If you're overweight, by how much?

mfin

It seems a lot of people mention weight they want to lose, of course this can be a bit of a seasonal thing, or generally there will be a lot of people cycling in order to lose weight of course

It might be interesting to see how much the average person on here who does want to lose a bit might be trying to shift.

Druidor

Well I am around 102Kg (16 Stone odd) & at 5'11" should be around 12.5 Stone

so I am the fat bloke even though I do not look that portly.

whoof

Just voted. I'm about 2 kg more than when I was 40 and then I was 2 kg more than when I was 30. At 30 I was about 2 kg more than at 20. At 72 kg (11stone 4 lb) and 173 cm (5' 8") not hugely over weight (for cycling) but I should do something not to have my weight keep creeping up.

chris_bass

I havent weighed myself in ages, will do soon and report back, if i had to guess i'd say i'm at the top end of ok, if not a little over.

I heard there is new research which suggests if you are fit but slightly overweight (bmi of 25 to 30) then you are more likely to live longer and not get as many illnesses. this is fit and overweight though, not just overweight and not exercising, so if you are cycling and slightly overweight you are doing ok :-)

styxd

What do you class as overweight? Is this using the BMI calculator? I dont think it's a good scale for a cyclist. For example, I'm 189.5cm tall and I could weigh 90kg and still be classed as a "healthy" weight. But for cycling, that weight is useless, I'd need to be a good 15kg lighter.

mfin

styxd wrote:

What do you class as overweight? Is this using the BMI calculator? I dont think it's a good scale for a cyclist. For example, I'm 189.5cm tall and I could weigh 90kg and still be classed as a "healthy" weight. But for cycling, that weight is useless, I'd need to be a good 15kg lighter.

Just based on what people are vs what they want to be.

markhewitt1978

Using BMI the top end of the 'ok' weight is 70kg but I'm 82kg currently so about 12kg overweight, much more than the weight of my bike! I had got down to 77kg but put it back on again in the last two months which is frustrating.

I'm hoping to get down to about 73kg (11 and a half stone) for my holiday in Mallorca in 4 months time, 9kg to lose, not an easy task considering how much I love sweets and crisps!

ManOfKent

I agree BMI is useless for many of us. I currently look and feel healthy but am towards the top of the Normal range. To get below the middle of that range I would have to resort to amputation or anorexia.

I reckon I'm about 3kg heavier than I'd want to be if I was competing, but that's a lower weight than I've ever sustained as an adult and any loss beyond that would put me into the realm of looking (if not being) ill. I've gone down a waist size in the last year as it is.

To reach the underweight boundary I would have to lose 20% of my bodyweight.

markhewitt1978

I'd have to lose 37% of my bodyweight, approx 30kg :shock:

Devastazione

I've had a non stop riding winter, rode 4/5 days a week every week from september 2013 till 3 weeks ago,gained 6 kilos,they all went down in my legs,pretty pissed about it,I really felt someone was pulling me back on some climbs. Unfortunately muscles will stay,I need to shave off at least 3/4 kgs of weight.

mm1

Depends on context - if I'm shopping in Huntingdon on a Saturday I feel quite svelte, out on the bike less so. Gradually beating my body into submission, but its hard work and seems to be taking forever.

ianbar

i am near 16st 6'3" but i have wanted to get down to 14st never really got close, before i was on holiday in may i was down to about 15sr 6 lbs but ever since i have worked nights losing weight has been hard!

Flâneur

God knows how overweight I actually am, but I'd happily lose a stone to get to just over 10. I'm not big now but I just know that a quick diet change and my weight wouldn't fluctuate so much (always bouncing between 11- and 11.10lbs). Unlikely to happen even with a diet change though i have dropped a chest size but my upper body strength now needs some work having become weak.

Prob should avoid the cheese, wine and chocolate

Initialised

The first five stone was fairly easy now I'm stuck around the 13 stone mark and can't seem to shake the last of it.

alphacharlie

I've managed to get down from 104kg to 86, would love to be below 80 but its very hard going now, 178cm/5'10" tall.
Cheers
AC

downhill paul

According to BMI calculators, being 27 years old and 5ft 7in, my ideal weight should be 11 stone or 70kg.
I'm currently 14.5 stone or 92kg. so it looks like I've got a lot of work to do.

Anonymous

Running is much better than cycling if you want to lose weight IME.

Am currently about a stone overweight according to a chart at the doctors.
I am the lightest I have been in at least a decade right now and hope to lose about half a stone before big events in Aug/Sept.

Sawilson

My weight is spot on apparently but according to the BMI chart I should be 4 inches taller.

downhill paul

Running is only better than cycling for weight loss if you can maintain a certain speed. if you can't then cycling will be better. plus most people will find cycling less boring than running, which will mean they will want to ride for longer than they will want to run. plus if you are trying to lose a lot of weight, cycling will put less strain on your joints than running.

jotko

I am 5ft7, 11st4 at the mo. Never going to be a racing snake as pretty broad shouldered, although end of last summer I was half a stone lighter. Should be back around fighting weight come September ready for another winter of pie eating. RInse. Repeat

Anonymous

downhill paul wrote:

Running is only better than cycling for weight loss if you can maintain a certain speed. if you can't then cycling will be better. plus most people will find cycling less boring than running, which will mean they will want to ride for longer than they will want to run. plus if you are trying to lose a lot of weight, cycling will put less strain on your joints than running.

Not sure what speed of running has to do with it. What speed do you think you need to maintain?

You have the whole 'boring' thing wrong IMO.
You need to cycle for way longer to achieve the same goal, so at best it cancels each other out on the boring front.

I think you mean that they will find cycling more enjoyable, rather than less boring.
The fact you spend less time doing it, and enjoy it less is actually a big part of why its better for weight loss.
You do not have to 'fuel' to do it, and you are less likely to eat badly afterwards.

Joints are a great excuse not to run, but at the end of the day its a choice you have and one I would consider seriously if you want to lose weight.

I have lost the weight so do not really care what people do, or want to argue about it.
Just trying to help

opus25

1.87m and 70-71kg so a supposedly 'Normal' BMI. Starting cycling last year I was 88kg so now feel much lighter on my feet and less worried about inclines.

downhill paul

I'm not sure what speed you would need to keep up while running to make it more effective than cycling for weight loss. but someone who is really overweight won't be able to run far/fast enough to lose the weight they want to. but because a bike will support their weight and is pretty much impact free, they will be able to cycle further and faster than they will be able to run.

alphacharlie

I enjoy both running and cycling, using "cardiotrainer" to estimate my calorie burn for 1 hour,
Cycling, 18.5 miles, 1005 calories.
Running, 8 miles, 1165 calories.
An hour of cycling I can do easily and quickly recover, after an hour of running I'm buggered and take alot longer to feel like I'm normal.

briantrumpet

alphacharlie wrote:

I enjoy both running and cycling, using "cardiotrainer" to estimate my calorie burn for 1 hour,
Cycling, 18.5 miles, 1005 calories.
Running, 8 miles, 1165 calories.
An hour of cycling I can do easily and quickly recover, after an hour of running I'm buggered and take alot longer to feel like I'm normal.

Beware of calorie calculators - VERY unscientifically (i.e. reading lots of posts from people who SEEM to know what they are talking about) I reckon on burning about 700 calories per hour going at 19mph. Most calculators seem to go quite a way above that.

Re the recovery - it's all the stresses and impact that make running so much harder to recover from. I can cycle 100 miles and be fine the next morning, but I had to run about a mile last week (and very slowly, at that), and I was stiff for days.

Mark_P

Hmm, a bit subjective, this!
Having only just got back on the bike after 6 months, I'm definitely nowhere near fit, and have some frightening love handles. My BMI is 22.8, just on the heavy side of 'healthy' according to the NHS, but something like 5kg off where I'd like to be - so I put that.

alphacharlie

briantrumpet wrote:

alphacharlie wrote:

I enjoy both running and cycling, using "cardiotrainer" to estimate my calorie burn for 1 hour,
Cycling, 18.5 miles, 1005 calories.
Running, 8 miles, 1165 calories.
An hour of cycling I can do easily and quickly recover, after an hour of running I'm buggered and take alot longer to feel like I'm normal.

Beware of calorie calculators - VERY unscientifically (i.e. reading lots of posts from people who SEEM to know what they are talking about) I reckon on burning about 700 calories per hour going at 19mph. Most calculators seem to go quite a way above that.

Re the recovery - it's all the stresses and impact that make running so much harder to recover from. I can cycle 100 miles and be fine the next morning, but I had to run about a mile last week (and very slowly, at that), and I was stiff for days.

Don't worry I'm also skeptical of calorie expenditure calculations but just showing that for my weight the same program has running as a better way to burn off calories if I only have an hour to do something physical.
AC

Anonymous

downhill paul wrote:

I'm not sure what speed you would need to keep up while running to make it more effective than cycling for weight loss. but someone who is really overweight won't be able to run far/fast enough to lose the weight they want to. but because a bike will support their weight and is pretty much impact free, they will be able to cycle further and faster than they will be able to run.

Why mention people that are 'really' overweight. The poll goes up to about 4 stone overweight and thats not an issue with running.

The lady who lost the most weight on 'Biggest Loser Wins' did it by running and she was very overweight.

No pain, no gain. A cliche but very true IME.
A long enjoyable cycle is not helping much if you eat to do it, eat while doing it, and eat because it has made you hungry.

Going for a quicker, less enjoyable run focuses your mind on the objective and you think twice before shoving a cake in your mouth when you get home.

Thats been my experience anyway.
I love cycling but see just found that running is much better for weight loss.

Its also much much easier to go for a run. Trainers on, door open, run.
Cycling takes longer to prep for, longer to sort out when you get back and is affected more by weather.

Its not either/or anyway. Do both.
I prefer running on my own but cycling with others. You can listen to music whilst running too and it opens the door to doing a duathlon, which I found really good fun.

Sorry for banging on about it lol.
Good luck getting up the positions on that poll everyone

DavidJB

5ft 10" 70KG...but want to be 68kg

team47b

'They' say if you lose 10% of your body weight you can seriously lower the risk of getting type two diabetes.

(55kgs) :roll:

StillGoing

BMI is being used less by the well informed as a sign of health. More important in assessing ones health is the calculation between waist and height. The recommendation is that your waist when doubled shouldn't be any more than your height. That puts me in the healthy parameters as does my weight, but if I were to be seeking my ideal cycling weight for climbing, I could easily go down another 2 stone leaving me looking like a feeble wimp rather than athletic.