weight loss and climbing pace

[LarryM]

Has there been any research regarding how much (all else being equal) a given amount of weight loss will increase climbing pace on a good (class 1) trail? I've seen research on general running speed versus weight loss (improvement of about 2 seconds / mile / pound), but I'd think that the benefit would be greater for going uphill. Just curious how much improvement I can expect from a 10 to 15 pound weight loss. Would love to, e.g., shave another 5 minutes off my trail head to summit time on Audubon.

[RhodoRose]

There would seem to be a lot of variables and everyone is unique. Obviously, if you're getting in shape at the same time you're losing weight, there'll be more time shaved off than if you're already in great cardiovascular shape. Nonetheless, all things being equal, you'll certainly feel the difference!

[nyker]

Good question, though somewhat hard to isolate, since as you're climbing and hiking more, you're getting fitter for that activity improving your aerobic fitness and bettering your acclimatization, both of which which dramatically increase your pace without even considering the weight factor.

One way to test purely the weight factor, is to go on a hike near you now, record your time, ascent/hr, etc.
Then, a week later assuming very similar conditions (in both mountain and yourself), repeat the hike with a 10lb weight in your pack. Or reverse the hikes and record any difference.

[Hjelmstadlt]

Physiologicaly speaking there is a certain weight that your body can attain that optimizes your lean muscle mass. To light and purely aerobic performance won’t be enough, as your muscles won’t have enough power to sustain steep uphill travel. To heavy and your just carrying up extra weight that your areobic threshold can’t sustain.

[zackrobinson2]

This is a similar question cyclists deal with regularly. For kicks, I picked some values on bikecalculator.com and entered 180 pounds for the rider weight. For a 20% grade, which is about 1000' per mile (like many 14ers), and with the set values I entered for the other factors, I got a ride time of 171 minutes. When I dropped the rider weight by 10%, down to 162, and kept everything else the same, the time dropped to 156 minutes, which is nearly a 10% drop.

The moral of the story is this: if gravity is the main thing you are fighting, which becomes increasingly true as the terrain becomes steeper, a given percentage drop in weight corresponds to nearly equal drop in time. This assumes, of course, that your body doesn't become less efficient due to becoming too light and not having enough muscle, like the above poster mentioned. But if we look at who succeeds in most gravity-relevant endurance sports, like road cycling in hill stages or mountain running, that point is probably quite skinny if you aren't carrying a lot of weight on your back.

[peter303]

I found some weight loss to be useful for marathon running too. But only up to a certain point. Then you are reducing the size of muscle and internal organs too and becoming weaker.

[TomPierce]

Back (way back...) when I was a hard core runner doing heavy mileage and races, I think (?) I recalled that for every 1% loss of body fat there was a corresponding 1% uptick in the body's ability to process oxygen (VO2 max). Something like that. Here's an article that discusses it, the core conclusion is about 2/3rds the way through:

https://www.runnersworld.com/health-inj ... to-weight/

Of course V02 max is only one variable, there's a strength component, lactic acid processing component, etc. But losing bodyfat (vs. lean muscle mass) should, all things being equal, help you climb faster. But only to a point, you can lose too much, with ill effects.

-Tom

[nunns]

There are going to be a lot of variables involved in that.
The biggest one would be the steepness of the grade; the steeper the grade, the more losing weight is going to help you (up to a point of course, as others have mentioned).
Another variable is how much you are carrying in your pack. If you aren't carrying much, then you don't need as much muscle mass to climb as you would if you were hauling a big load, so you could afford to lose more weight even at the risk of losing a little muscle.
So unfortunately there is no simple answer. As others have said it might be best to use yourself in an experiment with n=1.

Sean Nunn

[Bean]

I found some weight loss to be useful for marathon running too. But only up to a certain point. Then you are reducing the size of muscle and internal organs too and becoming weaker.

Ryan Hall, greatest American marathoner of all time, 5'10", raced at about 127lb. He also destroyed his health, was forced to retire, and put on 40lb of mostly-muscle pretty quickly. Steroids may have been involved in that last part.

I recalled that for every 1% loss of body fat there was a corresponding 1% uptick in the body's ability to process oxygen (VO2 max). Something like that.

VO2max is the rate of oxygen uptake divided by weight, so that's exactly how it works out. It's very linear at small numbers (single-digit %).

[LarryM]

Thanks for the responses guys. I'm certain that I can lose 15 pounds without compromising muscle mass. If I told you my current weight and height you might even think I could lose more.

I do sometimes think that I'm overly obsessed with improving my vertical climb times, especially given (a) that I'm far from an elite athlete, (b) I'm 59 years old, (c) yet I am already, for my age, pretty strong uphill, especially in the high mountains. Now if I could just get my trail head to summit time on Elbert's standard route under 2 hours.

[CorduroyCalves]

What’s your diet like?

[LarryM]

What’s your diet like?

Problematic. Not meals so much, they tend to be pretty balanced (mostly vegetarian but ample protein despite that), but way too much snacking. That's my problem in a nutshell; that's why, despite a good metabolism and plenty of exercise I need to drop a few pounds.