View Single Post
Old 11-12-2008, 05:01 PM   #28
Scott Hanson
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 33

Originally Posted by Daniel Olmstead View Post
Wow, this was unexpected.
As I get more and more enamored of climbing, I get less interested in the big muscles. Climbing is far more about strength-to-weight ratio than it is about size, as the goal is more total muscle recruitment than it is mass - obviously, the less you weigh as compared to your strength, the easier time you'll have getting up the wall. So my goals are shifting from size to simple strength and efficiency. Jim (fellow CFEB athlete) is far stronger than I am, but not appreciably bigger. And he can climb 5.13-something. That, I think, is something to strive towards. It will mean forever being scrawny, but if it means climbing 5.12, then I'm OK with that.
Congratulations Daniel! Thanks for posting your progress.

Many sports benefit from a high strength to weight ratio, so I certainly wouldn't stress about less bulk. I've seen plenty of climbers who were lean, ripped, and strong. Maybe focus on the gymnastics instead of the weight-training?
Scott Hanson is offline   Reply With Quote