite promising, requires a Amazon fairly cheap halo subscription, and a cell phone camera, and trusting Amazon with images of you in underwear, and vital statistics.
So yeah, not really a great metric after all.
for sure!
and that hard to measure/specialization required also adds to my point that I think is such a far thing down the list for most people in an amateur sub reddit to be focusing on. (again, not talking about losing obviously excess fat in a healthy way)
Like who even has access to a vo2 max darth vader mask or fat dip dank. and has the coaching/expertise on their team to make healthy informed decisions to make optimizations using those tools. answer: athletes at the top %s where it could matter.
that's awesome I haven't even heard of amazon halo (looks like a whoop which I tried and stopped using... have you tried this one?). i have an aws account and have used their ML tools which are pretty cool so that's a plus one point.
but I guarantee there is a bunch of bias in their training data. Like you said doing it visually has its problems.
Why do people in here always go scientifically nuts? :)
On males, the last bodyfat that you can lose in a healthy way is often on the belly. Either as subcutaneous fat which is just under the skin surface and covers your abs, or as visceral fat which is around and inside your organs and makes your stomac protrude.
I'm 178 cm and even when I'm as low as 67 kg I have quite a bit of visceral fat. When I go down to 65 kg, this disappears and my waist seems ideal (like when I was a teenager and didn't give weight or food any thoughts at all).
Most regular people at my height would look shredded at 70 kg. The few times I've hit 70 kg I have looked pregnant with skinny arms and legs.
Just use a mirror. No need for MRI.
Yup, agreed, a lot of climbers seem to be taking scientific analysis of their training a bit far! Generally I'd say who really cares, let them have their fun, I'm in it to stay fit, happy and healthy, etc.
Measurement and metrics are nice because they are objective, they allow us to remove the ambiguities, like shredded for a climber? shredded like a competitive boulderer? They help us track progress in a simple series over time, I was sending last time I was 65kg, now I'm 70kg, and the stairs look steep.
But weight is an irrelevant metric, regardless of how accurate your scale and method is. You might climb better at 70 kg if you put the weight on as muscle in the right places. BMI is also shit metric, because its reliant on weight.
>Just use a mirror. No need for MRI.
I almost fully agree with you on that one, but unfortunately there are a lot of people for whom the mirror is a devious tool, body dysmorphia makes them see a pregnant bug, when maybe there is a reasonably shredded climber standing there, top .1 percentile physique.
I don't think you can use the Lattice database as it is right now to argue either point. It's not a representative sample of climbers in the slightest. The database is heavily biased for climbers who take training seriously and are already climbing reasonably hard. If I took a truly random sample of all climbers, you'd see a much stronger correlation because a ton of climbers would be in the high BMI / low max grade range.
I agree with your point that its a convenient metric that you can use that likely has some explanatory power, but its also likely highly colinear with other variables such as body fat %, max weighted hangs, etc. and it's hard to say without more rigorous analysis whether it contributes any additional explanatory power over those other metrics.
I started climbing in 2017, made pretty quick gains and was climbing V5ish boulders consistently and sport climbing 7A/+ , had done one 7B sport route before Covid hit, I was hovering around 61kg.
When covid had us lock down I decided it would be a good time to try and get lighter since I had full control of what I ate being at home all the time, I got down to around 58kg, went back to climbing when I could and stayed around this same grade, I did one more 7b sport route and more V5’s.
I was at my lightest and thought I felt strong but lost my period, was constantly hungry and generally didn’t feel like my training was bringing fast enough gains.
I hit a breaking point, saw a nutritionist, upped my calories, gained 5kg and saw my energy and climbing level improve massively.
I’d say at first you feel heavy, but more food = more energy = more training and faster recovery, which means you can do even MORE training. My fingers have quickly caught up with this extra weight, I actually look leaner and more muscular than I did at a lighter weight as I am fuelling properly and now comfortably climb V7 and have recently sent my first 2 V8 boulders.
In my opinion being lighter is not better than being stronger, everything feels 10x better now, I would’ve been absolutely gutted 2 years ago if I thought I’d get up to 63/4KG but it’s one of the best decisions I’ve made for my climbing and general health.
I don't think I would read very much into an almost-horizontal straight line fit through that very random data. If you remove a couple of outliers, the line would probably go the opposite direction. When that Lattice article first came out, I read some very acerbic comments about the quality of the statistical analysis in display.
I agree that the visual presentation can be misleading. The graph includes the origin, which makes the BMI range seem smaller and less substantial. If the plot was redone to frame only the data, the correlation would appear to have a greater slope (less horizontal).
I think we would much prefer to have a correlation coefficient, or even access to the data ourselves. Lattice is currently doing another study, and hopefully they release a similar study, despite the increased social stigma about it!
In fairness, it's because they scaled the Y-axis from 0 to 30, pretty much making it impossible to see the slope. If they had actually bothered adding the R\^2 to the regression, we'd probably see that the relationship is be pretty strong.
I did. They same something like (on the phone, so can't be bothered to re-read) "there is a some negative correlation but it's small." Without numbers, it's a very subjective thing to say.
Okay sure, believe what you want.
But I feel like at this point trying to tell climbing community that between V0 and V13 that BMI is in now way shape or form correlated with performance is a weird hill to die on.
Actually (because I looked at the graph and didn't RTFA either) the conclusion of the article you linked is:
> While there is a slight negative correlation it is not substantial. Of greater note is that the line of best fit in all cases lies within the ‘healthy’ 18.5-24.9 range, this suggests that maintaining a low BMI is not necessary for climbing hard.
It would be interesting seeing a correlation between height and BMI in a group of elite climbers. Looking at some of the climbers out there I’d have a theory that taller climbers can get away with/need a higher BMI to perform at the top levels. I’d guess the extra mass in bones and the extra leverage from length needs more additional power than just what it takes having a similar BMI as the shorter elite climbers.
I would very strongly guess the opposite.
Just looking at elite climbers, some of the more muscular ones are shorter. especially a *bunch* of girls fit this mold. i can't think of a single tall beast girl. most of the 'bigger muscle' boy US comp climbers are short. daniel comes to mind too.
And many of the tall(er since height still trends 'short') ones are string beans who look really really skinny when you see them IRL. ethan, paul looked mega skinny last time i saw him, adam ondra. etc etc.
Obviously people break that mold.
Fultz comes to mind he's just a big beast.
Other counter examples kids like Tanner and zander look big to me (and fairly tall) to me in person. And they are both pretty beasty in terms of muscle. But then in the data below the trend I'm saying look at /u/drewruana who someone on reddit literally said who is your mega ripped friend 😂😂. giving these examples because their [weights & strength #s are easily available](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TnumSst9NHPZqT0aXvOOsaGCkLhyRZ825o0OIQCJouA/edit#gid=388809465)
Hmm interesting :) You’re probably right, I might have been looking more at some of the freaks and made a general rule about that, Jan Höjer, Jimmy Webb, Emil Abrahamsson to name a few. So maybe more looking at strong boulderers (and specifically the tall ones) rather than the comp climbers that are winning comps.
I would think that you’re especially right in that the opposite might be the case when it comes to sport.
Jimmy Webb is definitely a freak. In more ways than one 😈 ;)
cue climerisms southern hoot and hollar
i've never seen him in person, but just from video and photo I'd kind of guess he's in the middle between tank and bean, leaning more towards bicep bazooka 🤷
Regardless, I still think this 'correlation' is the same for bouldering and sport as a general wave of the hand, not-so-fast rule. The physics just doesn't work as you get to the extremes; one has more room to pack on mass at smaller frame sizes before the fingers just can't
but that's kind of dumb and to the point i'm trying to make. especially since basically no one here is at that level.
there are such wide variations in body types that can send hard.
still can't name a taller women muscle queen though....
I'm sure there's one if anyone has suggestions, always need new people to follow?
Just from the general shape I’d definitely say he’s on the higher end of BMI for climbers. According to google he’s 183 and between 70-76kg - the latter definitely putting him in higher ish BMI (again, for climbers)
For women I would guess Staša Gejo would be that? Obviously neither as tall nor heavy as the men, but google says 174 and 68kg - which I’d wager as higher end height and weight wise for womens climbing.
But again, that’s just me trying to confirm my own idea as a taller person, who’s not willing to get too lanky so would rather get strong ;)
And yeah, I agree with you, for the most part none of that stuff will matter up until the very elite levels, and even then, technique, experience, and the right mentality can probably beat slightly more optimal body composition..
> Staša Gejo
Oh nice one. I don't really know her. [Looks mega in this one - KT tape aside ;\)](https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/stasa-gejo-of-serbia-competes-in-the-boulder-final-during-the-of-picture-id1235347782?s=2048x2048)
Yeah bulk up! love to hear it.
Stronger is stronger!
Shit's hard. I have been trying to add 5 pounds of targeted muscle, was making progress but then got covid and lost 8 lmfao. #SadDog
A few observations:
1) In the Lattice data, at the higher end, BMI is clustered in between 20 and 25 -- despite the trendline, there's no observation that "lower is better" at the top end. Note that "healthy" BMI is between 18.5 and 25, so we don't even see BMI in the low "normal" associated with higher climbing grade
2) Dropping fat mass is (almost) always going to be accompanied with lower strength and poorer recovery, and keeping yourself lighter than your body "wants" to be is going to impede performance and recovery.
A pragmatic approach is to treat "strength to weight ratio" strength first (that might be a Matt Fulz quote?), and insert targeted fat loss cycles into the overall annual cycle, and to be cautious about fat loss as a performance goal if you are already in that 20-25 BMI range, & particularly if you are already below the midpoint in that range.
Point no. 2 is bs of course. Fat mass does in no way contribute to strength by itself and dropping fat mass will always result in a higher power to weight ratio, which is what this whole discussion should be about anyways. BMI doesn't matter, power to weight does. You can be at 10% bodyfat and have the same bmi as some fat dude without muscle, of course the leaner one is the better climber.
The process of cutting fat outside of unusual circumstances is going to be accompanied by lower (absolute) strength and poorer recovery. If you are sensible about it you'll get strength back afterwards and you might end up with a better strength/weight ratio. But, to use your phrase, it's bs to believe you can cut fat without dropping some lean body mass, particularly if you are already starting somewhat lean.
In the short term, yes, it's absolutely possible to drop 2kg and lose only 1kg in pulling power, and end up "ahead", but it's also pretty easy to do the opposite, particularly if weight is the only tool in your arsenal. How people respond to a fat loss cycle is individualized.
"Get stronk at maintenance -> cut a bit -> get more stronk at maintenance -> crush" is a better training cycle than: cut -> crush? -> cut -> crush?
The notion that you can't gain lean muscle mass and lose bodyfat at the same time is outdated. It is definently possible to not only not lose power, but gain power while you are dropping your bodyfat %. You're quoting very old fitness advise.
Losing body fat while gaining muscle only works for overweight and untrained people. If you're at a healthy BMI and train a lot, losing weight also leads to losing gains.
False. Recomping is possible for anyone. It is not the most effective way to build muscle or lose fat but in the context of climbing it is definently possible and efficient.
I feel like this conversation never happens in climbing because people are always trying to be super inclusive and sensitive, but it's important to have. Sure, you can climb at any weight, but not a single world-class climber is above 11% body fat. Obviously if you're starving yourself to the point of muscle deterioration then it's not healthy, but i think the idea of "losing body weight is never a good idea to improve climbing!!!" is simply not true for 80% of climbers.
Any serious athlete that wants to break past v12/5.14b is going to NEED a dialed diet to fuel the body after heavy training, and BF% below 14. If you've had body image or eating disorder issues in the past, then sure maybe it's not worth it. But dieting and losing weight, with a proper balance of sleep, proper macro balance, and a good training schedule, should do nothing but improve your climbing strength.
> Sure, you can climb at any weight, but not a single world-class climber is above 11% body fat.
Um I don’t think this is true at all for women. 11% bf for women is like bodybuilding competition level lean. It’s actively detrimental for most women to be that lean while being super active. To use the most obvious example, Janja is definitely above 11% body fat.
This is true, thanks for correcting! All of my bf% knowledge is based on the male body, but i'd bet almost all the women dominating the comp circuit are in the lowest 3rd percentile of body fat.
The other thing i'd note is the difference in body composition between competition climbers and outdoors climbers. The comp climbers definently lack shred and tone compared to outdoors boulderers. Alex Puccio, Michaela Kiersch, and Laura Regora all look like gods and are insanely low bf, but killers like Janja, Brooke, and Stasa have almost no muscle definition even in the bicep/shoulder and obviously destroy everyone haha.
terribly late, but I'm pretty sure Chris Sharma has been above 11% body fat multiple times in his career. Not disagreeing with your point, but it's not true that you can't be above 11% body fat.
Sure. But imo, chris is kinda the anomaly both of generational talent and being driven much more by stoke than regimented and maniacal training. Shawn, Daniel, Giuliano, Adam, Alex, everybody truly pushing the envelope in today's climbing world is fucking peeled to the socks. Paper thin skin and visible striations in everywhere in the upper body and abs, all the young guns are def around the 9% mark. But, I feel like we have been understanding the potential danger of malnutrition, and we've heard so many climbers talk about their battles with eating disorders. But it does kinda suck that all the big names rn and super toned and small frames.
"wouldn't say that using BMI is inherently flawed. Is it perfect? no."
If it's not perfect, it's inherently flawed. "Flawed" doesn't mean "useless," it just means it isn't the complete, nuanced picture. It's a data point that may be helpful when trying to gauge progress, relative weight, etc.
I think this is a good measure to use, with an added qualification: assume body fat % is in a healthy but a low range, say around 10-12% for males and ~20% for females. _Of course this varies for every person. Healthy for one person might be unhealthy for another._ Then BMI is a better indication of lean mass, controlling for height. Then we can ask questions like the following:
At what point does muscle gain become detrimental to progress?
More muscle is not always better, and having less muscle is also not always an optimal solution. It also depends extremely on where the muscle is located. Therefore there is some "best" amount of muscle that climbers should acquire or lose to send at their best. This is from a simple physics perspective, assuming all else is equal.
I think there is a quite large variation in terms of BMI as it largely depends on your height and muscle mass. Some people need more muscle mass to be strong while others seem to be fine with very little. So BMI between 18 to 25 is great, depending on how you feel individually. If you are above 25 and climbing is your main goal, you probably should assess whether the extra weight is beneficial and something that you do well with or just extra fat/muscle that you dont need. I feel great between 22.5 - 24. Trying to go lighter I get very hungry, training suffers and I am tired. Maybe I could consider it for some specific project, but not for the long term.
I think people are too focused on how they perform today. Being a bit heavier just means that you can eat more, you recover better and thus can build more muscle and strength as well as train more. When you try to push for lower bw, it should be just a temporary solution for specific goal unless you are way above the bw thats optimal for you.
It is not suprising that there is a slight correlation between bw and climbing performance as this is a bodyweight sport. If you are lighter, you probably are stronger compared to your bw, but this doesnt apply forever and there are trade offs. And there is a point at which the difference in bw is neglible, but the decrease in gains and energy is very noticable.
Anyway, the bodyweight you train at should be something that you can sustain indefinitely. You shouldnt be constantly struggling with it. If you are, you can always try to change your lifestyle and diet so that you arent hungry all the time and binging, but if that doesnt work you are probably just too light and your long term gains are worse.
Bodyfat is also a good measure. If you are under 8-10% as male, I would start considering whether you are actually too light and whether that is sustainable. I feel like I do the best between 10 to 12% and thats at the lower end. Being above 20% as a male, is probably something that isnt optimal, but can be for some.
What is a healthy BMI? That doesn't exist because you can be fat or muscular with the same BMI. I wouldn't want to lose my muscular physique just to go up half a grade
Just to add some gasoline to this particular fire, there is a fairly reasonable peer reviewed article on the topic here:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6326274/#:\~:text=BMI%20is%20not%20a%20predictor,a%20high%20or%20low%20BMI](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6326274/#:~:text=BMI%20is%20not%20a%20predictor,a%20high%20or%20low%20BMI).
The general conclusion is that "No associations were found between level of performance in sport climbing, onset of a climbing-related injury, preferred style of climbing, education, gender and BMI." The sample is statistically significant and the general methodology is sound. Take it as you will.
For me the takeaway is that BMI does a poor job predicting body composition in athletes, that has been shown many times. I recall seeing a competition stat where Puccio was reccorded with 21 BMI while looking absolutely ripped. On a more scientific side of things, you see papers comparing BMI and BF% in gymnasts:
[https://thesportjournal.org/article/comparison-of-bmi-based-equations-and-plethysmography-for-estimating-body-fat-in-female-collegiate-gymnasts/](https://thesportjournal.org/article/comparison-of-bmi-based-equations-and-plethysmography-for-estimating-body-fat-in-female-collegiate-gymnasts/)
TLDR: If you want to track your body composition, buy a set of calipers and learn how to use them.
I feel like people need to evaluate their on unique situation and experiment/make decisions for themselves instead of going by any sort of general guideline. Different people have different skeletons that can support different amounts of muscle. I think this is especially true of forearms. My dad is like 3" shorter than I am but at 76, even though he's lost a ton of muscle mass in his old age, his wrists and forearms are much more robust than my own, even though I climb/lift weights/do wrist curls. Not only that but his fingers are shorter, giving him better leverages, even though overall his hands are probably more robust than mine. Given all these factors a little excess bodyfat would probably not matter as much to him, if her were a climber, than it does to me.
Like, what does it matter if so and so is crushing at whatever body fat/BMI/body weight if that person is built completely differently than you? Like, Fred Nicole has a BMI of 23.5 and Janja Garnbret 17. People are going to exist on a spectrum roughly between those body types (not BMI but the body type), and their optimal body composition is going to depend on it.
I guess this is a kinda old discussion but here’s my 2 cents…
In general BMI is not the best indicator of athletic ability In anything. An individual might have a high BMI, but if their body mass is primarily lean tissue distributed in the back and arms, chances are they likely are able (or at least have good potential) to climb hard.
I’d go as far to say that for most grades BMI is pretty meaningless since there is such a high threshold to improve power, grip strength, and skill. Focusing on BMI (unless you’re in the unhealthy range) is counterproductive.
It makes more sense to focus on having quality training and nutrition, and the “ideal” BMI will likely follow.
With that being said, as you approach elite levels
Of climbing, BMI certainly makes a difference. We’re all made of the same stuff and subject to the same biomechanics, which in turn places a limit on our maximal trainable grip strength. At a certain point you simply can’t grip any harder, and need to be lighter, especially when completing consecutive moves on ridiculously small holds.
However, while world class athletes might be exotically lean or have some ridiculously low BMI, this is rather correlative rather than causative: in general, climbing favors a certain body type, and if you’re good at a sport and seeing results, you’re more likely to stick to a training plan and thus see success in the long term.
Wow that was an essay :/
\*I'm writing this as a person who has posted in this sub for a few years now. In the past most people who posted here were active in training and had been climbing at a high level. As such, most people that posted here were already relatively trim; many clocked in at pretty low BMI's. Over the last couple years (this past year especially) a lot of newer climbers have shown up on this sub with a variety of different body compositions. In writing this post I was thinking of the older archtype of climbharder posters. Historically, when climbers have posted here questioning whether they should lose weight they were already at a pretty healthy/low BMI. In almost all of those situations I recommend looking at their training and their climbing before considering weight loss. The reason for this isn't political correctness; the reason is that if you are sitting at a relatively healthy BMI and you want to know how to climb V9, then you should get better at climbing. Climbing is a long term game and dropping weight for the sake of sending a grade harder doesn't make you better at climbing. You might send that V9, but then you'll have the same problem as before, but with V10. There are plenty of reasons to lose weight in climbing. The last few times I've been injured I've been about 10-15 pounds heavier than where I usually sit. That said, losing weight from where I usually sit incurs a lot of negative training effects. I'm much more prone to fatigue, my fingers feel tweaky and don't recover as well between sessions. Now if I dropped another 10 pounds and didn't get hurt, I'm absolutely certain I'd crush. The cost in terms of my ability to train consistently and to climb well isn't worth it to me though. I might not send my proj next month, but if I'm healthy and can maintain my training consistently, then hopefully I'll send stuff a lot harder than my proj over the next few years. Also, as a therapist, I really question what losing weight for an immediate performance gain does to a climbers relationship with the sport and with their body. Improving in this sport is very much not an instant gratification game. I think it is challenging to lose a bunch of weight, experience an immediate performance gain, and then jump back into slow progression (we see this with climbers who max hang for the first time and come away with huge noob gains). I think it's possible to do it well, but it seems like an easy trap for many people to fall into.
> Historically, when climbers have posted here questioning whether they should lose weight they were already at a pretty healthy/low BMI Yeah I think this is the crux of the issue. This question isn't getting asked as much by people for whom it is the lowest hanging fruit to be improved upon (perhaps because it isn't really in question, I'll make no commentary as to why). But the question almost always comes from someone already at a healthy weight/BMI.
I do see an overarching theme in this thread that perhaps wasn't as addressed is: weight loss is something that unlike increases in strength can easily turn counterproductive. Gaining more finger strength or pulling strength rarely won't hurt you, but losing weight past a certain point will. I would say that there probably is a degree of training pulling fingers/pullups where you would get similar effects of poor recovery: if you're doing so many fucking pull-ups you may get really good at pull-ups, but you'll be so drained you can't recover for your actual climbing. But I concede its much much easier to get this point of 'impacting recovery' with weight loss than other strength aspects. However I do think that some people are overestimating how early this effect occurs, but it varies by person. > Also, as a therapist, I really question what losing weight for an immediate performance gain does to a climbers relationship with the sport and with their body. Improving in this sport is very much not an instant gratification game. Hm, is weight loss really the only way that you can make quick progress in climbing though? I've seen people similarly feel much better on the wall after a round of fingerboard training or flexibility training, etc. I don't see the point in telling people you must progress slower than X rate or else it's bad for your mental.
>Hm, is weight loss really the only way that you can make quick progress in climbing though? I've seen people similarly feel much better on the wall after a round of fingerboard training or flexibility training, etc. I don't see the point in telling people you must progress slower than X rate or else it's bad for your mental. I state this literally the sentence after what you quoted. I think both are a challenge for people to navigate. I'm not telling people it's bad for your mental to progress quickly, but I am saying it's easy to develop a relationship with the sport that is frustrating, unenjoyable, and unsustainable. It also walks people into a relationship with weight loss that is tricky to navigate, in a sport where disordered eating prevalence is high.
The thing is it doesn't even taking disordered eating for calorie restrictions to wreck many athletes and cause injury. Calorie restrictions are tough to train around. Additionally, bodyweight is realistically the only metric you mentioned that can have a major impact on an individual's health beyond the scope of climbing. So to try to disentangle in such a way that limits that impact is inherently more complex. In other words, bodyweight systemically affects the ability to develop every other metric mentioned. All this to say, what you're asking about is maybe more complex than what anyone is really studying wrt serious scientific inquiry, so don't hold your breath on any meaningful discussion happening anytime soon.
Sure, but focus on body fat percentage, not BMI. Muscle is also weight. I don't see that as healthy, especially if you have life balance in mind not just climbing 9c
BMI as a metric is not very good and I can't imagine a single metric that relates height and weight that would not be hamstrung by it's assumptions. Ideally, we would love to see a comprehensive body composition test, but that would be too expensive and (more imortantly) useless. You don't need a study to see that elite climbers all have relatively low body fat and are on the leaner side. Just look at the videos. Then there are details of "what" they climb. If you are climbing 50m pumpfests on overhanging pocketed limestone, losing weight would have bigger impact than if you are compressing a 5-move prow somewhere in a granite paradise. Let's set aside the political correctness for a second. I am sure somewhere in the world there is a climber sending V12s with 25% body fat, but most people like that should consider losing weight. I'd also think that anything past 10% does not make a much difference and the climber should focus their efforts elsewhere.
I'd like if people elaborated on their body composition when they talked about what a weight loss/gain did for them. Because people seem to be divided in two groups (wow, people differ?!) where some increase climbing performance and some get weaker or injured, during weight loss. Could bodyfat percentage be a better indicator of when it's healthy to lose weight than just BMI?
Yes body fat is the only metric i'd even think could be somewhat allowable / worth discussing. And even then kind of sort of dangerous and pointless for most here. *especially* since I would guess like 95%+ people aren't even climbing hard enough where it's worth the discussion of optimizing beyond losing extra fat to be standard ish healthy. If you're overweight in terms of fat, obviously getting to a healthy composition is a great idea climber or not. But if you're in a somewhat wide healthy zone it's not worth talking about imho and as we see in tons of comments in these threads is dangerous. Come back if you're trying to push past v12 and want to micro optimize your diet or better yet go to Fultz whose GF/wife? is the one making all their food and it's crazy health diet stuff (and looks super depressing to me lmfao. i need that sugar glycogen. sour gummies for the send) Plenty of other climbers crush on hamburgers too lmfao. Being healthy could also look like D woods just stop drinking wine and raving for a bit and boom. A month of failing later and you climbed ROTSW
\> Yes body fat is the only metric I'd even think could be somewhat allowable / worth discussing. I would totally agree if it were not for the fact that body fat is hard to accurately measure. Displacement, and x-ray based techniques are accurate but expensive and requires a trip to a facility that has the equipment. Skin-fold \_can\_ be accurate if administered by someone skilled, again, a visit, and cost. Any other method is either unproven, or wildly imprecise, or both. Amazon's AI based image analysis system seems quite promising, requires a Amazon fairly cheap halo subscription, and a cell phone camera, and trusting Amazon with images of you in underwear, and vital statistics. So yeah, not really a great metric after all.
for sure! and that hard to measure/specialization required also adds to my point that I think is such a far thing down the list for most people in an amateur sub reddit to be focusing on. (again, not talking about losing obviously excess fat in a healthy way) Like who even has access to a vo2 max darth vader mask or fat dip dank. and has the coaching/expertise on their team to make healthy informed decisions to make optimizations using those tools. answer: athletes at the top %s where it could matter. that's awesome I haven't even heard of amazon halo (looks like a whoop which I tried and stopped using... have you tried this one?). i have an aws account and have used their ML tools which are pretty cool so that's a plus one point. but I guarantee there is a bunch of bias in their training data. Like you said doing it visually has its problems.
Why do people in here always go scientifically nuts? :) On males, the last bodyfat that you can lose in a healthy way is often on the belly. Either as subcutaneous fat which is just under the skin surface and covers your abs, or as visceral fat which is around and inside your organs and makes your stomac protrude. I'm 178 cm and even when I'm as low as 67 kg I have quite a bit of visceral fat. When I go down to 65 kg, this disappears and my waist seems ideal (like when I was a teenager and didn't give weight or food any thoughts at all). Most regular people at my height would look shredded at 70 kg. The few times I've hit 70 kg I have looked pregnant with skinny arms and legs. Just use a mirror. No need for MRI.
Yup, agreed, a lot of climbers seem to be taking scientific analysis of their training a bit far! Generally I'd say who really cares, let them have their fun, I'm in it to stay fit, happy and healthy, etc. Measurement and metrics are nice because they are objective, they allow us to remove the ambiguities, like shredded for a climber? shredded like a competitive boulderer? They help us track progress in a simple series over time, I was sending last time I was 65kg, now I'm 70kg, and the stairs look steep. But weight is an irrelevant metric, regardless of how accurate your scale and method is. You might climb better at 70 kg if you put the weight on as muscle in the right places. BMI is also shit metric, because its reliant on weight. >Just use a mirror. No need for MRI. I almost fully agree with you on that one, but unfortunately there are a lot of people for whom the mirror is a devious tool, body dysmorphia makes them see a pregnant bug, when maybe there is a reasonably shredded climber standing there, top .1 percentile physique.
[удалено]
Is this a joke? Muscle weighs more than fat…
Ffs lol no I goobed it up
I don't think you can use the Lattice database as it is right now to argue either point. It's not a representative sample of climbers in the slightest. The database is heavily biased for climbers who take training seriously and are already climbing reasonably hard. If I took a truly random sample of all climbers, you'd see a much stronger correlation because a ton of climbers would be in the high BMI / low max grade range. I agree with your point that its a convenient metric that you can use that likely has some explanatory power, but its also likely highly colinear with other variables such as body fat %, max weighted hangs, etc. and it's hard to say without more rigorous analysis whether it contributes any additional explanatory power over those other metrics.
I started climbing in 2017, made pretty quick gains and was climbing V5ish boulders consistently and sport climbing 7A/+ , had done one 7B sport route before Covid hit, I was hovering around 61kg. When covid had us lock down I decided it would be a good time to try and get lighter since I had full control of what I ate being at home all the time, I got down to around 58kg, went back to climbing when I could and stayed around this same grade, I did one more 7b sport route and more V5’s. I was at my lightest and thought I felt strong but lost my period, was constantly hungry and generally didn’t feel like my training was bringing fast enough gains. I hit a breaking point, saw a nutritionist, upped my calories, gained 5kg and saw my energy and climbing level improve massively. I’d say at first you feel heavy, but more food = more energy = more training and faster recovery, which means you can do even MORE training. My fingers have quickly caught up with this extra weight, I actually look leaner and more muscular than I did at a lighter weight as I am fuelling properly and now comfortably climb V7 and have recently sent my first 2 V8 boulders. In my opinion being lighter is not better than being stronger, everything feels 10x better now, I would’ve been absolutely gutted 2 years ago if I thought I’d get up to 63/4KG but it’s one of the best decisions I’ve made for my climbing and general health.
I don't think I would read very much into an almost-horizontal straight line fit through that very random data. If you remove a couple of outliers, the line would probably go the opposite direction. When that Lattice article first came out, I read some very acerbic comments about the quality of the statistical analysis in display.
I agree that the visual presentation can be misleading. The graph includes the origin, which makes the BMI range seem smaller and less substantial. If the plot was redone to frame only the data, the correlation would appear to have a greater slope (less horizontal). I think we would much prefer to have a correlation coefficient, or even access to the data ourselves. Lattice is currently doing another study, and hopefully they release a similar study, despite the increased social stigma about it!
In fairness, it's because they scaled the Y-axis from 0 to 30, pretty much making it impossible to see the slope. If they had actually bothered adding the R\^2 to the regression, we'd probably see that the relationship is be pretty strong.
We all should've RTFA (I didn't...): the conclusion in the text is that there's no notable correlation
I did. They same something like (on the phone, so can't be bothered to re-read) "there is a some negative correlation but it's small." Without numbers, it's a very subjective thing to say.
Okay sure, believe what you want. But I feel like at this point trying to tell climbing community that between V0 and V13 that BMI is in now way shape or form correlated with performance is a weird hill to die on.
"I wouldn't read too much into that data" = "I'd rather die than believe it"?. Ok then.
Actually (because I looked at the graph and didn't RTFA either) the conclusion of the article you linked is: > While there is a slight negative correlation it is not substantial. Of greater note is that the line of best fit in all cases lies within the ‘healthy’ 18.5-24.9 range, this suggests that maintaining a low BMI is not necessary for climbing hard.
It would be interesting seeing a correlation between height and BMI in a group of elite climbers. Looking at some of the climbers out there I’d have a theory that taller climbers can get away with/need a higher BMI to perform at the top levels. I’d guess the extra mass in bones and the extra leverage from length needs more additional power than just what it takes having a similar BMI as the shorter elite climbers.
I would very strongly guess the opposite. Just looking at elite climbers, some of the more muscular ones are shorter. especially a *bunch* of girls fit this mold. i can't think of a single tall beast girl. most of the 'bigger muscle' boy US comp climbers are short. daniel comes to mind too. And many of the tall(er since height still trends 'short') ones are string beans who look really really skinny when you see them IRL. ethan, paul looked mega skinny last time i saw him, adam ondra. etc etc. Obviously people break that mold. Fultz comes to mind he's just a big beast. Other counter examples kids like Tanner and zander look big to me (and fairly tall) to me in person. And they are both pretty beasty in terms of muscle. But then in the data below the trend I'm saying look at /u/drewruana who someone on reddit literally said who is your mega ripped friend 😂😂. giving these examples because their [weights & strength #s are easily available](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TnumSst9NHPZqT0aXvOOsaGCkLhyRZ825o0OIQCJouA/edit#gid=388809465)
Hmm interesting :) You’re probably right, I might have been looking more at some of the freaks and made a general rule about that, Jan Höjer, Jimmy Webb, Emil Abrahamsson to name a few. So maybe more looking at strong boulderers (and specifically the tall ones) rather than the comp climbers that are winning comps. I would think that you’re especially right in that the opposite might be the case when it comes to sport.
Jimmy Webb is definitely a freak. In more ways than one 😈 ;) cue climerisms southern hoot and hollar i've never seen him in person, but just from video and photo I'd kind of guess he's in the middle between tank and bean, leaning more towards bicep bazooka 🤷 Regardless, I still think this 'correlation' is the same for bouldering and sport as a general wave of the hand, not-so-fast rule. The physics just doesn't work as you get to the extremes; one has more room to pack on mass at smaller frame sizes before the fingers just can't but that's kind of dumb and to the point i'm trying to make. especially since basically no one here is at that level. there are such wide variations in body types that can send hard. still can't name a taller women muscle queen though.... I'm sure there's one if anyone has suggestions, always need new people to follow?
Just from the general shape I’d definitely say he’s on the higher end of BMI for climbers. According to google he’s 183 and between 70-76kg - the latter definitely putting him in higher ish BMI (again, for climbers) For women I would guess Staša Gejo would be that? Obviously neither as tall nor heavy as the men, but google says 174 and 68kg - which I’d wager as higher end height and weight wise for womens climbing. But again, that’s just me trying to confirm my own idea as a taller person, who’s not willing to get too lanky so would rather get strong ;) And yeah, I agree with you, for the most part none of that stuff will matter up until the very elite levels, and even then, technique, experience, and the right mentality can probably beat slightly more optimal body composition..
> Staša Gejo Oh nice one. I don't really know her. [Looks mega in this one - KT tape aside ;\)](https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/stasa-gejo-of-serbia-competes-in-the-boulder-final-during-the-of-picture-id1235347782?s=2048x2048) Yeah bulk up! love to hear it. Stronger is stronger! Shit's hard. I have been trying to add 5 pounds of targeted muscle, was making progress but then got covid and lost 8 lmfao. #SadDog
A few observations: 1) In the Lattice data, at the higher end, BMI is clustered in between 20 and 25 -- despite the trendline, there's no observation that "lower is better" at the top end. Note that "healthy" BMI is between 18.5 and 25, so we don't even see BMI in the low "normal" associated with higher climbing grade 2) Dropping fat mass is (almost) always going to be accompanied with lower strength and poorer recovery, and keeping yourself lighter than your body "wants" to be is going to impede performance and recovery. A pragmatic approach is to treat "strength to weight ratio" strength first (that might be a Matt Fulz quote?), and insert targeted fat loss cycles into the overall annual cycle, and to be cautious about fat loss as a performance goal if you are already in that 20-25 BMI range, & particularly if you are already below the midpoint in that range.
Point no. 2 is bs of course. Fat mass does in no way contribute to strength by itself and dropping fat mass will always result in a higher power to weight ratio, which is what this whole discussion should be about anyways. BMI doesn't matter, power to weight does. You can be at 10% bodyfat and have the same bmi as some fat dude without muscle, of course the leaner one is the better climber.
The process of cutting fat outside of unusual circumstances is going to be accompanied by lower (absolute) strength and poorer recovery. If you are sensible about it you'll get strength back afterwards and you might end up with a better strength/weight ratio. But, to use your phrase, it's bs to believe you can cut fat without dropping some lean body mass, particularly if you are already starting somewhat lean. In the short term, yes, it's absolutely possible to drop 2kg and lose only 1kg in pulling power, and end up "ahead", but it's also pretty easy to do the opposite, particularly if weight is the only tool in your arsenal. How people respond to a fat loss cycle is individualized. "Get stronk at maintenance -> cut a bit -> get more stronk at maintenance -> crush" is a better training cycle than: cut -> crush? -> cut -> crush?
The notion that you can't gain lean muscle mass and lose bodyfat at the same time is outdated. It is definently possible to not only not lose power, but gain power while you are dropping your bodyfat %. You're quoting very old fitness advise.
Losing body fat while gaining muscle only works for overweight and untrained people. If you're at a healthy BMI and train a lot, losing weight also leads to losing gains.
False. Recomping is possible for anyone. It is not the most effective way to build muscle or lose fat but in the context of climbing it is definently possible and efficient.
How is this controversial?!?! Thank you.
I feel like this conversation never happens in climbing because people are always trying to be super inclusive and sensitive, but it's important to have. Sure, you can climb at any weight, but not a single world-class climber is above 11% body fat. Obviously if you're starving yourself to the point of muscle deterioration then it's not healthy, but i think the idea of "losing body weight is never a good idea to improve climbing!!!" is simply not true for 80% of climbers. Any serious athlete that wants to break past v12/5.14b is going to NEED a dialed diet to fuel the body after heavy training, and BF% below 14. If you've had body image or eating disorder issues in the past, then sure maybe it's not worth it. But dieting and losing weight, with a proper balance of sleep, proper macro balance, and a good training schedule, should do nothing but improve your climbing strength.
> Sure, you can climb at any weight, but not a single world-class climber is above 11% body fat. Um I don’t think this is true at all for women. 11% bf for women is like bodybuilding competition level lean. It’s actively detrimental for most women to be that lean while being super active. To use the most obvious example, Janja is definitely above 11% body fat.
This is true, thanks for correcting! All of my bf% knowledge is based on the male body, but i'd bet almost all the women dominating the comp circuit are in the lowest 3rd percentile of body fat. The other thing i'd note is the difference in body composition between competition climbers and outdoors climbers. The comp climbers definently lack shred and tone compared to outdoors boulderers. Alex Puccio, Michaela Kiersch, and Laura Regora all look like gods and are insanely low bf, but killers like Janja, Brooke, and Stasa have almost no muscle definition even in the bicep/shoulder and obviously destroy everyone haha.
terribly late, but I'm pretty sure Chris Sharma has been above 11% body fat multiple times in his career. Not disagreeing with your point, but it's not true that you can't be above 11% body fat.
Sure. But imo, chris is kinda the anomaly both of generational talent and being driven much more by stoke than regimented and maniacal training. Shawn, Daniel, Giuliano, Adam, Alex, everybody truly pushing the envelope in today's climbing world is fucking peeled to the socks. Paper thin skin and visible striations in everywhere in the upper body and abs, all the young guns are def around the 9% mark. But, I feel like we have been understanding the potential danger of malnutrition, and we've heard so many climbers talk about their battles with eating disorders. But it does kinda suck that all the big names rn and super toned and small frames.
"wouldn't say that using BMI is inherently flawed. Is it perfect? no." If it's not perfect, it's inherently flawed. "Flawed" doesn't mean "useless," it just means it isn't the complete, nuanced picture. It's a data point that may be helpful when trying to gauge progress, relative weight, etc.
I think this is a good measure to use, with an added qualification: assume body fat % is in a healthy but a low range, say around 10-12% for males and ~20% for females. _Of course this varies for every person. Healthy for one person might be unhealthy for another._ Then BMI is a better indication of lean mass, controlling for height. Then we can ask questions like the following: At what point does muscle gain become detrimental to progress? More muscle is not always better, and having less muscle is also not always an optimal solution. It also depends extremely on where the muscle is located. Therefore there is some "best" amount of muscle that climbers should acquire or lose to send at their best. This is from a simple physics perspective, assuming all else is equal.
Doesn’t not being perfect kind of mean “flawed” 🤔
I think there is a quite large variation in terms of BMI as it largely depends on your height and muscle mass. Some people need more muscle mass to be strong while others seem to be fine with very little. So BMI between 18 to 25 is great, depending on how you feel individually. If you are above 25 and climbing is your main goal, you probably should assess whether the extra weight is beneficial and something that you do well with or just extra fat/muscle that you dont need. I feel great between 22.5 - 24. Trying to go lighter I get very hungry, training suffers and I am tired. Maybe I could consider it for some specific project, but not for the long term. I think people are too focused on how they perform today. Being a bit heavier just means that you can eat more, you recover better and thus can build more muscle and strength as well as train more. When you try to push for lower bw, it should be just a temporary solution for specific goal unless you are way above the bw thats optimal for you. It is not suprising that there is a slight correlation between bw and climbing performance as this is a bodyweight sport. If you are lighter, you probably are stronger compared to your bw, but this doesnt apply forever and there are trade offs. And there is a point at which the difference in bw is neglible, but the decrease in gains and energy is very noticable. Anyway, the bodyweight you train at should be something that you can sustain indefinitely. You shouldnt be constantly struggling with it. If you are, you can always try to change your lifestyle and diet so that you arent hungry all the time and binging, but if that doesnt work you are probably just too light and your long term gains are worse. Bodyfat is also a good measure. If you are under 8-10% as male, I would start considering whether you are actually too light and whether that is sustainable. I feel like I do the best between 10 to 12% and thats at the lower end. Being above 20% as a male, is probably something that isnt optimal, but can be for some.
What is a healthy BMI? That doesn't exist because you can be fat or muscular with the same BMI. I wouldn't want to lose my muscular physique just to go up half a grade
Just to add some gasoline to this particular fire, there is a fairly reasonable peer reviewed article on the topic here: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6326274/#:\~:text=BMI%20is%20not%20a%20predictor,a%20high%20or%20low%20BMI](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6326274/#:~:text=BMI%20is%20not%20a%20predictor,a%20high%20or%20low%20BMI). The general conclusion is that "No associations were found between level of performance in sport climbing, onset of a climbing-related injury, preferred style of climbing, education, gender and BMI." The sample is statistically significant and the general methodology is sound. Take it as you will. For me the takeaway is that BMI does a poor job predicting body composition in athletes, that has been shown many times. I recall seeing a competition stat where Puccio was reccorded with 21 BMI while looking absolutely ripped. On a more scientific side of things, you see papers comparing BMI and BF% in gymnasts: [https://thesportjournal.org/article/comparison-of-bmi-based-equations-and-plethysmography-for-estimating-body-fat-in-female-collegiate-gymnasts/](https://thesportjournal.org/article/comparison-of-bmi-based-equations-and-plethysmography-for-estimating-body-fat-in-female-collegiate-gymnasts/) TLDR: If you want to track your body composition, buy a set of calipers and learn how to use them.
I feel like people need to evaluate their on unique situation and experiment/make decisions for themselves instead of going by any sort of general guideline. Different people have different skeletons that can support different amounts of muscle. I think this is especially true of forearms. My dad is like 3" shorter than I am but at 76, even though he's lost a ton of muscle mass in his old age, his wrists and forearms are much more robust than my own, even though I climb/lift weights/do wrist curls. Not only that but his fingers are shorter, giving him better leverages, even though overall his hands are probably more robust than mine. Given all these factors a little excess bodyfat would probably not matter as much to him, if her were a climber, than it does to me. Like, what does it matter if so and so is crushing at whatever body fat/BMI/body weight if that person is built completely differently than you? Like, Fred Nicole has a BMI of 23.5 and Janja Garnbret 17. People are going to exist on a spectrum roughly between those body types (not BMI but the body type), and their optimal body composition is going to depend on it.
I guess this is a kinda old discussion but here’s my 2 cents… In general BMI is not the best indicator of athletic ability In anything. An individual might have a high BMI, but if their body mass is primarily lean tissue distributed in the back and arms, chances are they likely are able (or at least have good potential) to climb hard. I’d go as far to say that for most grades BMI is pretty meaningless since there is such a high threshold to improve power, grip strength, and skill. Focusing on BMI (unless you’re in the unhealthy range) is counterproductive. It makes more sense to focus on having quality training and nutrition, and the “ideal” BMI will likely follow. With that being said, as you approach elite levels Of climbing, BMI certainly makes a difference. We’re all made of the same stuff and subject to the same biomechanics, which in turn places a limit on our maximal trainable grip strength. At a certain point you simply can’t grip any harder, and need to be lighter, especially when completing consecutive moves on ridiculously small holds. However, while world class athletes might be exotically lean or have some ridiculously low BMI, this is rather correlative rather than causative: in general, climbing favors a certain body type, and if you’re good at a sport and seeing results, you’re more likely to stick to a training plan and thus see success in the long term. Wow that was an essay :/