Weight at 5'8 ?

glasgowbhoy

ollie51 wrote:

177cm and 58kg, think I'm probably around 6-9% bodyfat. Ideally want another 6kg on, but adding functional weight a'int easy! So if I were 5'8" i'd be 55-56kg?..

You're 17 though! I'm sure at 17 I was about your weight. I'm twice your age now though and at 1m 78cm I'm 65kg.
This fluctuates a bit from 68kg- 63kg depending on the time of year and even the time of day. I have very little excess body fat and eat a balanced diet. I still like the chocolate, ice cream and cakes mind you but have found as my intake (and tolerance) of alchohol has descreased my weight has dropped a bit. Training on the bike around 15 hours a week has probably the biggest impact on staying trim though.

glasgowbhoy

markhewitt1978 wrote:

NUFCrichard wrote:

There are a lot of very light people on this thread! 65kg should be doable.
It depends a lot on your build though. At 6'0 I'll struggle to get below 75kg, whereas other here talk about eating cake frequently but are 10kgs lighter than me - no cake here

My boss has a terrible diet, drinks 5-6 pints of beer every night, has takeaways 3 times a week and he's at McDonalds most lunchtimes, and yet he's skinny as a rake

He's probably one of these 'skinny fat' people though with very high colestorol and heading towards an major health issue regardless of his appearance.

markhewitt1978

Glasgowbhoy wrote:

He's probably one of these 'skinny fat' people though with very high colestorol and heading towards an major health issue regardless of his appearance.

I take some comfort in that

dw300

Free your mind and your waistline will follow.

A lot of people that struggle are realistically only doing 1-4 hours riding a week, maybe just one ride. Do 10 hours at 500kcals/hour and thats 2 days worth of extra food you need in a week just to maintain. Train 15-25 hours a week and you need to eat 10-12 days worth of food in 7 days to maintain. No one overeats to that degree.

Thats how light guys can eat more or less anything and stay light, because you can outwork a poor diet if you have the time and motivation. (Not saying its ideal, but the odd cake, burger and milkshake helps boost the calorie count.)

If you cycle lots and train hard, you end up in a mentality where its not hard to loose weight, and its actually harder to eat enough good food. But then its no surprise that those that work hard, are organised and believe, get the results.

diamonddog

dw300 wrote:

diamonddog wrote:

IMO you need to be targetting the stomach/chest area where you say the fat is sitting and specific excersises are what you need for this.
More weight loss may not necessarily be the best way to reduce body fat, you may have already reached your body's 'natural' weight and this as others have said depends on body shape etc.

You cannot spot reduce fat. Exercising specific muscles does not burn fat in certain areas.

So sit ups, scrunches etc doesn't target the fat and build muscle on the abs, my mistake.

Remarkable

I'm 5'7 and 52 kg. Was down <51 kg at the end of last season despite eating like a horse. It just depends on your build I guess.

celbianchi

diamonddog wrote:

dw300 wrote:

diamonddog wrote:

IMO you need to be targetting the stomach/chest area where you say the fat is sitting and specific excersises are what you need for this.
More weight loss may not necessarily be the best way to reduce body fat, you may have already reached your body's 'natural' weight and this as others have said depends on body shape etc.

You cannot spot reduce fat. Exercising specific muscles does not burn fat in certain areas.

So sit ups, scrunches etc doesn't target the fat and build muscle on the abs, my mistake.

Good that you have admitted the mistake. Crunches etc may help build muscle, they will not spot reduce flab.

diamonddog

celbianchi wrote:

diamonddog wrote:

dw300 wrote:

diamonddog wrote:

IMO you need to be targetting the stomach/chest area where you say the fat is sitting and specific excersises are what you need for this.
More weight loss may not necessarily be the best way to reduce body fat, you may have already reached your body's 'natural' weight and this as others have said depends on body shape etc.

You cannot spot reduce fat. Exercising specific muscles does not burn fat in certain areas.

So sit ups, scrunches etc doesn't target the fat and build muscle on the abs, my mistake.

Good that you have admitted the mistake. Crunches etc may help build muscle, they will not spot reduce flab.

My original post was intended to make the point of building muscle not reducing flab per se, I should have made it clearer.
The best way to reduce fat is mainly diet and the OP seems to be eating correctly as he has lost a good amount of weight.

damocles10

I worry about this kind of thread. For an athlete BMI is redundant, depending on the sport, you can be classified as obese even if you are lean and have low body fat.

It can be an obsession for cyclist to reduce body weight, at 5'11 I never went below 70KG, I was fast and in tip top condition, I am now 77KG and still going strong.

It's not about BMI - that was made up to gauge the general public. You can be lean, heavy and strong. Look at Chris Hoy?

Donkeywings

I never mentioned BMI and am not an athlete. For what it's worth, my BMI is perfectly "normal".

Question was just purely out of interest, since, even at 13.5 stone I was no bigger than anyone else I work with, and at 11 stone am significantly smaller than people who consider themselves "average". I was just surprised at how much fat was left after losing 30 pounds plus of it - I have weight-trained at the same time, which I know due to calorie deficit won't build anything, but should at least have maintained whatever muscle I had. The Inbody Analysis I had at the start and a year later show the same muscle KG, indicating almost all fat loss. This doesn't sound outrageous, as it was very slow - 2.5 pounds a month. (I don't want to start an argument about the accuracy of these machines - they are good enough for a trend if nothing else).

My goal, is not to look (or feel) "fat". I don't care about the actual numbers compared to any chart. I don't want to look skeletal either - the answers that I got so far seem to indicate no issue with dropping to 10.5 stone at my height, even though I don't remember ever being that low as an adult. Given I haven't cycled at all since last August, and am about to embark on a lot of training as soon as the current storms go away, I'll probably be where I want to be by summer.

Appreciate all the responses!

RChung

damocles10 wrote:

I worry about this kind of thread. For an athlete BMI is redundant, depending on the sport, you can be classified as obese even if you are lean and have low body fat.

It can be an obsession for cyclist to reduce body weight, at 5'11 I never went below 70KG, I was fast and in tip top condition, I am now 77KG and still going strong.

It's not about BMI - that was made up to gauge the general public. You can be lean, heavy and strong. Look at Chris Hoy?

damocles10

Donkeywings wrote:

I never mentioned BMI and am not an athlete. For what it's worth, my BMI is perfectly "normal".

Question was just purely out of interest, since, even at 13.5 stone I was no bigger than anyone else I work with, and at 11 stone am significantly smaller than people who consider themselves "average". I was just surprised at how much fat was left after losing 30 pounds plus of it - I have weight-trained at the same time, which I know due to calorie deficit won't build anything, but should at least have maintained whatever muscle I had. The Inbody Analysis I had at the start and a year later show the same muscle KG, indicating almost all fat loss. This doesn't sound outrageous, as it was very slow - 2.5 pounds a month. (I don't want to start an argument about the accuracy of these machines - they are good enough for a trend if nothing else).

My goal, is not to look (or feel) "fat". I don't care about the actual numbers compared to any chart. I don't want to look skeletal either - the answers that I got so far seem to indicate no issue with dropping to 10.5 stone at my height, even though I don't remember ever being that low as an adult. Given I haven't cycled at all since last August, and am about to embark on a lot of training as soon as the current storms go away, I'll probably be where I want to be by summer.

Appreciate all the responses!

Fair enough, I didn't mean to cause offence. Sorry

bernithebiker

5'8 and 63kg.

After 3 weeks in Thailand at Xmas, went up to 65kg which was a first for me. Not sure why - only cycled a tiny bit (hotel bike!), but otherwise lots of swimming, bit of running. Was it putting on swim muscles, or relaxed, holiday (but healthy!) eating?

6 weeks later and back to the usual 63kg, am cutting alcohol down to 1 bottle of beer and 2 glasses of wine per week (from maybe double/triple that), and no junk (from very little junk).

Hopefully be at 61kg ish after forthcoming 9 day Majorca session!

Donkeywings

damocles10 wrote:

Fair enough, I didn't mean to cause offence. Sorry

You didn't mate - sorry if I came across that way.
Genuinely grateful for all opinions.
I'm especially relieved to know my BMI is right there some of the Bikini models over the years.
:-)

ongej

RChung wrote:

damocles10 wrote:

I worry about this kind of thread. For an athlete BMI is redundant, depending on the sport, you can be classified as obese even if you are lean and have low body fat.

It can be an obsession for cyclist to reduce body weight, at 5'11 I never went below 70KG, I was fast and in tip top condition, I am now 77KG and still going strong.

It's not about BMI - that was made up to gauge the general public. You can be lean, heavy and strong. Look at Chris Hoy?

Wow! That's quite a collection of playboy magazines! ;-)

bernithebiker

Chief Playboy model BMI researcher.

That is a great job title.

markwb79

Remarkable wrote:

I'm 5'7 and 52 kg. Was down <51 kg at the end of last season despite eating like a horse. It just depends on your build I guess.

Thats mega light, how old are you?

I am 170cm and currently around 60kg. By June I prediction/expect/want to be down at around 57kg.

Still have quite a bit of fat too I would say. the rest of my build is small though. 54kg would be doable if you could only target the fat I think.

keef66

At 1.68m and 68kg I reckon I'm under tall for my weight. I've been working on my height for 56 years, but after the first 18 or so I seemed to reach a plateau. What am I doing wrong?? Should I try high intensity intervals? Modified 5:2 diet?? My wife says I just need an extra couple of inches...

markhewitt1978

I think Tacx might do a version.

Camcycle1974

Donkeywings wrote:

Thanks for the input.
I'm just interested for guidelines for myself. I have dropped just over 2.5 stone over a year - mostly due to alcohol reduction, quite a lot of cycling last season, and not eating refined carbs/sugar any more. At 13st 8lbs I was never *that* overweight - certainly everyone said I wasn't - so at 11st now, I thought I'd be pretty lean. But I'm not - nowhere near. Fat is currently at 21% (Inbody 710 analysis) and has totally gone from face, arms legs, but sits around belly/chest.

People seem to think I am "too thin" now as it is (I look a lot different to this time last year) but I'd really like to get to around 15% - that would be a drop of at least another 10lbs ... and near 10 stone is not something I've been for over 20 years.

I know the answer is to increase the muscle-to-fat ratio rather than dropping weight, but that's proving easier said than done.

Cyling whilst good at reducing weight is an endurance sport. The weight lost will not entirely come from fat, muscle will be lost too. The best way to preserve muscle is to do some form of resistance training and increase your protein intake. Diet is a more powerful tool for body composition than exercise. it is quite possible to get to < 10% bf with 0 cardiovascular training through diet manipulation. I would include some shortish duration fasted rides (no more than 1.5hours) to try and utilise body fat stores then make sure post ride meal is low fat and high protein/carbs.

Remarkable

Markwb79 wrote:

Thats mega light, how old are you?

I am 170cm and currently around 60kg. By June I prediction/expect/want to be down at around 57kg.

Still have quite a bit of fat too I would say. the rest of my build is small though. 54kg would be doable if you could only target the fat I think.

I'm 23.

Camcycle1974

damocles10 wrote:

I worry about this kind of thread. For an athlete BMI is redundant, depending on the sport, you can be classified as obese even if you are lean and have low body fat.

It can be an obsession for cyclist to reduce body weight, at 5'11 I never went below 70KG, I was fast and in tip top condition, I am now 77KG and still going strong.

It's not about BMI - that was made up to gauge the general public. You can be lean, heavy and strong. Look at Chris Hoy?

Totally agree. 1m 77cm and 79kgs. Heavy for my height but I have trained with weights all my adult life so carry a fair bit of muscle. I stopped weights for a while last summer to concentrate on cycling and dropped to <75 kgs which is the lightest I have ever been as an adult. I looked emaciated (so much so that people commented on it at a wedding I was at) so I went back to weights and soon put the 5kgs back on. No way I would be healthy at 70kgs or less, so it depends on genetics and how much muscle mass you carry. 76kgs is my sweet spot with <10%bf. I accept I will never be fast going up hill but it's a compromise I am willing to make to look half decent with no shirt on! Regular rides fasted and 16 hour intermittant fasts should take care of the 3kgs of fat I have to lose.

dw300

The body-dysmorphia is strong in this thread. Its full of people who's body image comes from what other ppl tell them. F*ck that sh*t.

brb .. dropping 5kg to go from looking like the son of zeus to emaciated .. are you serious?! Half a stone is almost unrecognisable looking at a clothed person, 1 stone and you'd probably start to notice. If you are 10%bf at 79kg, then you could still drop 1-2kg of fat without too much hard work. Granted, under 8% it gets a lot tougher. But if you are 15% at 79kg then dropping 5kg and maintaining all your muscle should be easy enough. You will look better, and you will go faster.

When i lifted I got to about 178lbs and 15-16%bf at 1.78m (it was just mass, no aesthetics), now I'm 152lbs and 12%bf and look pretty much the same size, just a little bit smaller all over, more cut, but go a lot faster on the bike. It is possible to loose a lot of weight and not look that much different if you started at 15%+ bf.

Aesthetics is all about proportion. If we all get to 10%bf (assuming we are above that) by loosing fat then we will all look better. Dont listen to fat people that tell you you are too thin. If you have to loose muscle because youre 5-10kg heavier than a road racer and are already super ripped 10% or less, then its up to you whether you would rather go slower, or look bigger.

Camcycle1974

dw300 wrote:

The body-dysmorphia is strong in this thread. Its full of people who's body image comes from what other ppl tell them. F*ck that sh*t.

brb .. dropping 5kg to go from looking like the son of zeus to emaciated .. are you serious?! Half a stone is almost unrecognisable looking at a clothed person, 1 stone and you'd probably start to notice. If you are 10%bf at 79kg, then you could still drop 1-2kg of fat without too much hard work. Granted, under 8% it gets a lot tougher. But if you are 15% at 79kg then dropping 5kg and maintaining all your muscle should be easy enough. You will look better, and you will go faster.

When i lifted I got to about 178lbs and 15-16%bf at 1.78m (it was just mass, no aesthetics), now I'm 152lbs and 12%bf and look pretty much the same size, just a little bit smaller all over, more cut, but go a lot faster on the bike. It is possible to loose a lot of weight and not look that much different if you started at 15%+ bf.

Aesthetics is all about proportion. If we all get to 10%bf (assuming we are above that) by loosing fat then we will all look better. Dont listen to fat people that tell you you are too thin. If you have to loose muscle because youre 5-10kg heavier than a road racer and are already super ripped 10% or less, then its up to you whether you would rather go slower, or look bigger.

I guess I should have put it in context! Some of the people at the wedding hadn't seen me for some time. i used to play rugby and was a lot bulkier/heavier. The difference would only be about 10kg from my heaviest in my early 20's but it was certainly noticeable (face maybe- I tend to look quite chubby in the face when out of condition). I am probably about 15%bf right now (visible upper abs but not lower) and would like to be 10% which I estimate will entail losing about 5kg from my present weight of 79kgs. I aim to do this by May as I am riding coast to coast and back over the May BH and the lower weight will be beneficial. Basically I am trying to retain muscle (for aesthetics) whilst dropping bf.

ai_1

dw300 wrote:

......Don't let fat people tell you you're too thin.....

Fair enough but what if I don't want skinny people telling me I'm too fat?

It is important to differentiate between weight loss for health and weight loss for performance. I'm a bit heavy but it's only a problem for my cycling and running performance it's not a health risk. Having said that the perceived norms for acceptable weight have definitely risen and many people who most certainly are taking health risks due to weight think they're fine.

I'm 5'10 and 88kg which probably makes me the heaviest guy on this thread by quite a margin. I won't dispute that a good proportion of that is unnecessary fat, it is. However, I'm not unhealthy. I had a fairly thorough check up last year which revealed that my visceral fat was minimal (visceral fat is the most significant factor for weight related health issues) my LDL cholesterol was exceptionally low and my heart dimensions and function were all perfect. I was a bit surprised too.:)
However, the way the numbers stack up I could never get down to low 60s and keep my cycling strength without loosing all upper body muscle (maybe amputate an arm?) I reckon as the numbers stack up I would have to get body fat below 10% just to go under 70kg.

Max Bridges

NeXXus wrote:

Reading1971 wrote:

Ignore weight to height scales and use body fat as a guide. Much better as muscle is heavier than fat and more accurate.

1kg of muscle is heavier than 1kg fat?

I think 1kg of muscle has 15% to 18% less volume than 1kg of fat. I'm unable to find out if all muscle has the same volume to weight ratio.

buckles

Max Bridges wrote:

NeXXus wrote:

Reading1971 wrote:

Ignore weight to height scales and use body fat as a guide. Much better as muscle is heavier than fat and more accurate.

1kg of muscle is heavier than 1kg fat?

I think 1kg of muscle has 15% to 18% less volume than 1kg of fat. I'm unable to find out if all muscle has the same volume to weight ratio.

The word 'density' has fewer characters and thus takes less energy to type than the phrase 'volume to weight ratio'.

Then again if you're trying to lose weight and are into 'marginal gains'... every calorie counts!

MikeWW

At 51 and riding 5/6 times a week I still found myself at 76.5 Kg( 5 11) which was looking a tad heavy. Found diet had far more effect than training ( although still riding most days) Moved to a lower carb/ higher fat diet and dropped to 70 Kg in 5 weeks. Body fat is now 16.1%
Interestingly despite not worrying about fat ( bacon and eggs 4 times a week etc) HDL (good cholesterol)/Total Cholesterol at 54.3% which I am told is pretty good.
I was slightly surprised at body fat levels (thought it would be higher) I am not sure I would want body fat less than 10% so gives a useful range to work with

Max Bridges

Buckles wrote:

Max Bridges wrote:

NeXXus wrote:

Reading1971 wrote:

Ignore weight to height scales and use body fat as a guide. Much better as muscle is heavier than fat and more accurate.

1kg of muscle is heavier than 1kg fat?

I think 1kg of muscle has 15% to 18% less volume than 1kg of fat. I'm unable to find out if all muscle has the same volume to weight ratio.

The word 'density' has fewer characters and thus takes less energy to type than the phrase 'volume to weight ratio'.

Then again if you're trying to lose weight and are into 'marginal gains'... every calorie counts!

So do you know if all muscle has the same density? Is trained muscle more dense than untrained muscle? Is fast twitch muscle more dense than slow twitch muscle?

kajjal

Ai_1 wrote:

dw300 wrote:

......Don't let fat people tell you you're too thin.....

Fair enough but what if I don't want skinny people telling me I'm too fat?

It is important to differentiate between weight loss for health and weight loss for performance. I'm a bit heavy but it's only a problem for my cycling and running performance it's not a health risk. Having said that the perceived norms for acceptable weight have definitely risen and many people who most certainly are taking health risks due to weight think they're fine.

I'm 5'10 and 88kg which probably makes me the heaviest guy on this thread by quite a margin. I won't dispute that a good proportion of that is unnecessary fat, it is. However, I'm not unhealthy. I had a fairly thorough check up last year which revealed that my visceral fat was minimal (visceral fat is the most significant factor for weight related health issues) my LDL cholesterol was exceptionally low and my heart dimensions and function were all perfect. I was a bit surprised too.:)
However, the way the numbers stack up I could never get down to low 60s and keep my cycling strength without loosing all upper body muscle (maybe amputate an arm?) I reckon as the numbers stack up I would have to get body fat below 10% just to go under 70kg.

It sounds like you have sensible approach to health and exercise. What is worrying is the association with some sections of road riding and extreme weight loss, leading to physical and psychological issues. Low levels of fat are fine for professional athletes with experienced coaching, nutritional and medical staff but unnecessary for most people. The NHS has a lot of information on the various dangers of being underweight.