Rider Weight!?!

robz400

[/quote]well im 6ft 4" and 20st 10lbs, i think there no hope for me , strange as i can see my abs

Now, are you sure those are your abs you can see!!

reacher

hambones wrote:

We've been talking about weight at work today and I've said I want to get down to 84kg which I managed last July. I am 6'2" and currently 89kg.

At 84kg I had many people, including my own mother crying on the doorstep, asking if I had cancer... People here are aghast that I want to get back down to 84kg (or less) as they have all admitted I looked very ill!!!

That said I was awesome (for me) on the hills last summer.

thats because the average person is fat and unfit , so when they see a fit guy , lean in the face they think he is ill ,
i had exactly the same reaction from every one i knew , as the body fat came off that was the comment , are you ill or something

plankton_brain

I read somewhere (probably on here) that a good weight target is 1kg per inch.

My target weight then is 69 KG (which i think is a liitle more fun than 68 or 70 ;-)

Just to mix up the units a little more, and just in case you havn't worked it out, I'm 69" tall

3kg to go and 6 weeks to first event.

plankton_brain

I read somewhere (probably on here) that a good weight target is 1kg per inch.

My target weight then is 69 KG (which i think is a liitle more fun than 68 or 70 ;-)

Just to mix up the units a little more, and just in case you havn't worked it out, I'm 69" tall

3kg to go and 6 weeks to first event.

JKHinton

I am 6' tall and 49 years old, I was 75 kg before Christmas Hols

I have gone up to 79kg at the moment I blame the weather and the Christmas Pudding

I would like to get down to about 70 kg for the summer

I went out for a long ride today enjoyed it, very mild here at the moment
the muck on the roads is woefull though. I had to wash the bike and all my clothing it was covered in nasty muck and salt. :roll:

P_Tucker

reacher wrote:

hambones wrote:

We've been talking about weight at work today and I've said I want to get down to 84kg which I managed last July. I am 6'2" and currently 89kg.

At 84kg I had many people, including my own mother crying on the doorstep, asking if I had cancer... People here are aghast that I want to get back down to 84kg (or less) as they have all admitted I looked very ill!!!

That said I was awesome (for me) on the hills last summer.

thats because the average person is fat and unfit , so when they see a fit guy , lean in the face they think he is ill ,
i had exactly the same reaction from every one i knew , as the body fat came off that was the comment , are you ill or something

Exactly. Evolution produced this:



Then agriculture and modern sedentary lifestyles produced this:

meanredspider

It's not really possible to compare heights & weights and make any sense of it without having some sense of build - people are different shapes with different shaped bones underneath it all. If I lost the 20kg it would take to get me to get to 72kg (at 6' the 1kg per inch guide) I would look dreadful. I already wear 32" waist jeans (the same as when I left school as a very fit and trim teenager) but I'm sure I could lose 10kg before my abs looked defined. There's more probably a nearer ideal shape for an endurance cyclist. Big shoulders, for instance, probably don't provide an advantage as they might in rowing or swimming or throwing a javelin. The thing is - whilst this is a cycling forum - many of us cycle for fun and aren't looking to become the next world champ. We've got the body shape we do and should just make the best of it.

rick_chasey

plankton_brain wrote:

I read somewhere (probably on here) that a good weight target is 1kg per inch.

My target weight then is 69 KG (which i think is a liitle more fun than 68 or 70 ;-)

Just to mix up the units a little more, and just in case you havn't worked it out, I'm 69" tall

3kg to go and 6 weeks to first event.

That strikes me as quite heavy, 1kg per inch.

5ft would be 60kg?

That's a lot for 5ft.

rob13

Rick Chasey wrote:

plankton_brain wrote:

I read somewhere (probably on here) that a good weight target is 1kg per inch.

My target weight then is 69 KG (which i think is a liitle more fun than 68 or 70 ;-)

Just to mix up the units a little more, and just in case you havn't worked it out, I'm 69" tall

3kg to go and 6 weeks to first event.

That strikes me as quite heavy, 1kg per inch.

5ft would be 60kg?

That's a lot for 5ft.

Well by that, I'm 10kg over my target weight so I would say that was about right!

rick_chasey

Rob13 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

plankton_brain wrote:

I read somewhere (probably on here) that a good weight target is 1kg per inch.

My target weight then is 69 KG (which i think is a liitle more fun than 68 or 70 ;-)

Just to mix up the units a little more, and just in case you havn't worked it out, I'm 69" tall

3kg to go and 6 weeks to first event.

That strikes me as quite heavy, 1kg per inch.

5ft would be 60kg?

That's a lot for 5ft.

Well by that, I'm 10kg over my target weight so I would say that was about right!

It'd mean I'm 10 under, and would have been 12 under when I cycled.

meanredspider

Well it does, of course, assume that we're a uniform diameter regardless of height which is clearly a nonesense

Ben6899

Pro Peloton grimpeur weight is about 2lbs per inch.

So if i was 8lbs lighter, Bert and Andy could eat my dust!

edb999

Rick Chasey wrote:

plankton_brain wrote:

I read somewhere (probably on here) that a good weight target is 1kg per inch.

My target weight then is 69 KG (which i think is a liitle more fun than 68 or 70 ;-)

Just to mix up the units a little more, and just in case you havn't worked it out, I'm 69" tall

3kg to go and 6 weeks to first event.

That strikes me as quite heavy, 1kg per inch.

5ft would be 60kg?

That's a lot for 5ft.

And 77kg for 6'5'' (just over 12 stone) far to light, I wont reach that untill i'm decomposing

willbevan

drop some weight, get your power to weight up

I've dropped from the end of last season, 80kg to 67kg. I've got a very slight build and I have no idea how I let myself get up to 80kg.

I used to be 69kgs till around Oct 08. whew I should have been weighting myself lol!

Some simple calcs though....

If next season I maintain the same power (I am working on improving it mind you), my Power to weight will have increase 17% currently, nice jump

If I can get my hour pace up 30 watts (yes a bloody big task!) it will compount to also 31%. (Fingers crossed for me please!)

A good reason to slim down and hit the training

sturmey

the 1kg per inch formula takes no account of different body types ie different levels of muscle mass from one individual to another. If you are 6' tall and have NO upper body at all,ie pigeon chest and pipe cleaner arms then,yes, 72 kgs is entirely reasonable. Otherwise it's way off the mark, by at least 5kgs I would say.

cyberknight

5 foot 7" tall and 70 kg ( 11 stone in real money ), i have not really varied much in weight in over 20 years ,except for a period of inactivity .
I once got done to 10 and a half stone and i felt "weak" but i was always into multi sports like martial arts , weights, swimming etc etc to be a pure climber ,this is me in thee nineties i guess and you can see a bit meaty for a pure cyclist.



As others have said its down to your body type ( ectomorph,mesomorph and endomorph and a combination of any of those 3 ) and what you feel comfortable at .Combine that with the sort of activities you do and it can have a lot of bearing on your body shape.

Stone Glider

So at I kilo/inch I just need to be two foot seven inches taller? If only I had known sooner

fastercyclist

At present: 182 cm (5ft 11 1/2) / 77 kg (12 stone)
Previous best: 69kg (10.8 stone) ~ May last year
Target this season: 66-68kg

P.S. that 80kg+ talk is overweight unless you're 6ft 4 or something ridiculous.

meanredspider

fastercyclist wrote:

that 80kg+ talk is overweight unless you're 6ft 4 or something ridiculous.

Overweight in what way?

sturmey

P.S. that 80kg+ talk is overweight unless you're 6ft 4 or something ridiculous

If you are 6' tall and have NO upper body at all,ie pigeon chest and pipe cleaner arms then,yes, 72 kgs(or even 69kgs) is entirely reasonable.

TonyWard

1kg per inch clearly does not make sense - it will be too heavy for short people and too light for tall people. No linear relationship can make sense except over a narrow range of heights. For the ratio of an objects height to its mass to be linear requires it to have exactly the same width and depth as it get taller. However, taller people also tend (on average) to have broader shoulders, deeper chest, etc. etc. Therefore each 1 inch "slice" of their body will tend to weigh more than the same 1 inch "slice" of a shorter person. Clearly that is generally not true which is why 7 foot basketball players will weigh a lot more than 1kg per inch and small children a lot less.

peejay78

cyberknight wrote:

...and you can see a bit meaty for a pure cyclist...
.

and a bit underdressed.

ademort

At this moment in time i am definitely overweight. The reason for my overweight is the fact that for the last 5 months i,ve been involved in a project for work which means that my normal cycling pattern has gone out of the window.Last June/July i was 84Kgs, on returning from my christmas holiday i weighed myself and was 93.8Kgs on the 29th December. Today i weighed myself and am just above the 90Kgs.I am 5Ft 8Ins and according to the B.M.I. index should weigh no more than 78Kgs. When i am back to my normal weight of 84Kgs i look/feel great and cannot imagine how or where i am going to lose another 6Kgs to get down to my (so called) ideal B.M.I. weight . At the end of the day if you look good and feel good then what does it matter if you dont fall into the correct height/weight scale.
Ademort

fastercyclist

meanredspider wrote:

fastercyclist wrote:

that 80kg+ talk is overweight unless you're 6ft 4 or something ridiculous.

Overweight in what way?

I would happily put money on them being able to put out the same power at a lower weight. That kind of overweight. Carrying excess baggage.

When reductions in weight start affecting power then it becomes a choice of cycling weight to suit your goals for the season.

But when you can reduce weight without reducing power output, you're overweight. In my eyes at least.

wheezee

I'm 5'10", and less than 10 and a half stone usually. I have wide shoulders, but cannot see a single ab, and would probably lag behind all of you up the hills (and down the other side).

There's not much of a pattern emerging here.

meanredspider

fastercyclist wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

fastercyclist wrote:

that 80kg+ talk is overweight unless you're 6ft 4 or something ridiculous.

Overweight in what way?

I would happily put money on them being able to put out the same power at a lower weight. That kind of overweight. Carrying excess baggage.

When reductions in weight start affecting power then it becomes a choice of cycling weight to suit your goals for the season.

But when you can reduce weight without reducing power output, you're overweight. In my eyes at least.

So overweight for "competitive" cycling? But not clinically overweight.

It's a bit of a conclusion to jump to that the OP wants to be "competitive". It's the usual thing of those for whom cycling is "everything" vs those of us that cycling is one of the things we do. There's no doubt that being "weedy" up top is possibly an advantage in competitive endurance cycling. Equally it's a disadvantage in many other parts of life.

crankycrank

To the OP. 6'3" and 90 kilos would be considered very slim by any standards except the anorexic starting line of a pro race. On your next ride if you look around at all the other cyclists in the flesh you will see that you are probably one of the thinner types. I'm 5'10" and 95 kilo's :x

danowat

crankycrank wrote:

To the OP. 6'3" and 90 kilos would be considered very slim by any standards except the anorexic starting line of a pro race.

Really?, I am around that, and I am far from "very slim"

crankycrank

danowat wrote:

crankycrank wrote:

To the OP. 6'3" and 90 kilos would be considered very slim by any standards except the anorexic starting line of a pro race.

Really?, I am around that, and I am far from "very slim"

Maybe I have been looking at myself in the mirror too long :oops: You sound as though you're at a very healthy weight in comparison to me.

meanredspider

I'm not sure what "very slim" is - but professional international rugby three-quarter backs can weigh in a 85kg and 5'11". I'm sure they are "lean" and must come close to the average view of the "ideal physique" (whatever that is....)