Rider Weight!?!

fastercyclist

meanredspider wrote:

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.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote here. As I said, it's the way I personally judge weight. I'm 20 lbs away from being at the right weight according to my own logic, calling me obese at 12 stone / 5 foot 11 however might be strange. Even though it's 20lbs overweight.

When people say overweight I think in terms of weight over an ideal, rather then obese. Perhaps the extent of our disagreement is just a misunderstanding from the semantics.

A little bit confused about how a racing weight is a disadvantage in the rest of life though since my life doesn't involve mounting polar expeditions or fighting on a saturaday night.

peejay78

denial ain't just a river

fastercyclist

peejay78 wrote:

denial ain't just a river

Harsh, but watching 85kg+ cyclists say they're normal weight because rugby players (with a lot more muscle and a lot less fat then said cyclists) weigh the same is a bit sad.

peejay78

people who cycle a lot tend to be lean.
those who cycle a lot and keep an eye on calorific intake tend to be even more lean.

when aiming for race weight (67kg) or simply feeling a bit chubby (anything above 72kg) i adopt a detailed plan which revolves around the following complex formula:

(n) + (p) = x

where
(n) = eat less and (p) = cycle more leads to (x) = weight loss

as mentioned before, i'm 6"1 and a bit.

there is an argument i think somewhere that more muscular people, more suited to sprinting and so on, might be a bit heavier. and there's also an argument that we're not professional cyclists, any of us, so none of us should be down there in the ranks of the emaciated manorexics.

but you (yourself) know when a paunchy gut means you're opting for a club fit over a race fit jersey, or steering clear of certain 'brands' when buying from wriggle, and this tends to mean you're overweight. maybe not by much, and you're certainly not ready to sign up for celebrity fat club, and definitely not overweight when in comparison with the other rotund shoppers in Asda, but certainly overweight in a way that inhibits your riding.

for some of us, this is the point where it gets deal with through hard graft; working out the power to weight ratios and the marginal - or bigger - gains involved in improving racing performance. others of us simply grin and soldier on, enjoy being on the bike and simply duke it out on the climbs in the battle of the bulge.

meanredspider

fastercyclist wrote:

peejay78 wrote:

denial ain't just a river

Harsh, but watching 85kg+ cyclists say they're normal weight because rugby players (with a lot more muscle and a lot less fat then said cyclists) weigh the same is a bit sad.

My point is that weight is a very poor measure of lean-ness or of being "overweight" (used in terms of being "fat") and rugby backs aren't even the beefy guys. "Ideal" is very subjective.

A little bit confused about how a racing weight is a disadvantage in the rest of life though since my life doesn't involve mounting polar expeditions or fighting on a saturaday night.

Well, I'll start with the opposite sex - I don't know very many women that find a man with no shoulders and a pidgeon chest attractive. I think it's even been shown that a big chest has been measured to be attractive to your "average" woman. Of course, that assumes that you are heterosexual. From the little I know of the gay scene, I'm not sure that's so different.

Then there are simple day-to-day things where upper body strength just makes things easier: digging the garden, moving furniture, changing a car wheel, even opening a jar pickles - apart from swimming, rowing, rugby, athletics etc

It's not a big deal, but I think we shouldn't be doing the same thing for blokes' view of body as skinny size zero supermodels are doing for women and girls. This is the road beginners forum rather than the Pro section.

morstar

A few days away from 40. 6'1" tall and was 86kg prior to an evil bout of flu that I am still recovering from fully.
At 86 kg I am carrying a bit of excess around the middle but most people describe me as slim. I want to lose the tyre but overall I am much happier with my body shape than I ever was as the feeble less than 65Kg I was until reaching 30 years old.
I'd also point out that I can maintain much better pace into a head wind than I ever could as a lightweight. Obviously pay for it on the climbs but there's not many of those round here...doh!

peejay78

headwind is a veritable hex placed upon cyclists by sycorax.

jonmack

The problem with comparing weights and heights and everything else is that we're all different. I grew to 6ft when I was about 16, it's only in the last few years I've been able to get my weight to above 10 stone, and now, at 23 years old, I finally consider myself to be a healthy weight (66.5kg). Now you may consider that "anorexic" or far too slim, but I am perfectly happy with the way I look. I have pectus excavatum, a birth defect, and as such my upper body is very odd shaped, I appear to have a bit of a pot belly, whereas in reality, it's just because my sternum goes in by a few inches, there's nothing that can be done about it without surgery, and that's not something I'm prepared to look into getting done, as it does't effect me in any way shape or form.

If you think you're slim at 6'3" and 95kg, then that's great, but if you're comparing yourself to a PRO, you're always going to look fat, as they're probably about 20-30kg lighter than you. Take A. Schleck for example, he's 6'1", and 68kg, then again F. Cancellara is also 6'1", but weighs in at around 75-80kg, same height, different specialities, different builds, and thus, different weights.

P_Tucker

jonmack wrote:

The problem with comparing weights and heights and everything else is that we're all different. I grew to 6ft when I was about 16, it's only in the last few years I've been able to get my weight to above 10 stone, and now, at 23 years old, I finally consider myself to be a healthy weight (66.5kg). Now you may consider that "anorexic" or far too slim, but I am perfectly happy with the way I look. I have pectus excavatum, a birth defect, and as such my upper body is very odd shaped, I appear to have a bit of a pot belly, whereas in reality, it's just because my sternum goes in by a few inches, there's nothing that can be done about it without surgery, and that's not something I'm prepared to look into getting done, as it does't effect me in any way shape or form.

If you think you're slim at 6'3" and 95kg, then that's great, but if you're comparing yourself to a PRO, you're always going to look fat, as they're probably about 20-30kg lighter than you. Take A. Schleck for example, he's 6'1", and 68kg, then again F. Cancellara is also 6'1", but weighs in at around 75-80kg, same height, different specialities, different builds, and thus, different weights.

Despite what wikipedia says, I will buy a hat and eat it if Schleck is 68kg.

jonmack

I was going on this article

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/p ... -ssl-28915

They may have taken the weight of him from Wikipedia, but I was under the impression they usually ask the people they're surrounded by, which by the sounds of this bike check, would be Andy himself, or team liaison Ben Coates.

inseine

I will buy a hat and eat it if Schleck is 68kg.

What's you're prefered style?

I think he is, give or take a kilo.

Brian B

At 85kgs and 6ft2" I could not really afford to lose any more weight for build - alreadyget comments on how thin I am.

Can hold my own on the hills with people much lighter/smaller than I am on sportives and thats good enough for me. Saying that I used to be heavier and benefited on the hills by losing a few kgs.

Pross

When I quit cycling in 1997 aged 25 I was 6' 1" and 10st 10lb, I peaked at 14st 10lb just before I started riding again and I am now down to 14st. I am definately overweight as a lot of the extra 3st + I have put on is around my waist (my legs are hardly any bigger than they were back then and much less muscular). However, I could quite easily weigh the same and be slim and muscular. I always looked underweight previously but it was just how I naturally was when exercising regularly as I certainly ate my fair share! Weight is pretty meaningless without an idea of body fat levels.