Will I ever be able to climb with lightweights?

a_n_t

ColinJ wrote:

When I was 75 kg, so did I! The only trouble was, my face looked like I'd been chained up in a dungeon somewhere for 6 months.

yeah there is that! but i've been pretty slim all my life so I'm used to it!

jimmypippa

BeaconRuth wrote:

So you're saying Jonah Lomu is good at climbing hills on a bike?

Ruth

No, I was just pointing out an example, which I found amusing, where BMI would be misleading.

I would imagine it would be more prone to be misleading with athletes*, and TDF cyclists are some of the most extreme athletes that I can think of.



*As the misleading values tend to be from "abnormal" amounts of muscle mass.


EDIT: Well, maybe yes, if the question was "would Jonah Lomu be good at climbing hills on a bike compared to most other 18st people with a BMI of over 31"...

The Other McHoy

Typical pro rider's physique:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.php?i ... 364_1_full

Typical guy who says it's not all abot weight:

http://www.dane101.com/files/medium_fat%20cyclist.jpg

And from Daniel Coyle's "Tour de Force":

But the obsession is bent toward strategic purpose, because within the society of riders, fat is not fat, nor is an ass merely an ass - it is time. It's a simple idea, the more you weigh, the slower you go uphill. An extra ounce here or there sounds meaningless, but it can make a huge difference, especially on a long climb. Of course, trainers like Ferrari have figured it out: each kilogram (2.2 pounds) adds about 1.25 percent to a rider's time on a climb. On a typical eight-mile climb, that works out to just over a second per additional ounce.

"losing weight is the single most important thing you can do" Armstrong says. "You have to train. You have to be strong, of course. But if you're too heavy, it's all over."

Anonymous

IIRC Ferrari stated the 'Magic Figure' that a tour winner needs is a threshold power to weight ratio of 6.7 w/kg.

ColinJ

a_n_t wrote:

ColinJ wrote:

When I was 75 kg, so did I! The only trouble was, my face looked like I'd been chained up in a dungeon somewhere for 6 months.

yeah there is that! but i've been pretty slim all my life so I'm used to it!

I could just about get away with it when I was young but I'm 52 now and my skin just goes kind of saggy now if I get too thin . Still, I don't compete so the last few percent of climbing speed I'd get by losing another 5 kg don't really matter.

Alex_Simmons/RST

NapoleonD wrote:

IIRC Ferrari stated the 'Magic Figure' that a tour winner needs is a threshold power to weight ratio of 6.7 w/kg.

Such a figure would likely only be obtained via unnatural means.

fuzzynavel

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

IIRC Ferrari stated the 'Magic Figure' that a tour winner needs is a threshold power to weight ratio of 6.7 w/kg.

Such a figure would likely only be obtained via unnatural means.

469 sustained watts from a 70 kilo rider does seem quite high. but is it really too high for a pro?

liversedge

I'm pretty sure that was for 20 minute power ... but I'm sure google will tell me otherwise.

Alex_Simmons/RST

liversedge wrote:

I'm pretty sure that was for 20 minute power ... but I'm sure google will tell me otherwise.

Well 20-min power would be a fair bit higher than threshold and that would be just within the realms of possible.

Ricco, who was busted for epo, would have produced something in the vicinity of 6.4W/kg for ~ 20-min on the final climb in his TdF stage "win".

Murr X

fuzzynavel wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

IIRC Ferrari stated the 'Magic Figure' that a tour winner needs is a threshold power to weight ratio of 6.7 w/kg.

Such a figure would likely only be obtained via unnatural means.

469 sustained watts from a 70 kilo rider does seem quite high. but is it really too high for a pro?

Yes, even for top pros at FTP it is well out of the question.

470 watts is ridiculously high for a 70KG rider - even 400 at 70KG (5.7w/KG) is pretty high for a pro.

The TDF can be won today with an FTP of considerably less than 6.7 watts per kilo.

SteveR_100Milers

a_n_t wrote:

ColinJ wrote:

I'm 6' 1" tall and at 80 kg

i'm 6'2" and 72kg, I love a good hill!

6ft 1", 102Kgs and I'm not that fond of hills! - not always last up them though thankfully, but never at the front. Personally I think the BMI calcs are as useless a guide as the "220-age" to calculate your max heart rate - even in my younger days when I had very little spare fat I was 13st 8 (sorry about mixing the metrics), which according to BMI calcs isn't ideal, but I was a 30" waist (compared to 36-38 now!), and was a lot faster up hills.
I've got a 48" chest and largeish shoulders and arms, so I am always going to have a weight handicap, and unlkely to ever produce sufficient power to overcome it

fuzzynavel

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

a_n_t wrote:

ColinJ wrote:

I'm 6' 1" tall and at 80 kg

i'm 6'2" and 72kg, I love a good hill!

6ft 1", 102Kgs and I'm not that fond of hills! - not always last up them though thankfully, but never at the front. Personally I think the BMI calcs are as useless a guide as the "220-age" to calculate your max heart rate - even in my younger days when I had very little spare fat I was 13st 8 (sorry about mixing the metrics), which according to BMI calcs isn't ideal, but I was a 30" waist (compared to 36-38 now!), and was a lot faster up hills.
I've got a 48" chest and largeish shoulders and arms, so I am always going to have a weight handicap, and unlkely to ever produce sufficient power to overcome it

Just to throw a spanner in the works...I am 5'11 and about 96kg (15st 3) and I love climbing hills. I have good, strong power bursts but can't sustain it for long. I'm trying to shift weight and maintain/improve the power from my fatty times

SteveR_100Milers

fuzzynavel wrote:

Just to throw a spanner in the works...I am 5'11 and about 96kg (15st 3) and I love climbing hills. I have good, strong power bursts but can't sustain it for long. I'm trying to shift weight and maintain/improve the power from my fatty times

well, same here - I can hold my own in a sprint. I was assuming the OP meant anything that takes longer than a minute of riding

fuzzynavel

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

fuzzynavel wrote:

Just to throw a spanner in the works...I am 5'11 and about 96kg (15st 3) and I love climbing hills. I have good, strong power bursts but can't sustain it for long. I'm trying to shift weight and maintain/improve the power from my fatty times

well, same here - I can hold my own in a sprint. I was assuming the OP meant anything that takes longer than a minute of riding

Cue Alex to tell me that it is all anaerobic and neuromuscular hence the reason for not being able to sustain it. I am an ok climber for my size and can usually hold my own against various sizes of people. If I can maintain my power whilst losing weight then theoretically I can become a better climber

Alex_Simmons/RST

There is likely an anaerobic component for short sharp rises where you go hard for a minute or thereabouts but it is not exclusively anaerobic.

Even a 1-minute all out time trial effort has a sizeable contribution (~40%) from aerobic energy metabolism.

BeaconRuth

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Personally I think the BMI calcs are as useless a guide as the "220-age" to calculate your max heart rate.................

They are not useless. They are a factual, accurate measure of your weight relative to your height. It's a pet peev of mine that people dismiss BMI as irrelevant just because they can point to elite athletes like Jonah Lomu and Chris Hoy who have high BMIs but do not have a weight 'problem'. They are still very heavy for their height and as such they do not have an ideal physique for climbing hills on a bike......... which is what this thread is all about. Muscle? Fat? Who cares? You've still got to lug it up the hill!

Being good at climbing hills is all about power to weight ratio and carrying more muscle than you need on your upper body is just as detrimental to hill-climbing as carrying excess fat. Hence BMI is a very valid, if crude, indicator of whether someone will be good at climbing hills.

Steve - you have gone from a BMI of just over 25 to over 29 - I'm not in the least surprised you are not now as good at climbing hills as you were. You've just shown how BMI is a very relevant indicator of your hill-climbing ability. I'm not making any judgement about whether you were 'overweight' or not when you weighed 13st odd - but you were better at climbing hills then.

Ruth

sportbilly1976

I agree with the power to weight ratio.

I am 6'2" and about 90kgs, a 34" waist, 44" chest...so not overweight, but those extra kgs felt like I was dragging a spare tyre behind the bike yesterday climbing around Derbyshire!!

My attitude is - do a few hills every sunday and watch your diet...eventually the combination of practise, knowing your limits and the loss of a few kgs will reap rewards.

Also - a good deal is down to your mental ability & your ability to not mentally "feel" pain also keeps you going.

liversedge

I have weighed in the region of 13 stone for the last 5 months with a height of 6ft 1. Over this time I have gone from de-trained to fit and have ambitious plans for the year. My FTP has come good and I have moved from an average of 15mph to 17mph on my commute. In short I am healthier and faster.

My BMI has stayed the same because my bodyfat percentage has moved but my overall weight has moved very little.

BMI is meaningless to me. BUT, for the average joe it gives an indication of how healthy they are. So, average joe will get some value from it - I'd rather look at power output and bodyfat %.

And of course I want to be lighter too, but I have a target in kilos not a BMI.

BeaconRuth

liversedge wrote:

I have weighed in the region of 13 stone for the last 5 months with a height of 6ft 1. Over this time I have gone from de-trained to fit and have ambitious plans for the year. My FTP has come good and I have moved from an average of 15mph to 17mph on my commute. In short I am healthier and faster.

My BMI has stayed the same because my bodyfat percentage has moved but my overall weight has moved very little.

BMI is meaningless to me. BUT, for the average joe it gives an indication of how healthy they are. So, average joe will get some value from it - I'd rather look at power output and bodyfat %.

And of course I want to be lighter too, but I have a target in kilos not a BMI.

Given that your height will stay constant (presumeably), how does having a target in kilos differ from having a target in BMI? Surely in an equation with 3 variables where one is constant, the other two are completely dependent on each other?

So in the formula for your power to weight ratio you have altered your power and not your weight. Good for you. You are healthier and faster. Good for you.

This says nothing about whether BMI is or is not a helpful indicator of whether someone has an appropriate weight to be a good climber, so I don't really understand your point.

Pile on all the muscle you wish and reduce your body fat to 5% but if you end up built like Jonah Lomu, or even Chris Hoy, you are barking up the wrong tree if you want to be a first rate climber. Power output is critical, which needs strong leg muscles, but after that, excess weight of any sort is a hindrance.

Ruth

liversedge

cause my actuall target is in watts/kg not watts/bmi

SteveR_100Milers

BeaconRuth wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Personally I think the BMI calcs are as useless a guide as the "220-age" to calculate your max heart rate.................

They are not useless. They are a factual, accurate measure of your weight relative to your height. It's a pet peev of mine that people dismiss BMI as irrelevant just because they can point to elite athletes like Jonah Lomu and Chris Hoy who have high BMIs but do not have a weight 'problem'. They are still very heavy for their height and as such they do not have an ideal physique for climbing hills on a bike......... which is what this thread is all about. Muscle? Fat? Who cares? You've still got to lug it up the hill!

Being good at climbing hills is all about power to weight ratio and carrying more muscle than you need on your upper body is just as detrimental to hill-climbing as carrying excess fat. Hence BMI is a very valid, if crude, indicator of whether someone will be good at climbing hills.

Steve - you have gone from a BMI of just over 25 to over 29 - I'm not in the least surprised you are not now as good at climbing hills as you were. You've just shown how BMI is a very relevant indicator of your hill-climbing ability. I'm not making any judgement about whether you were 'overweight' or not when you weighed 13st odd - but you were better at climbing hills then.

Ruth

That's a fair comment Ruth, my point was poorly made that BMI is a crude tool at predicting your relative obesity. If BMI is not used for that purpose then what else can it tell you of any importance to cycling? The actual calculation as a ratio of size (height) and weight is another way of expressing the difficulty of getting over hills, but ultmately, you might as well simply use power / weight expressed in watts/kilo as you rightly say it doesnt matter whether its fat/muscle/bone or bike, it all needs lugging over a hill. What height you are makes no difference surely?

Here's an interesting thought I have had many times, and I think I partly know the answer. cycling predominatly aerobically does cause hypertrophy in the leg muscles, though not as much as working out in the gymn. (although from observation so many cyclists seem to have large quads compared to non cyclists, which might well be because the rest of their bodies is disproprtionaly smaller). Therefore, what is the power v mass relationship in a muscle? I am assuming the answer partly lies in the fact that the leg muscles do not in fact grow much in size (therefore mass? unless mitochondria and blood capilliaries are significant)

Anonymous

liversedge, your bmi will vary exactly the same as your kg, they are part of the same thing!

Power to weight ratio is directly affected by your weight and thus your BMI.

SteveR_100Milers

unless your height changes, which if you are a junior, it will likely do so.

liversedge

no shit! I can do remedial maths.

BMI is irrelevant to me - I don't need to calculate it. I only care about my power and my weight. I couldn't give a shit about my height since I can't change it and the relationship between my height and my weight is nonsense because it dosn't take into account body composition so no meaningful metric applies to me.

liversedge

Just for fun, or maybe I can't let sleeping dogs lie, here are the BMIs for 2 TDF GC champions and 2 top TDF sprinters, can you tell which one is which from their BMI?

I chose Lance Armstrong, Miguel Indurain. Mark Cavendish and Robbie McEwen ...

results, in no particular order are: 22.8, 22.6, 22.5, 22.9

sportbilly1976

another thought......surely one of the best ways at getting better at climbing hills...is to relentlessly ride them.

i.e - pick a hill and go up & down it 4 or 5 times in a day...

Anonymous

liversedge, you're right, you don't need to measure it as you are measuring weight. But, for goodness sake, as your height remains the same, your BMI will change with weight.
Your weight doesn't take into account body composition either.


If you are saying that BMI is irrelevant then so is weight.

Power to BMI ratio in your case is the same as power to weight as your height is the same...

Weights/BMI with regard to sprinters / GC contenders are only relevant in the context of power over a sustained period, usually climbs/TTs in the case of GC contenders and explosive 15s power in the case of sprinters.

Sportbilly, yes.

liversedge

bmi tells me nothing more than my weight already does - so I don't worry about it.

fwiw, my target for 1 hour power is: more. my target for weight is: less. When my priority events come round I'll see how I do.

Anonymous

Anyhoo - what are you aiming for?

My target FTP for April is 3w/kg.
Not much but I was 18 stone of non-cycling lard 18 months ago...

doyler78

NapoleonD wrote:

liversedge, your bmi will vary exactly the same as your kg, they are part of the same thing!

Power to weight ratio is directly affected by your weight and thus your BMI.

It's not exactly the same - height is constant in bmi - power isn't necessarily constant when you reduce or increase weight therefore is a more dynamic relationship involved than there is in bmi.

I do however take the point being made by Ruth that BMI is a crude estimate of a persons ability to climb as it does give an indication of how bulkly a person is likely to be (whether through fat or through muscle) and therefore how hard it is for them to lug that bulk up a hill however it is only crude as someone who has never done any climbing or is unfit will not be able to climb better than someone bulkier but who is an otherwise fit cyclist. It can only really be used when considered with the rest of an athletes/persons profile.