Rock climbing as aerobic exercise

In article said:

I notice when I do rock climbing my heart rate will go up to the same
bpm as it would in running hard, but I do not seem to have to breathe
nearly as hard as I do when running. Does this mean that rock climbing
is not an aerobic exercise? Would it be likely that I would get the
same cardio benefits from this type of exercise?

Rock climbing will become aerobic activity if you do it for the same
duration as you do running. If you climb up, down, up, down etc for 40
minutes, it will be aerobic. It is excellent exercise altogether. I
recently bought a 1" rope and I will use it for rope climbing. It wont
replace my walking or running, but it is a good whole body exercise.

i

Quoted message said:

Does this mean that rock climbing
is not an aerobic exercise?

Aerobic exercise is a physiological state where the body consumes
oxygen as the primary source of fuel. It makes no difference what you
are doing when you exercise and induce this state.

Quoted message said:

Would it be likely that I would get the
same cardio benefits from this type of exercise?

See above.

Harvest Mu_n said:

Quoted message said:

Does this mean that rock climbing
is not an aerobic exercise?

Aerobic exercise is a physiological state where the body consumes
oxygen as the primary source of fuel. It makes no difference what you
are doing when you exercise and induce this state.

That makes sense. Perhaps I did not ask the question the right way.
Since I don't seem to breathe nearly as hard, would rock climbing be
'less' aerobic than running?

Part of the puzzle is about the heart rate. In climbing, I will get to
the same heart rate as I do running, and it will be sustained for
10-20 minutes in 'exercise' climbs. If I run for the same time period,
with the same heart rate, I seem to need to breathe much more. I'm
trying to understand why that happens.

From your description above it would seem that breathing might be a
better measure of 'aerobic' than heart rate. Is that true?

But, is sustained near-max heart rate a better measure of the cardio
benefits than the 'aerobic' measure?

Thanks for the reply.
DB

Seems a bit suspicious - if your BPM is up parly due to excitment it's
not as aerobic. You should be breathing as hard as running if you're
working at the same level of intensity. Also, if your heart rate is
up due to heat it's also not as aerobic. I'd guess rock climbing is
partly stop and go.

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I notice when I do rock climbing my heart rate will go up to the same
bpm as it would in running hard, but I do not seem to have to breathe
nearly as hard as I do when running. Does this mean that rock climbing
is not an aerobic exercise? Would it be likely that I would get the
same cardio benefits from this type of exercise?

DB

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Aerobic exercise is a physiological state where the body consumes
oxygen as the primary source of fuel. It makes no difference what you
are doing when you exercise and induce this state.

Quoted message said:

That makes sense.

I hope so. It's one of the ways I make cents.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps I did not ask the question the right way.
Since I don't seem to breathe nearly as hard, would rock climbing be
'less' aerobic than running?

Yes in the sense of taxing or working the cardiopulmonary system.

No in terms of getting the correct amount of CP workout. You can do
that walking briskly 5 plus times a week. Never get out of breath when
I do that.

So, out of breath is not necessary to meet your aerobic goals for CV
health purposes.

Quoted message said:

Part of the puzzle is about the heart rate. In climbing, I will get to
the same heart rate as I do running, and it will be sustained for
10-20 minutes in 'exercise' climbs. If I run for the same time period,
with the same heart rate, I seem to need to breathe much more. I'm
trying to understand why that happens.

Tracking exercise events is a very difficult thing. For instance, when
you run, you are absorbing and generating consistent forces with the
ground. That is a much more taxing event than climbing. Not nearly as
much force generation/absorption. Think about bodyweight in both
situations.

Quoted message said:

From your description above it would seem that breathing might be a
better measure of 'aerobic' than heart rate. Is that true?

Personally, I think that aerobic exercise should be judged first by
its health parameters. That is, how much blood flow and O2 exchange is
happening. How much peripheral blood flow and additional blood
transport is created.

Quoted message said:

But, is sustained near-max heart rate a better measure of the cardio
benefits than the 'aerobic' measure?

I believe so. A sustained increase in heart rate is what you are after
and what is easiest to track.

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the reply.

Welcome.

At the risk of being jumped on for being wrong, isn't "out of breath"
usually a sign that you are near your lactate threshold and are going
into oxygen debt? So if you are "out of breath" while running then you
should ease off a little. (unless you're doing a HIIT routine of
course)

That's what I like about climbing Stone Mountain. (in Atlanta) The
first half of the walk up trail is a steady incline and gives me a
good aerobic workout. When you pass the "halfway house" it get's very
steep which gives me a good anaerobic workout.

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

Harvest Mu_n said:

Quoted message said:

Does this mean that rock climbing
is not an aerobic exercise?

Aerobic exercise is a physiological state where the body consumes
oxygen as the primary source of fuel.

<OBnitpick>I thought that glucose, FFAs, protein, and ketones were the
"fuel"?</OBnitpick>

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

Quoted message said:

Harvest Mu_n [email hidden] Writes:

Quoted message said:

Tracking exercise events is a very difficult thing. For instance, when
you run, you are absorbing and generating consistent forces with the
ground. That is a much more taxing event than climbing. Not nearly as
much force generation/absorption. Think about bodyweight in both
situations.

You may be correct. My experience has been that rock climbing can be just as
taxing as running. In many cases it's more taxing than running could ever be.

You have to be clear about what kind of rock climbing you're referring to.
Rock climbing in many gym like settings isn't usually that aerobic. Rock
climbing in the mountains is another story. This is because in the mountains
you are climbing with a pack and the climbing is often sustained for 10 or more
50 to 60 meter rope lengths. In addition, you have to deal with a long
approach hike with an even heavier pack just to get to the start of the actual
climbing. And we are not even considering the effects of high altitude.

Give me a nice run any day. Climbing is far more exhausting.

(VCopelan) said:

You have to be clear about what kind of rock climbing you're referring to.
Rock climbing in many gym like settings isn't usually that aerobic. Rock
climbing in the mountains is another story. This is because in the mountains
you are climbing with a pack and the climbing is often sustained for 10 or more
50 to 60 meter rope lengths. In addition, you have to deal with a long
approach hike with an even heavier pack just to get to the start of the actual
climbing. And we are not even considering the effects of high altitude.

Give me a nice run any day. Climbing is far more exhausting.

Oh I dunno, "rock climbing" is starting to sound quite appealing.
Think about it. If it were one of the "big" mountains that takes a
week to climb then I would get to go on the "2 pound diet" and get
super skinny. Sarcasm aside I bet there aren't too many fat mountain
climbers around.

Or I could through hike the Appalachian trail with 2 pounds of water
packed tuna a day. (er *oops* no carbs, ketosis. Forget I mentioned it
🙂

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

In fact, getting out of breath is outright dangerous.

I can no longer truly run out of breath. Something else in me stops
before I run out of breath.

i

In article said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Aerobic exercise is a physiological state where the body consumes
oxygen as the primary source of fuel. It makes no difference what you
are doing when you exercise and induce this state.

Quoted message said:

That makes sense.

I hope so. It's one of the ways I make cents.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps I did not ask the question the right way.
Since I don't seem to breathe nearly as hard, would rock climbing be
'less' aerobic than running?

Yes in the sense of taxing or working the cardiopulmonary system.

No in terms of getting the correct amount of CP workout. You can do
that walking briskly 5 plus times a week. Never get out of breath when
I do that.

So, out of breath is not necessary to meet your aerobic goals for CV
health purposes.

Quoted message said:

Part of the puzzle is about the heart rate. In climbing, I will get to
the same heart rate as I do running, and it will be sustained for
10-20 minutes in 'exercise' climbs. If I run for the same time period,
with the same heart rate, I seem to need to breathe much more. I'm
trying to understand why that happens.

Tracking exercise events is a very difficult thing. For instance, when
you run, you are absorbing and generating consistent forces with the
ground. That is a much more taxing event than climbing. Not nearly as
much force generation/absorption. Think about bodyweight in both
situations.

Quoted message said:

From your description above it would seem that breathing might be a
better measure of 'aerobic' than heart rate. Is that true?

Personally, I think that aerobic exercise should be judged first by
its health parameters. That is, how much blood flow and O2 exchange is
happening. How much peripheral blood flow and additional blood
transport is created.

Quoted message said:

But, is sustained near-max heart rate a better measure of the cardio
benefits than the 'aerobic' measure?

I believe so. A sustained increase in heart rate is what you are after
and what is easiest to track.

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the reply.

Welcome.

In article said:

Oh I dunno, "rock climbing" is starting to sound quite appealing.
Think about it. If it were one of the "big" mountains that takes a
week to climb then I would get to go on the "2 pound diet" and get
super skinny. Sarcasm aside I bet there aren't too many fat mountain
climbers around.

hard to climb mountains when you are fat...

i

In article said:

At the risk of being jumped on for being wrong, isn't "out of breath"
usually a sign that you are near your lactate threshold and are going
into oxygen debt? So if you are "out of breath" while running then you
should ease off a little. (unless you're doing a HIIT routine of
course)

if you are out of breath, it is not like you have a choice... you will
slow down no matter if you want it or not.

Quoted message said:

That's what I like about climbing Stone Mountain. (in Atlanta) The
first half of the walk up trail is a steady incline and gives me a
good aerobic workout. When you pass the "halfway house" it get's very
steep which gives me a good anaerobic workout.

It will be aerobic regardless.

Be careful... Know your limits. Also, descent may give you some quite
funny feeling. It works out muscles that more or less never get a
chance to train under any other conditions.

I also walk up mountains when I get a chance and it is a great way to
drop a pound of fat and feel great for 2 days or so. But know yourself.

i

On 30 Sep 2003 15:17:28 -0700, [email hidden] (Brad

Sheppard) said:

Seems a bit suspicious - if your BPM is up parly due to excitment it's
not as aerobic.

It can be exciting at times,<g> but that is not the conditions I am
referring to.

Quoted message said:

You should be breathing as hard as running if you're
working at the same level of intensity.

That's what I thought too, and that's why I brought up the question.

Quoted message said:

Also, if your heart rate is
up due to heat it's also not as aerobic.

Heat is similar in both, and may even be a bit less in running.

Quoted message said:

I'd guess rock climbing is
partly stop and go.

Ordinarily, yes, but I was thinking about a movable climbing wall
machine that one can climb continuously. This is what I was calling an
'exercise climb'. You can set the speed as high as you wish, and can
even be 'running' up a vertical surface. It is as continuous as a
treadmill.

Thanks,
DB

Ron Ritzman said:

That's what I like about climbing Stone Mountain. (in Atlanta) The
first half of the walk up trail is a steady incline and gives me a
good aerobic workout. When you pass the "halfway house" it get's very
steep which gives me a good anaerobic workout.

Are you going to meet us for lunch or what?

(VCopelan) said:

You have to be clear about what kind of rock climbing you're referring to.
Rock climbing in many gym like settings isn't usually that aerobic. Rock
climbing in the mountains is another story. This is because in the mountains
you are climbing with a pack and the climbing is often sustained for 10 or more
50 to 60 meter rope lengths. In addition, you have to deal with a long
approach hike with an even heavier pack just to get to the start of the actual
climbing. And we are not even considering the effects of high altitude.

Yes. Have you heard about the mountain climbers who scaled
Everest.....ON ONLY TWO POUNDS OF FOOD A DAY?

Ron Ritzman said:

Oh I dunno, "rock climbing" is starting to sound quite appealing.
Think about it. If it were one of the "big" mountains that takes a
week to climb then I would get to go on the "2 pound diet" and get
super skinny.

Don't need to climb a mountain for the 2PDiet to work.

Quoted message said:

Sarcasm aside I bet there aren't too many fat mountain
climbers around.

Only retired ones.

Quoted message said:

Or I could through hike the Appalachian trail with 2 pounds of water
packed tuna a day. (er *oops* no carbs, ketosis. Forget I mentioned it
🙂

Why would the carbs be a problem?

Ron Ritzman said:

Quoted message said:

Aerobic exercise is a physiological state where the body consumes
oxygen as the primary source of fuel.

<OBnitpick>I thought that glucose, FFAs, protein, and ketones were the
"fuel"?</OBnitpick>

????

Ron Ritzman said:

At the risk of being jumped on for being wrong, isn't "out of breath"
usually a sign that you are near your lactate threshold and are going
into oxygen debt?

I didn't mean that I was 'out of breath', but just breathing deeper
and more often than I would at rest. This can be sustained for quite a
while, and is different from the extreme panting when overexerting for
a while.

The real question was the similarity of heart rates and the difference
in breathing.

DB

Harvest Mu_n said:

(VCopelan) said:

You have to be clear about what kind of rock climbing you're referring to.
Rock climbing in many gym like settings isn't usually that aerobic. Rock
climbing in the mountains is another story. This is because in the mountains
you are climbing with a pack and the climbing is often sustained for 10 or more
50 to 60 meter rope lengths. In addition, you have to deal with a long
approach hike with an even heavier pack just to get to the start of the actual
climbing. And we are not even considering the effects of high altitude.

Yes. Have you heard about the mountain climbers who scaled
Everest.....ON ONLY TWO POUNDS OF FOOD A DAY?

Two pounds? Amazing. Was it dehydrated? Maybe freeze-dried? What foods
were they? Do we even know? Could you perhaps come up with their menu?
Some more information. What kinds of food, specifically did they eat?
Did they carry water with them (and if they did, how much did that
weigh?) or did they melt snow or what? Here's your chance to do a
commercial about your 2POundPOWDiet. Only this time some real
information would be good and, may I say, a departure from your past
posts about it.

Don't say I never gave you nothin'

Pastorio