Weight and cycling

Werbo

Ok so i am pretty new to cycling, what i was wondering is how much does your body weight make to your riding? Im currently 94kg. Im not fat or over weight but i was thinking if i cut down to 80kg would i notice a difference in my riding? the two people i go riding with are between 70 - 80 kg so apart from there better bikes is this giving them an advantage?

Looking forward to your responses many thanks.

gorseey

Take a look at this

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesLe ... _Page.html

drlodge

Weight loss will give you a big advantage uphill. I weigh around 80kg, and ideally want to get down to 70kg. I really struggle keeping up with the young slim guys going up hill, but on the flat its not so noticable. Compared to when I was in my early twenties and weighed 70kg, now is like carrying two bikes on my back!!!!

Bobbinogs

At 94kg you will have a considerable advantage on hills...going down them that is.

charliew87

Bobbinogs wrote:

At 94kg you will have a considerable advantage on hills...going down them that is.

Fact.

I've gone from around 95kg to 85-90kg. Can't get near my Strava PB's on downhill segments now!!

Werbo

Thanks for the reply's, time and distance whys would the time gained up hill be lost going down hill? what about flat riding. Im stupidly competitive but my Mrs dosnt want me to loose any weight.

Bustacapp

120kg lifetime bodybuilder here. I got a bike on Friday and decided to try and hit the steepest hill in my County on my first outing. Needless to say I had to get off and push. Pretty sure I used to do it on a mountain bike, but then their bottom gear is a lot more suited to hills. I think it was a combo of bodyweight & gearing. Had not problem going downhill though. Hit 37mph with not much effort.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Bustacapp wrote:

120kg lifetime bodybuilder here. I got a bike on Friday and decided to try and hit the steepest hill in my County on my first outing. Needless to say I had to get off and push. Pretty sure I used to do it on a mountain bike, but then their bottom gear is a lot more suited to hills. I think it was a combo of bodyweight & gearing. Had not problem going downhill though. Hit 37mph with not much effort.

Or lack of cardio perhaps.

Bustacapp

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Or lack of cardio perhaps.

yep. Throw in approaching middle age and you get the picture!!

Gonna be geting cardio every weekend now though!

Pross

Werbo wrote:

Thanks for the reply's, time and distance whys would the time gained up hill be lost going down hill? what about flat riding. Im stupidly competitive but my Mrs dosnt want me to loose any weight.

No, you never regain the time lost going up when coming down just as you never gain the time lost riding into a headwind when riding with a tailwind. On the flat and all other things being equal weight shouldn't make much difference but roads are never completely flat.

Bobbinogs

Werbo wrote:

Thanks for the reply's, time and distance why would the time gained up hill be lost going down hill? what about flat riding.

Yeah, I used to think that but it is not the case. Add in some hills and your overall average will drop considerably. As an example, last month I went on holiday in the New Forest where it is all fairly flat and was averaging ~21mph on 50 mile rides. I felt epic. A week later when I was holidaying in Dartmoor my average speed plummeted to less than 17mph and I felt mortal again. Same bloke, same bike, similar weather, same distances, same effort, etc.

DesB3rd

There is of course the confusing additional factor that if you're loosing weight with cycling as one of the drivers then the chances are your cycling specific fitness will also be coming on bounds; are the hills faster/easier because legs are hard or because your body is thin?

team47b

Werbo wrote:

Im currently 94kg. Im not fat or over weight

Looking forward to your responses many thanks.

How tall are you?

at 94kg you would have to be 7 foot tall :shock:

Werbo

at 94kg you would have to be 7 foot tall

im 6'1, i lift weights and am very active hence being bigger than average. Also out of interest were did you get that figure from?

mark s

ive just joined up and started cycling again after a very long break
i have spent the last 18 months weight lifting 4 times a week,hence im 100kg and 6 -2.went out around the edge of the peak district last night,those hills were hard work hehe
i am to drop a bit of weight,maybe down to 93/94kg. hope even that much would help a little.

team47b

Werbo wrote:

at 94kg you would have to be 7 foot tall

im 6'1, i lift weights and am very active hence being bigger than average. Also out of interest were did you get that figure from?

Was kinda meant as a joke, but based on a BMI of 20.6 (my bmi) you would be 7 ft tall, obviously I realise that BMI doesn't take into account muscle your bmi is 27.3

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

Werbo

Arh, yer I remember the rugby world cup winning team had there bmi took at the end and they were all classed as obise

t.m.h.n.e.t

Werbo wrote:

Arh, yer I remember the rugby world cup winning team had there bmi took at the end and they were all classed as obise

Thus it is never a good indicator

MattyyP

I'm 6 ft 2, have a BMI of 19.3-ish! I'm an athlete waiting for my break... that's what I keep convincing myself anyway!

mark s

just done mine im 6 2" and bmi 28,thats the top end of overweight! its nonsense. i take no notice whatsoever.there is a better one for muscular or sporty types on biggly website

silverpigeon

gorseey wrote:

Take a look at this

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesLe ... _Page.html

Ah yes, perfectly simple when you put it like that.