Finding your ideal cycling weight?

CyclingObsession

Not sure where to post this, I'm interested in finding my ideal weight for cycling I am trying to become a good hill climber, I am 5ft 10" 147lbs male aged 26, how do you measure performance and all that?

Monty Dog

Suggest you post on the training forum, but typically you'll need a power meter and to develop a functional threshold power in excess of 5w/kg to be classed as a decent climber - it's not about absolute weight per se, but the ability to proper yourself fast uphill

Garz

Disregarding BMI, I guess there is a more relevant cycling formula to express this.

FWIW, my BMI tells me I'm overweight - 5'6" and 174 lbs. Hard to keep the body fat low but a dense bone structure and an endomorph build throws this measuring theory out of the window.

patchy

Well I'm 5'8", and fluctuate between 65kg and 72kg depending on how much riding I'm doing (and how much beer and pizza I'm absorbing). 65-66kg seems to work well for me, but I haven't actively tried to go lower so who knows?

That book Racing Weight has some good calculations to help you try and find optimum weights. Have a look at that.

amaferanga

CyclingObsession wrote:

Not sure where to post this, I'm interested in finding my ideal weight for cycling I am trying to become a good hill climber, I am 5ft 10" 147lbs male aged 26, how do you measure performance and all that?

A good hill climber compared to who? Are you racing or doing sportives or just riding with mates? To be honest though, at 10.5 stone at the moment if you're not already a good climber then I doubt you ever will be.

BeaconRuth

Garz wrote:

Disregarding BMI, I guess there is a more relevant cycling formula to express this.

BMI is quite relevant to endurance cyclists. It's highly accurate if you can measure your weight and height very accurately and it's a good way of comparing your weight to your height. It's only when you start using it to classify what is 'overweight' or 'obese' that it falls down because, as is often trotted out, an elite rugby player, say, has a very high BMI but does not have a weight problem. That doesn't make the metric 'inaccurate' - it just means people use it to signify something it doesn't signify.

But don't forget that an endurance cyclist doesn't want extra muscles to carry up hills any more than he/she wants extra fat: being light is almost always an advantage for endurance cyclists so knowing you are light for your height is quite useful.

FWIW, my BMI tells me I'm overweight - 5'6" and 174 lbs. Hard to keep the body fat low but a dense bone structure and an endomorph build throws this measuring theory out of the window.

You're not an ideal weight for an endurance cyclist, that's for sure. Are you suggesting that your dense bones and endomorph build account for about 2.5 stones of more weight than a reasonable-weight racing cyclist?

I've got dense bones and very very broad shoulders for a woman but to race at my best I always aimed for a BMI below 21 and if it got above 21.5 I could really tell the difference because I was carrying more weight than ideal.

Ruth

CyclingObsession

Im a pretty good hill climber im no pro, Im against myself at moment, There is one hill I want to be able to do in one go its 8% gradient and 2 miles long Have to stop twice I think I need to work on keeping my heart rate down as I get out of breath on long hills and legs tend to give out out have to stop for a short break, I assume thats lactic acid building up?

celbianchi

CyclingObsession wrote:

Im a pretty good hill climber im no pro, Im against myself at moment, There is one hill I want to be able to do in one go its 8% gradient and 2 miles long Have to stop twice I think I need to work on keeping my heart rate down as I get out of breath on long hills and legs tend to give out out have to stop for a short break, I assume thats lactic acid building up?

hmm, sorry to burst your bubble but anyone needing to stop twice on a 2 mile climb can not claim to be a pretty good hill climber.

It's your fitness, not weight that is holding you back.

styxd

If you have to stop then Id say you're a poor hill climber!

I've never had to stop on a hill (apart from when people have fallen off in front of me on hardknott pass) and Im certainly no pro.

It sounds like you're going far to hard to start with.

amaferanga

celbianchi wrote:

CyclingObsession wrote:

Im a pretty good hill climber im no pro, Im against myself at moment, There is one hill I want to be able to do in one go its 8% gradient and 2 miles long Have to stop twice I think I need to work on keeping my heart rate down as I get out of breath on long hills and legs tend to give out out have to stop for a short break, I assume thats lactic acid building up?

hmm, sorry to burst your bubble but anyone needing to stop twice on a 2 mile climb can not claim to be a pretty good hill climber.

It's your fitness, not weight that is holding you back.

+1

Forget about your weight and get cycling fit!

CyclingObsession

No thats fair enough I just need to put in more training on them I guess, Is 13mph fast going up a 6% grade hill? Ive improved from going 9mph at start of my training. I have been cycling a year so don be too hard on me

amaferanga

CyclingObsession wrote:

No thats fair enough I just need to put in more training on them I guess, Is 13mph fast going up a 6% grade hill? Ive improved from going 9mph at start of my training. I have been cycling a year so don be too hard on me

Forget about speed and make sure you get to the top of every hill without stopping.

singleton

^^ That.

You need to find a sustainable effort to work at. On the flat, that may be doing 15mph, on a slight incline for the same effort you may be doing 12mph, on a steeper incline for the same effort you may be doing 8mph.

Find your sustainable effort, find the right gear and cadence and you should be able to climb anything without stopping - as long as you've got a low enough gear.

jonomc4

Got to say - I consider myself one of the worst climbers I know - evidence by all the people that pass me. On the flat I am faster than most club riders. But even I can get up a 2 miles 9% hill (as with last weekend) in one go - but boy I am slow at about 10mph.

It is my main goal of next year (and a little this year) to start to deal with hills better - but a BMI of 23.5 may not be helping :-p - in my defence I would like to add that being insulin dependant diabetic for nearly 30 years does make training a lot harder for me than most (your problems with bonking are nothing).

jgsi

9% for 2 miles at 10mph is in NO way shape or form, slow

amaferanga

JGSI wrote:

9% for 2 miles at 10mph is in NO way shape or form, slow

Given that there are very few 300m climbs in the UK, I suspect that '9% for 2 miles' is more likely '2 miles with a maximum gradient of 9%'.

jgsi

amaferanga wrote:

JGSI wrote:

9% for 2 miles at 10mph is in NO way shape or form, slow

Given that there are very few 300m climbs in the UK, I suspect that '9% for 2 miles' is more likely '2 miles with a maximum gradient of 9%'.

Yes, I was trying to give him time to retract and tel us it is more like 2% average.. and yup that is slow..

singleton

JGSI wrote:

Yes, I was trying to give him time to retract and tel us it is more like 2% average.. and yup that is slow..

In fairness, he said that he considered himself to be slow, and that climbing was something he needed to work on. Also, I'm not sure what 30 years of being an insulin dependant diabetic really means for training - but I bet it makes it a lot harder.

NUFCrichard

I wish I was as slow as Jonomc4, 9mph would get you up Alpe D'Huez in about 50 mins, granted it's longer than 2 miles but it's also not as steep as 9% on average!

CyclingObsession, just click down until you find a gear that you can spin easily enough on your 8% hill, when you find your gear just spin it until you reach the top. If you don't have a low enough gear to spin up then get into bottom gear nice and early and grind up as best you can. Zigzagging will make it less steep.

I'm heavy but am not the worlds worst climber, pretty far from the best too though! I wish I was 147 pounds, maybe I wouldn't be so worried about climbing the mortirolo + gavia in a few weeks if I were!

styxd

Zigzagging will make it less steep.

Again, if you're a reasonable climber then you shouldnt be zigzagging. The zigzaggers tend to be the ones who fall off in front of you up hardknott!

NUFCrichard

I think many a decent climber will zigzag on Hardknott. Not me though, it's not neccessary whilst pushing your bike!

neilrobins

Reading the other comments are you sure it's not a mental thing? Do you see a decent hill and decide you will never make it without stopping? I watched a guy get off his bike and walk Belmont moor who was half my age and prob nearly half my weight , this crippled me and I very nearly stopped, later I asked him why he stopped, and his reply was loads of old fat blokes kept overtaking him.

CyclingObsession

I think it might be as the if I know a hill I know I can get up it in one go, it's when I dont know the hill and it feels like it just goes on on on, I do all my climbs seated I never do standing,

singleton

I'd much prefer to ride up a hill than to ride into a headwind.....

jonomc4

NUFCrichard wrote:

I wish I was as slow as Jonomc4, 9mph would get you up Alpe D'Huez in about 50 mins, granted it's longer than 2 miles but it's also not as steep as 9% on average!

I'm heavy but am not the worlds worst climber, pretty far from the best too though! I wish I was 147 pounds, maybe I wouldn't be so worried about climbing the mortirolo + gavia in a few weeks if I were!

Yep - sorry I should say 9% was what they had on the hill sign - I am sure it is the max - there were areas were it was a lot less steep. I would compare myself on hills to on a par with the worst of the club riders. I just plunge into a low gear and just spin away at about 90 - 95 cadence - I get there eventually. What I am hoping to do is gradually get the gear higher and keep the same cadence but improvements are slow.

30 years of Diabetes (I am 46) - has many small changes on the body - and it really makes training hard as it is a real maths game of balancing insulin with carbs + the extra carbs you are burning (but it you are burning fat then you are not using up insulin and carbs) it is a total nightmare. And i also have to stop and check my blood sugar levels every 20 miles - I won't "bonk" if I get it wrong - I will just collapse into a coma and die if not treated.

Before becoming diabetic - I was the fastest schoolboy at 200 meters in England and probably UK (but I never got to find out) - this also means I do not really have the body / muscle type for endurance and hill climbs. I also played rugby in my 20's quite a bit - after many hours in the gym I ended up being 1.80 meters tall but 95kg (now 76kg) of very hard hitting muscle (once again total carp for cycling). But regardless of everything, I am really enjoying the cycling and having a target for getting better - I know that I will be no better than average no matter how hard I train now - but even that is better than being a vegetable in front of the telly. Sometimes we all need to bear this in mind - only one person can win a race - the rest are also rans - so we have to enjoy the benefits or getting fitter and being out there on a bike.

rdt

jonomc4 wrote:

30 years of Diabetes (I am 46) - has many small changes on the body - and it really makes training hard as it is a real maths game of balancing insulin with carbs + the extra carbs you are burning (but it you are burning fat then you are not using up insulin and carbs) it is a total nightmare. And i also have to stop and check my blood sugar levels every 20 miles - I won't "bonk" if I get it wrong - I will just collapse into a coma and die if not treated.

... But regardless of everything, I am really enjoying the cycling and having a target for getting better - I know that I will be no better than average no matter how hard I train now - but even that is better than being a vegetable in front of the telly. Sometimes we all need to bear this in mind - only one person can win a race - the rest are also rans - so we have to enjoy the benefits or getting fitter and being out there on a bike.

And that is an attitude, and fella, I can respect!

Garz

BeaconRuth wrote:

Are you suggesting that your dense bones and endomorph build account for about 2.5 stones of more weight than a reasonable-weight racing cyclist?

Put it this way, if I were to be between the middle of the range according to my height or towards the lower end I would look unhealthy. Dropping to a too low bodyfat % does not always mean your healthy.

Also be careful with interpreting your words, I do not aim to be a 'racing' cyclist. This has tangented off from talking about BMI and it's imperfections. Theres plenty to read on this online however quite apt is:

Consequently, big framed and muscular people are likely to be wrongly branded as fat.

Taken from: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/measure-for-measure-bmi-has-big-flaws-20090521-bh2s.html

BeaconRuth

Also be careful with interpreting your words, I do not aim to be a 'racing' cyclist.

If you read what I said you'll find that I didn't imply that you aim to be a racing cyclist at all. I asked whether you account for all your extra weight (compared to a reasonable-weight racing cyclist) as being due solely to your dense bones and build.

Ruth

okgo

Get some power profile tests. You'll soon be able to See from your 1 min, 5 min, 20 min, 1 hour power what kind of rider you are. I did some tests and it showed that I had good short burst, but also ok 1 hour as long as its flat. If I lose 10kg and kept my figures I'd be at elite level or close to, but I imagine that I'd lose a
Fair chunk of power if I lost that weight.

If you have to stop on a hill, I think it's fair to say you're not great...unless its something ridiculous.

P_Tucker

okgo wrote:

but I imagine that I'd lose a
Fair chunk of power if I lost that weight

Based on what exactly?

okgo

Just being logical. I don't have much fat left now, so would be getting rid of muscle. Although I still have a fair bit of upper body the bulk of it is in legs etc I think. Also the difficulty I would have losing that 10kg would be vast.