Body Weight...

Zachariah

jonmack wrote:

!

Are you a hitman for the masons?

gsk82

NapoleonD wrote:

Half my turbo sessions are being done in the climbing position as main target is a hilly TT next April.

It does make a difference.
I hope to be 5 kg lighter than I was at the same event this year too..

how did you get a climing position? just have hands in the middle of the bars or did you jack the front end up a bit? would people recommend raising the front end to get into a climbing position in training?

Determination

Age: 20
Height: 5 ft 9
Chest: 34.5 inches
Waist: 29 inches
Weight: 53 kgs

I have only started training in July so I will probably get heavier when or if I can get some muscle! Does anyone have any idea roughly of how much extra they weigh since they started cycling because of the muscle they put on? Just curious :roll:

P_Tucker

Determination wrote:

Age: 20
Height: 5 ft 9
Chest: 34.5 inches
Waist: 29 inches
Weight: 53 kgs

I have only started training in July so I will probably get heavier when or if I can get some muscle! Does anyone have any idea roughly of how much extra they weigh since they started cycling because of the muscle they put on?

Cycling doesn't tend to build muscle.

ozzzyosborn206

P_Tucker wrote:

Determination wrote:

Age: 20
Height: 5 ft 9
Chest: 34.5 inches
Waist: 29 inches
Weight: 53 kgs

I have only started training in July so I will probably get heavier when or if I can get some muscle! Does anyone have any idea roughly of how much extra they weigh since they started cycling because of the muscle they put on?

Cycling doesn't tend to build muscle.

of course it does! if you do power work you will gain muscle, but i do not have a clue how much weight you would gain, most people probably loose a bit of fat and add a bit of muscle,

I am 21 weigh about 63-65 kgs and 5foot 8 waist is 32,

Determination

P_Tucker wrote:

Cycling doesn't tend to build muscle.

Then why do cyclists have "big" legs?

P_Tucker

Determination wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Cycling doesn't tend to build muscle.

Then why do cyclists have "big" legs?

These guys:



Do more cycling than you. I rest my case.

Pokerface

P_Tucker wrote:

Determination wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Cycling doesn't tend to build muscle.

Then why do cyclists have "big" legs?

These guys:

Do more cycling than you. I rest my case.

So do these guys:

Greipel



Cancellara

Determination

P_Tucker wrote:

Do more cycling than you. I rest my case.

But I wasn't asking about Pro's? :shock: Of course there going to have bigger legs! lol. Since muscle weighs more than fat, I was just asking had anyone noticed a significant difference in their weight since starting cycling while remaining roughly of the same physique? :idea:
A good few club cyclists I know have big legs.

gsk82

since evevryone else is getting personal

age 25
height 5'8"
weight 10st 12lbs (69kg)
waist 29"
chest 37"

i don't know many people who weigh less than me and most seem shocked how little i weigh, even though i'm over a stone heavier than when i started shifting weights about 3 years ago. i wouldn't have thought cycling ha effected my weight too much, probably reduced fat but not much more

joeyhalloran

I have lost about a stone since starting cycling, more upper body mass to be honest, my power has gone up a lot but my legs aren't that much bigger, the kind of muscle you will put on won't weight much at all (and if it does there is nothing you can do about it) so don't worry about it too much.

SBezza

I have lost 7 stone since taking up cycling, and my legs have got bigger, especially my quads, and I do no weight training at all, it is all from just cycling Lost a fair bit on my upper body though

Still could do with losing another few kg's to get to an even better weight.

Age 41
Height 5'7"
Weight 11st (70kgs)
Waist 30"
Chest I haven't got a clue, but not that big

meanredspider

Blimey - this thread seems to be sparrows or us beefier chaps

Age: 45 (at least for a few more days...)
Height: 6'
Weight: 93kg
Chest: 44"
Waist: 33"

I'm in the big shoulder brigade (front row rugby in my youth) and have the type of body that puts on muscle mass easily. I'm never going to be a hill-climber (despite getting plenty of practice around here) - especially when I compare myself with my colleage who weighs 72kg ON his bike (I'm at about 30kg deficit). I can keep up on the flats and beat him downhill but he destroys me up the slopes.

Garz

I understand meanredspider, I'm a short stumpy football/rugby player that used to be able to sprint once upon a time.

Age: 32
Height: 5' 6"
Weight: 78kg
Chest: 39"
Waist: 32"

garrynolan

Short, very stumpy rugby player and cyclist.

Age: 49
Height: 5' 4"
Chest: 39"
Waist: 30/32"
Inside leg: 27" crotch to ground.
Weight: 65kg

I was 22" long when born - should be at least 6' tall - bloody Thalidomide. Could have been so much worse!! Still playing and riding so no real complaints.

Richa1181

You guys must be pretty serious about going up hills. I'm only 5'11" and I've dropped from 84 to 77 in a bid to improve my climbing. I can't imagine what losing another 10kg would do in terms of power loss, surely there's a happy medium in there somewhere!

prb007

meanredspider wrote:

Blimey - this thread seems to be sparrows or us beefier chaps

Age: 45 (at least for a few more days...)
Height: 6'
Weight: 93kg
Chest: 44"
Waist: 33"

I'm in the big shoulder brigade (front row rugby in my youth) and have the type of body that puts on muscle mass easily. I'm never going to be a hill-climber (despite getting plenty of practice around here) - especially when I compare myself with my colleage who weighs 72kg ON his bike (I'm at about 30kg deficit). I can keep up on the flats and beat him downhill but he destroys me up the slopes.

+1 for NEVER going to be a climber
Age; 46
Height 6'4"/192cm
Weight 16st4lbs/103kgs
Chest 45/Waist 35

Ex-second row forward, only built for rowing and basketball and I was cr@p at both!
Two of my best mates with whom I ride regularly are 6'3"/13st and 5'9'/12st and I do OK flats and downhill but as soon as the gradient gets above 5%, I'm toast!
Did the Dragon in June of this year and NO-ONE passed me going downhill for 190k
Hoping to drop 10kgs in the New Year, training for JOGLE in May, so hoping to close the gap

don simon

180cms
67kg (last time I weighed myself)
Not sure of my vital statistics but I would like to see peace in the world.

Ex winger in rugby and oarsman at every position and possibly the heaviest cox in the world as I was at an 85kg rowing weight.

As a recovering asthmatic I'm working towards a 5-10% body fat level to become more efficient and return to racing, currently hovering aroun 15% and it's Christmas

meanredspider

I was always told that I should have be a row-ist (or a swim-ist) - but I was put off at uni because you had to sign to say you'd go for a stomach pump if you fell in the Tyne!

Cruel then that my two favourite pastimes - cycling and motor racing - favour someone of a lighter build. Doesn't stop me enjoying them just means I have to work that much harder. Trouble is working harder on a bike for me just leads to more muscle & more weight. I've even developed some impressive pecs through cycling - something I never thought I'd say.

SBezza

Richa1181 wrote:

You guys must be pretty serious about going up hills. I'm only 5'11" and I've dropped from 84 to 77 in a bid to improve my climbing. I can't imagine what losing another 10kg would do in terms of power loss, surely there's a happy medium in there somewhere!

You might not lose power though, might just get a better power to weight ratio. I am still slowish at going up hills to be honest, as I don't train to get up them fast.

Then again racing TT's are different to racing road races (there you need to be able to race hard up a hill and recover quickly)

Happy medium for me would be about 67-68 kgs.

P_Tucker

meanredspider wrote:

I was always told that I should have be a row-ist (or a swim-ist) - but I was put off at uni because you had to sign to say you'd go for a stomach pump if you fell in the Tyne!

Cruel then that my two favourite pastimes - cycling and motor racing - favour someone of a lighter build. Doesn't stop me enjoying them just means I have to work that much harder. Trouble is working harder on a bike for me just leads to more muscle & more weight. I've even developed some impressive pecs through cycling - something I never thought I'd say.

If you've developed big pecs through cycling, you've done something horribly wrong.

Pross

Determination wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Cycling doesn't tend to build muscle.

Then why do cyclists have "big" legs?

In general cyclists legs aren't actually that big unless they are all about power such as track sprinters (who do a lot of weight work) and the odd roadie such as Pokerface posted. Legs tend to look bigger because the body fat levels are so low and the muscle is highly defined. If you cycle regularly then unless you started off with very low body fat you are more likely to lose weight. I was shocked by how "light" my body building mate is when he is ready for competition, he looks huge and bigger than he does when he is out of competition. He is so lean he weighs less than me, albeit he's a few inches shorter, and I have very little muscle mass.

meanredspider

P_Tucker wrote:

If you've developed big pecs through cycling, you've done something horribly wrong.

I think I support a lot of my upper body weight through my arms and also generate a lot of my power through my back and arms. I'm clearly not alone in developing upper body strength for cycling - this guy clearly isn't a "sparrow"




I tend to "muscle" the bike - given I'm shifting a fair bit of weight up quite a bit of elevation

P_Tucker

Pokerface wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Determination wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Cycling doesn't tend to build muscle.

Then why do cyclists have "big" legs?

These guys:

Do more cycling than you. I rest my case.

So do these guys:

Greipel & Cancellara

Lets set out the facts:

All 4 pro cyclists do roughly the same amount of cycling, which I think we can agree is a lot.
Contador and Rasmussen have sparrow legs, Cancellara & Greipel have big legs.

Agreed?

So, using LOGIC, we can rule out the possibility that cycling in itself gives you big legs - else Contador and Rasmussen would be stacked. Make sense?

So, again using LOGIC, we can safely say that Canc and Greipel must do something else to give them big legs (e.g. gym work), or perhaps they have naturally big legs.

Is thinking things through really that hard?

meanredspider

P_Tucker wrote:

So, again using LOGIC, we can safely say that Canc and Greipel must do something else to give them big legs (e.g. gym work), or perhaps they have naturally big legs.

I'm not sure that your "logic" is altogether sound. I think all you can argue that cycling doesn't give everybody big legs. I'd imagine it depends upon a whole range of things - spinning or mashing the pedals for starters and (as is the case for me) your propensity to put on muscle. I read a while back that there are a series of differing body types (infinite probably) but two I distinctly remember were those that stayed thin and lean and those that bulked up (and a third, not surprisingly, in the middle). This maybe is what you're arguing - though it's not clear.

peejay78

Richa1181 wrote:

You guys must be pretty serious about going up hills. I'm only 5'11" and I've dropped from 84 to 77 in a bid to improve my climbing. I can't imagine what losing another 10kg would do in terms of power loss, surely there's a happy medium in there somewhere!

i guess that's it, i am serious about going up hills. i have clubmates who are big and powerful, can really lay it down on the flat and turn in 50 minute 25s, 20 minute tens. i can't get near that, although i suspect i can get below 21 minutes for a ten if i apply myself with the same level of discipline that i turn in for the hillclimb season.

as soon as the road goes uphill, it's a completely different story, i can make gain big time differences, 30-40 seconds on the next quickest clubmate (also a lightweight grimpeur), sometimes minutes on the bigger, strong fellows.

there is a happy medium, if i get below around 66kg i think i lose power. i haven't gone that low. this year i made significant gains as a result of losing a tiny bit more weight, around 3kg, and being generally in better shape through structured training.

if you look at the shape and build of the top 30 riders in the national hillclimb championships this year, there are similarities. you don't see many over 80kg, put it that way. the attention to detail over weight - in terms of body weight and bike/frame/componentry/wheelset, matches the attention to detail given to aerodynamics by the rouleurs. my bike comes in below 7kg, and the wheelset has a rider weight limit of 80kg.

ultimately, it makes me quick, but not quick enough, there's always a lighter, quicker gorilla.

SteveR_100Milers

P_Tucker wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Determination wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Cycling doesn't tend to build muscle.

Then why do cyclists have "big" legs?

These guys:

Do more cycling than you. I rest my case.

So do these guys:

Greipel & Cancellara

Lets set out the facts:

All 4 pro cyclists do roughly the same amount of cycling, which I think we can agree is a lot.
Contador and Rasmussen have sparrow legs, Cancellara & Greipel have big legs.

Agreed?

So, using LOGIC, we can rule out the possibility that cycling in itself gives you big legs - else Contador and Rasmussen would be stacked. Make sense?

So, again using LOGIC, we can safely say that Canc and Greipel must do something else to give them big legs (e.g. gym work), or perhaps they have naturally big legs.

Is thinking things through really that hard?

why do you have to sign each post off with the phrase "I am a kn0b"?
It's a pity because some of what you have to say is relevant. Merry Xmas.

P_Tucker

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

why do you have to sign each post off with the phrase "I am a kn0b"?
It's a pity because some of what you have to say is relevant. Merry Xmas.

Because I am. What's the point in hiding it?

Merry Christmas to you too!

SteveR_100Milers

P_Tucker wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

why do you have to sign each post off with the phrase "I am a kn0b"?
It's a pity because some of what you have to say is relevant. Merry Xmas.

Because I am. What's the point in hiding it?

Merry Christmas to you too!

Simply because people then might take your opinions and advice more seriously. I suspect not many are listening to you any more, in which case you could save energy by not bothering to post.

Simples innit when you fink about it.

P_Tucker

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

why do you have to sign each post off with the phrase "I am a kn0b"?
It's a pity because some of what you have to say is relevant. Merry Xmas.

Because I am. What's the point in hiding it?

Merry Christmas to you too!

Simply because people then might take your opinions and advice more seriously. I suspect not many are listening to you any more, in which case you could save energy by not bothering to post.

Simples innit when you fink about it.

Meh. People ignore experts like Alex Simmons with logic along the lines of "nerr, its what I've always done and it works for me" - I'm just a not-entirely-useless (but still mostly useless) rider who's read a few books and has an open mind - what chance have I got?

The mistake you seem to be making is assuming I care whether people listen to me or not. I'm just bored in work and I've been banned from VeloRiders - and it appears that boiling Pokerface's p!ss seems to amuse me. To each his own eh?