To set the scene: I am a current armchair mountain climber, I have done many local climbs (max 6,000 foot elevation) in rain/snow/etc… But my ultimate dream is to do serious high altitude climbing, like 20,000+ peaks. My other physical interests lie mainly in weightlifting and being a meathead. Most “endurance” athletes (runners, distance swimmers, etc…) do not carry around much muscle mass due to it posing little advantage in the type of anaerobic and catabolic activity that they partake in. However, I dont see mountain climbing in the same light as marathon running, cycling, etc…
Main Question: In high altitude climbing, is there any advantage posed by having extra muscle mass (not fat, mind you, muscle), more in line with a football player or hockey player. My thought is, the guy with more muscle mass will have a an easier time packing gear, will be able to overcome obstacles, and will be better prepared to combat the elements. Now, I’m not talking Bodybuilder/Steroid fueled muscularity, just more muscle than your average 130 lb marathon running stickman. Anyone with experience or FACTUAL info, please weigh in
At any altitude, increased muscle mass decreases endurance for that individual. (no stories of the 200 lb. runner clocking 15 min. 5ks. That’s him.)
Climbing is a strain as you’re lifting your body weight. You’re also carrying supplies and that weight counts towards oxygen demand.
Try to gain strength with as little weight gain as possible.
I assume you’ll be using supplemental oxygen.
Isn’t that unusual until the peaks get meaningfully above 20k?
This is for aircrews sitting still not exerting themselves.
Air pressure is only half of sea level at 20,000 ft.
I’ve been experimenting with gaining strength without gaining muscle mass. I have gained a pretty good amount of strength, but have still, unintentionally, gained about 6 or 8 pounds of muscle mass as well.
I’ve been using static holds as the way to do this. I have read that muscle size increase is caused by tiny tears in the muscle tissue that occur during exercise. When these tears heal, the muscle is slightly larger, My assumption is that the tiny muscle tears that happen when you work a muscle to its limit are less likely to happen if you’re not actually moving the muscle, but just doing a static hold.
Again, I’ve had some success, but also some increase in muscle mass. I think the main problem is that I gain muscle mass too easily when I work out. I think this would work better if I didn’t.
I have many friends who are experienced mountaineers, including one who has summited Everest. Extra upper body muscle can be useful for technical climbing which is often a factor on complex climbs. They need muscle for pulling themselves up technical sections, rock and ice climbing, and for crevasse rescue.
But many 20000+ peaks are simple walk ups. In that case you really don’t want to be carrying extra mass of any sort. Every pound you carry is your enemy, be it in your pack or extra muscle. You need some muscle for basic tasks, and most mountaineers are quite strong. But there are lean and have a build more like runners.
Now at altitude about 24,000’ your body is consuming itself so some extra mass helps. It’s very difficult to consume enough food or keep it down. People lose weight, fat, and muscle mass, so you’ll end up with less than you started with. But in the long run you’ll lose whatever extra you have whether it’s muscle or fat.
The problem with static holds is you gain strength over a narrow range of motion. A full range of motion is far better.
For strength gain without mass, use low reps and heavy weight.
5 reps x moderate weight
3 reps x heavy weight
3 sets x 1 rep x near max weight (95% or more)
One round of this per muscle group. Once you can do 3 reps at over 95%, increase all weights and start over.
Reduce calorie intake, no more than enough for weight maintenance.
You know, everyone says this, but it hasn’t necessarily been my experience.
Occasionally I test myself over my full range of motion, and I definitely can do a lot more reps than I used to be able to, even with just doing static holds.
Have there been any studies that prove this?
More reps is not entirely the same as more strength, endurance also comes into play.
Have you tested your maximum lift through a full range?
I’ll look for some studies, be back soon.
That’s a good point about endurance not equalling strength, but I’ve definitely noticed increases in maximum lifting ability as well.
So far:
Both of these cover the same study.
This one covers using static holds as a part of a training routine.
http://www.muscleandfitness.com/training/grow-standing-still-static-contractions
From the first link.
Practically all the static hold advocates seem to be concerned with gaining muscle size with little regard if there are any real world gains.
Notice the claim of over a 50% gain in strength but only 27% gain in a full range movement.
They also claim that static holds are better for mass gain which may explain what you experienced.
ETA: the study I linked to also gives no indication of control groups or testing methodology.
Well, without control groups, it’s not that useful.
How on earth could static holds be better for size gains? What would be the process?
RP, al27052 has been shown studies and American College of Sports Medicine recommendations before. The reaction was, and I quote, “Fuck studies.” Just so you know before you invest much effort.
That ACSM Guideline might be of use to answer the question if someone could only define which sort of strength is required for the activity. Certainly not hypertrophy training, and probably equal parts endurance, strength, and power. (If not more on the endurance side.)
For power they advise adding in ballistic type sets and for endurance of course lighter weights with high volumes, short rests, and multiple sets.
Now how do you do all without getting more than requisite mass?
I did find a bit about a program designed for mountain climbers.
Looking at the pictures of those athletes, elite climbers and guides, it seems the body type is as described: not the marathon runner’s body, more a cross fitters.
Right - it’s for aircrews that start somewhere near sea level. Whereas mountain climbers will be well acclimated to much higher altitudes before they get near a 20,000’ summit.
From this site on how to prepare for climbing Mt. McKinley (20,320 ft):
You don’t play well with others, do you?
So my whole point with trying to increase strength without size was to avoid having to eat more food to keep my strength gains. Muscle mass gets consumed quickly by the body if you don’t eat enough food to stop it from happening, and if your strength increases are dependent entirely on having larger muscles, then you have to eat relatively more food to keep your strength gains. I would prefer not to have to spend more money on food.
As stated earlier, high altitude climbers are built like distance runners, not like football players. Look at the legends of climbing, guys like Ed Viesturs. Also, look at the Sherpas of the Himalayas who are small, light people yet incredibly strong on Everest. You want to maximize your strength-to-weight ratio; you don’t necessarily want to maximize strength alone.
Besides strength-to-weight, you also want to maximize something called VO2 max, a measure of oxygen capacity.
Unfortunately, the best way to accomplish that is to be born a Sherpa.
The concept is that hypertrophy maximally increases by maximizing the number muscle units that have been recruited maximally before fatiguing.
During a prolonged static hold a wide variety of motor units are recruited and fatigue out as the muscle attempts to keep enough of them firing to maintain the position. They are not learning to fire in concert. That’s the neural adaptation component of strength increase with resistance training, getting more motor units, whatever their individual capacities, to fire at the same time. The neural adaptation part is the bit that gets people stronger without getting ay bigger.