Ideal weight

nhoj

BeaconRuth wrote:

Cyclists tend not to aspire to be fat. But because it's often a huge advantage to an endurance cyclist to be thin - especially if they race - many cyclists aspire to be thin (within reason). I think this is why, on a cycle training forum, people seem to find it socially acceptable to suggest people are 'skinny'. Do you feel there is something wrong with that?

I think we might be talking at cross-purposes. I wasn't talking specifically about cyclists but rather about society in general.

neeb

briantrumpet wrote:

It's one of the nice things about cycling that amongst my general acquaintances I'm always being called skinny (6ft and 73kg), but amongst cycling friends I'm fairly average. And on that BMI thing - I'm slap bang in the middle of healthy. Which is quite remarkable, given how much I eat.

It's frightening how easily cycling can effectively turn you into a freak in relation to what's seen as normal in a society in which it's far more common to be obese than to be a truly ideal weight.

I came across this BMI calculator that actually adjusts your BMI according to your age and defines you as "normal" as long as you are lighter than most people in your age group!

http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/av.htm

The message is that it's OK to be fat if you're older, just because most of your peer group are...

I'm 44 and often get down to 61-62kg at 5'9". 62kg puts me in the 3rd percentile for my age group, i.e. 97% of people my age have a higher BMI! That's scary. And apparently on that basis I'm "underweight" (according to the ridiculous criteria of this website), despite having an actual BMI that is about as healthy as you can get.

No wonder I can't get jeans that fit..

vs

neeb wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/av.htm

The message is that it's OK to be fat if you're older, just because most of your peer group are...

I'm 44 and often get down to 61-62kg at 5'9". 62kg puts me in the 3rd percentile for my age group, i.e. 97% of people my age have a higher BMI! That's scary. And apparently on that basis I'm "underweight" (according to the ridiculous criteria of this website), despite having an actual BMI that is about as healthy as you can get.

Do you know your % body fat?

neeb

vs wrote:

Do you know your % body fat?

No idea - it would be interesting to know. I wouldn't trust those scales you can buy that claim to be able to estimate it, they are very inaccurate anyway so if you don't have much fat they are going to be useless.

vs

neeb wrote:

vs wrote:

Do you know your % body fat?

No idea - it would be interesting to know. I wouldn't trust those scales you can buy that claim to be able to estimate it, they are very inaccurate anyway so if you don't have much fat they are going to be useless.

I'm 5'11" and 66kg and have had my body fat measured twice at 9% by Garry at Sportstest; so at 5'9" and 62kg you're more than likely lower than 9% anyway.

rolf_f

nhoj wrote:

BeaconRuth wrote:

nhoj wrote:

It's curious that calling someone skinny, or similar, seems to be more socially acceptable than calling someone fat.

Why is it curious, nhoj?

What's wrong with calling someone you don't know fat? Why would these same reasons not apply to calling someone you don't know thin?

Because being fat is generally a result of eating too much and not doing exercise (look at crowd pictures from before the 60s - barely anyone fat; don't tell me fatness is genetic!) whereas it's pretty difficult to find evidence of any real negative side to being skinny (I've looked) assuming the skinniness isn't a result of anorexia. And, of course, anorexia is caused by an aspiration to be thin. Not many people aspire to be overweight.

neeb

Rolf F wrote:

Because being fat is generally a result of eating too much and not doing exercise (look at crowd pictures from before the 60s - barely anyone fat; don't tell me fatness is genetic!) whereas it's pretty difficult to find evidence of any real negative side to being skinny (I've looked) assuming the skinniness isn't a result of anorexia. And, of course, anorexia is caused by an aspiration to be thin. Not many people aspire to be overweight.

I pretty much agree, although perhaps there is a subtle difference between men and women here. For women, the current attractive stereotype seems to be as thin as possible (despite the fact that many men, including myself I must admit, actually find slightly curvy women more attractive - something to do with child-bearing hips and having enough stored energy to support pregnancy no doubt). For men, however, being thin is often portrayed as unattractive and "weedy", and even if you have muscly legs, the stereotype of the attractive man is usually with unnaturally developed upper body musculature. It even seems that in terms of an attractiveness hierarchy, it is better to be a bit fat as a man than to be skinny (I guess man-boobs look a bit like inflated pecs...) So in that sense, it could be seen as curious that it is socially acceptable to call a man skinny. Of course those of us who are happy in our skinniness won't mind, but it's unfortunate that there is some social pressure on men to avoid being overly slim, which unless you are a body builder or naturally heavily muscled is likely to encourage men to migrate towards a less than ideally healthy weight.

martincashman

So shedhead, with just over a week to go, how's the weight loss working out. Inspired by one of the posters 'mirror test' suggestion, I've managed to shift another 3kgs myself.... still think I could wobble off another 1 or 2 but may gain it all back next week.

Crispyapp

I've just done an ideal weight check and have to say, although ideally I'd like to loose a little weight, I'm not overly fat. My ideal weight graph said for my age and height I should be 11 and half stone. I weigh 14. I might add when I was in my teens and racing I was 11 stone 5lbs and there is no chance I could of been any skinnier. Online charts are rubbish. I think anyone who wants to loose weight should do what's already been said. The clothes and up hill test. When you feel about right, stop.

BeaconRuth

martincashman wrote:

I've managed to shift another 3kgs myself.... .

Well done Martin. I've shifted a similar amount since the summer (when I was at a fitness low-point) and 2 or 3kgs make a massive difference when it comes to racing. I really don't think people realise just how much difference it makes to cycling performance when you're carrying even just a bit too much weight.

Ruth

neeb

BeaconRuth wrote:

and 2 or 3kgs make a massive difference when it comes to racing. I really don't think people realise just how much difference it makes to cycling performance when you're carrying even just a bit too much weight.

Sorry, off-topic, but interestingly this is not far off the weight difference that you will find between a light bike and a heavier bike, despite the opinion that 80% of people seem to have that a lighter bike won't make you any faster.

BeaconRuth

neeb wrote:

BeaconRuth wrote:

and 2 or 3kgs make a massive difference when it comes to racing. I really don't think people realise just how much difference it makes to cycling performance when you're carrying even just a bit too much weight.

Sorry, off-topic, but interestingly this is not far off the weight difference that you will find between a light bike and a heavier bike, despite the opinion that 80% of people seem to have that a lighter bike won't make you any faster.

For the same work rate a lighter bike+rider will go up a hill faster than a heavier bike+rider. So 80% of people are wrong.

Admittedly the same is not true of a bike+rider who is riding on the flat and is not accelerating, such as a time triallist (although I'd argue that it's very very rare that anyone rides on totally flat terrain and even a time triallist has to accelerate at least a few times per race).

Ruth

dru

Just to chip in, Up until recently I've been floating around the 13.6 mark, in October I decided to see if there was something I could do about it with switching to a non-dairy, non bread,pasta,rice diet, as mentioned by Pokerface in a few threads. I quickly lost 6lbs but thought not much else would go - just getting the old stuff 'out of my system' well 8 weeks later and I've lost a stone.
I started the year weighing 88.5kg, yesterday I weighed myself I was 78kg
I can confirm that weight makes a huge difference. Over the summer I was on my 7kg summer bike and dreading the return to my heavier 9kg winter hack. Corresponding to the weight loss, I started climbing hills much quicker than previously and also at much lower heart rates. I'm riding the same hills fully ladened up with winter gear on the hack bike and am going quicker all the time.

As Ruth says - every little helps, you just need to see it in action to beleive it.

martincashman

I think the point people try to make about bike weight not being important, is that training and your own weight is more important and should be concentrated on first. I bought my first road bike last year, it weighs 9kg's, with the ambition to race next year I picked up a better set of wheels this summer and the bike is now down to 8kgs, all in it had cost me €2,300 for the 8kgs. In the year since buying the bike I'd lost 10kgs myself for €0. As I stated in an earlier post, I was inspired by some of the comments in the thread and lost a further 3kgs, in about a month... how much would it have cost to lose another 3kgs on the bike, I think 5kg bikes are possible but rare and super expensive.

For what it's worth, I'm riding around on a 13kg, full mudguard, bike for winter, the weight loss and 10,000km+ of training in my legs mean I'm able to use the Sunday club training spin as my recover spin, there are loads of guys out on Cannondale's and Boardman's huffing and puffing on the hills, talking about getting lighters bike in the summer and yet if you look at the profile and performance of people in the club, it works out that the guys who cycle more than once a week are better than those who cycle once or less and for a similar amount of training, lighter guys go uphill faster; who was on what weight bike isn't a noticeable factor.

If you have the money for lighter gear spend it but if you really enjoy cycling and want to go faster, lose some weight and cycle more.

Crispyapp

martincashman wrote:

I think the point people try to make about bike weight not being important, is that training and your own weight is more important and should be concentrated on first. I bought my first road bike last year, it weighs 9kg's, with the ambition to race next year I picked up a better set of wheels this summer and the bike is now down to 8kgs, all in it had cost me €2,300 for the 8kgs. In the year since buying the bike I'd lost 10kgs myself for €0. As I stated in an earlier post, I was inspired by some of the comments in the thread and lost a further 3kgs, in about a month... how much would it have cost to lose another 3kgs on the bike, I think 5kg bikes are possible but rare and super expensive.

For what it's worth, I'm riding around on a 13kg, full mudguard, bike for winter, the weight loss and 10,000km+ of training in my legs mean I'm able to use the Sunday club training spin as my recover spin, there are loads of guys out on Cannondale's and Boardman's huffing and puffing on the hills, talking about getting lighters bike in the summer and yet if you look at the profile and performance of people in the club, it works out that the guys who cycle more than once a week are better than those who cycle once or less and for a similar amount of training, lighter guys go uphill faster; who was on what weight bike isn't a noticeable factor.

If you have the money for lighter gear spend it but if you really enjoy cycling and want to go faster, lose some weight and cycle more.

Your totally right, if you want to go up hill faster then be slightly lighter etc etc

Having a light bike is not just the difference of a more expensive model. I bought my bike because it's responsive, rides well, looks great, handles superb, transfers all the power through each pedal stroke. I didn't buy it because it was the lightest I could afford. I bought it because of everything else. The issue here isn't about why people have light bikes, it's about what your ideal weight should be on a bike before you might start loosing power because your too thin.

Each rider is very different, some are built to ride up hills fast and some are not. Some are lucky enough to be able to do everything. Sometimes it might not matter what your weight is, the fact of the matter is if you want to be a better rider you have to put in the miles.

shedhead

martincashman wrote:

So shedhead, with just over a week to go, how's the weight loss working out. Inspired by one of the posters 'mirror test' suggestion, I've managed to shift another 3kgs myself.... still think I could wobble off another 1 or 2 but may gain it all back next week.

Hi Martin,
It's going ok thanks, i am now down to 91kgs but i think that'll be my lot & it will probably go the other way next week ! However i cut out alcohol every January & Feburary so i am going to make a concerted effort to get down to 85kgs by the end of Feburary & see how i "wobble" then.

Hope you all have a great xmas & keep the rubber side down !

RowCycle

ut_och_cykla wrote:

do teh mirror test - alone!! strip off infront of full length mirror. jump up & down a bit. Some bits should wobble - others shouldn't. Decide for yourself what needs to go!!( and I'm not joking - the mirror test sorts out flabby from fit even if you're in teh right BMI etc

I was told at the the weekend of the willy test. In the shower look down, if you can't see it, then you need to lose some wait (or you've got a small cock)

shedhead

RowCycle wrote:

ut_och_cykla wrote:

do teh mirror test - alone!! strip off infront of full length mirror. jump up & down a bit. Some bits should wobble - others shouldn't. Decide for yourself what needs to go!!( and I'm not joking - the mirror test sorts out flabby from fit even if you're in teh right BMI etc

I was told at the the weekend of the willy test. In the shower look down, if you can't see it, then you need to lose some wait (or you've got a small fool)

In the shower when i look down, all i can see is the top of Kelly Brook's head............

pollys_bott

martincashman wrote:

I think the point people try to make about bike weight not being important, is that training and your own weight is more important and should be concentrated on first. I bought my first road bike last year, it weighs 9kg's... For what it's worth, I'm riding around on a 13kg, full mudguard, bike for winter, the weight loss and 10,000km+ of training in my legs mean I'm able to use the Sunday club training spin as my recover spin, there are loads of guys out on Cannondale's and Boardman's huffing and puffing on the hills, talking about getting lighters bike in the summer and yet if you look at the profile and performance of people in the club, it works out that the guys who cycle more than once a week are better than those who cycle once or less and for a similar amount of training, lighter guys go uphill faster; who was on what weight bike isn't a noticeable factor.

If you have the money for lighter gear spend it but if you really enjoy cycling and want to go faster, lose some weight and cycle more.

I found this out this year too - I rode further at higher intensities and up more hills to try and perform better in a hilly sportive in August. The weight loss bit was inadvertently achieved in May by some stomach bug putting me off eating a decent meal for a week (lost 6lbs) and it's stayed off ever since. What amazed me was that I was able to ride a laden commuter bike weighing just under 16kgs up my local long hill and stay in the middle ring of the triple even on the steeper bits of 10% whereas a few months before I was struggling to do that on my 'decent' bike weighing about 8 1/2 kgs. My weight is pretty stable now at about 11st 2lbs but I'm still going faster for longer at a lower RPE - I guess the 'bad' weight (fat) is being burnt off and replaced by 'good' weight in lean muscle mass. Commuting is so much easier than at the start of the year and (relatively speaking) I fly up the hills...

essjaydee

http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/av.htm

According to this I'm just shy of obese with a BMI of 29.4 :shock:

I'm 47, 6ft 2" and weigh 102Kg's, and although I'm carrying a bit of excess, according to the mirror wobble check, wouldn't say I'm that overweight to be bordering on obese :!:

On a bright note, I only need to shed 14 kg's....should be easy enough :?