Too skinny? 6ft 3 147lbs (Advice needed)
spredy
Posts: 48
Hi,
As mentioned in the topic title, I'm 6ft 3 and 147lbs, I believe this gives me a BMI of about 18.4 which I think is considered underweight. I've made steady progress on the bike since taking it up less than a year ago, so I don't think my low weight is hampering my ability to ride, but could putting on some lean mass be beneficial? I had read about Thibaut Pinot having to put on weight to better his performance, so it could be possible.
If it is advisable to put on weight, then how would people suggest I go about doing it? When reading about doing squats and so on, to improve cycling performance, people said it reduced capillary density, and so could work against your cycling goals. Or would this effect be so minimal, it's not actually worth noting? And so would a caloric surplus, plus some weight lifting be my best bet?
Sorry, lots of questions, any help would be great. Thanks!
As mentioned in the topic title, I'm 6ft 3 and 147lbs, I believe this gives me a BMI of about 18.4 which I think is considered underweight. I've made steady progress on the bike since taking it up less than a year ago, so I don't think my low weight is hampering my ability to ride, but could putting on some lean mass be beneficial? I had read about Thibaut Pinot having to put on weight to better his performance, so it could be possible.
If it is advisable to put on weight, then how would people suggest I go about doing it? When reading about doing squats and so on, to improve cycling performance, people said it reduced capillary density, and so could work against your cycling goals. Or would this effect be so minimal, it's not actually worth noting? And so would a caloric surplus, plus some weight lifting be my best bet?
Sorry, lots of questions, any help would be great. Thanks!
0
Comments
-
There are so many people trying to loose weight to assist them with cycling (particularly on hills) so I wouldnt personally bother with any intentional weight gain. The more you cycle the more your legs will increase in muscle and therefore weight. You dont need to put on weight, look at skinny boys Wiggans and Froome!!0
-
I wish I was in that position... I would be eating so much food (hence why I'm not in that position I guess!)0
-
Aha, that's what everyone says! Although, I have been stuffing my face recently (I seem to eat more during the winter months) and I've not got any bigger. So it is possible ;Dbobmcstuff wrote:I wish I was in that position... I would be eating so much food (hence why I'm not in that position I guess!)0 -
If you feel you have enough power and energy when cycling I wouldn't worry about it. Once you get over 40 you will have the opposite problem
0 -
One of the many perks of getting old, eh? Fortunately I'm only 21 so it's a long way off :P And that's the thing, I feel fine generally and on the bike, just wondering if I could feel even better? Maybe the extra muscle could help me get some more power/speed on the flats, or maybe I just need to ride even more.0
-
-
Last years British hill climbing champion is 6ft 2 and weighs 62kg(136lbs), hasn't done him any harm.
Not only is he fast up hills, his TT times are excellent.0 -
I doubt you're too skinny for cycling at all. Whether you're too skinny for other aspects of life is probably something only you can answer. There seems to be a phobia against doing any kind of weight work because it's not what the pros do. We're not pros, and chances are, we never will be, so I'm not sure it's wise to look at someone like Froome and say that's a desirable body shape to be.0
-
Many pros do actually do weights anyway. If you are that tall and slim it is highly unlikely you could but any significant bulk on especially whilst doing decent amounts of aerobic exercise. I'm agnostic on the benefits of weight training for cycling but apart from accumulated fatigue interfering with training I doubt it would do your riding any other harm.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
Is this about being a better cyclist or about having a better body shape?0
-
FYI: BMI is a load of crapAnd the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0
-
MugenSi wrote:There are so many people trying to loose weight to assist them with cycling (particularly on hills) so I wouldnt personally bother with any intentional weight gain. The more you cycle the more your legs will increase in muscle and therefore weight. You dont need to put on weight, look at skinny boys Wiggans and Froome!!
I agree with you. But both Wiggo and Froome were heavier than the OP in their TDF wins and both are also shorter (slightly).0 -
I'm not sure how to respond to individual posts but...
@phreak, I've not looked at Froome and have aimed to be as skinny as him, it's just happened through riding, and obviously he'll have been instructed how to be that weight and as healthy as possible so he can maintain form, whereas I could have got this way unhealthily. Lots of muscle wastage or something.
@diy, It's about being a better cyclist, I'm not too fussed about the aesthetics (or lack of). I would like to be good enough to justify being this slim, haha, I look the part, but that's about it.0 -
Being thin at 21 years old is probably due mostly to youth, genetics, and hormones - I wouldn't worry as long as you eat a decent and sufficient diet.
I do suggest your doing some basic exercises to strengthen your arms, shoulders, chest, etc., but without a goal of developing 'large muscles'.
Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA0 -
Good Diet, structured training (a mix of high intensity and endurance) some good stretching routines to protect the muscles as they develop and maybe, just maybe a little body weight or light weight training if you need to correct imbalances in strength (e.g. one leg strong than the other).
Its mostly about aerobic capacity - which takes a while to develop.0 -
NeXXus wrote:FYI: BMI is a load of crap
Er, no. It tells us very accurately what the ratio is of someone's weight to their height squared.
If you're particularly interested in how heavy you are compared to your height and how that compares to norms, averages and expectations it can be very interesting/useful to know.
Ruth0 -
JayKosta wrote:Being thin at 21 years old is probably due mostly to youth, genetics, and hormones - I wouldn't worry as long as you eat a decent and sufficient diet.
I do suggest your doing some basic exercises to strengthen your arms, shoulders, chest, etc., but without a goal of developing 'large muscles'.
Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
Not that it has anything to do with the thread, but why do you type your full name and location at the end of each post?Advocate of disc brakes.0 -
===================homers double wrote:...
Not that it has anything to do with the thread, but why do you type your full name and location at the end of each post?
Simply to let the readers know that I'm a real person, and am willing to take responsibility for my posts.
Perhaps not 'stylish' in today's social media ...
Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
'Kid Kielbasa', the 'halupki-morf'0 -
JayKosta wrote:Simply to let the readers know that I'm a real person, and am willing to take responsibility for my posts.
Very noble - but unfortunately it offers no more proof of authenticity or integrity than any other made up name, address or username...0 -
BeaconRuth wrote:NeXXus wrote:FYI: BMI is a load of crap
Er, no. It tells us very accurately what the ratio is of someone's weight to their height squared.
If you're particularly interested in how heavy you are compared to your height and how that compares to norms, averages and expectations it can be very interesting/useful to know.
Ruth
It's a useful guide but more accurate if you are average height. If you are tall it over estimates your BMI making you overweight when you clearly aren't and for short people it under estimates it with the opposite effect.0 -
It does NOT. BMI is based on an average, not an individualKajjal wrote:BeaconRuth wrote:NeXXus wrote:FYI: BMI is a load of crap
Er, no. It tells us very accurately what the ratio is of someone's weight to their height squared.
If you're particularly interested in how heavy you are compared to your height and how that compares to norms, averages and expectations it can be very interesting/useful to know.
Ruth
It's a useful guide but more accurate if you are average height. If you are tall it over estimates your BMI making you overweight when you clearly aren't and for short people it under estimates it with the opposite effect.And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0 -
Again I have to disagree. The calculation of anyone's BMI is highly accurate, depending only on the accuracy with which you can measure your weight and your height. What you choose to compare your accurately calculated BMI to and whether you can conclude anything meaningful by comparing it with a recommended range of BMIs is another matter.NeXXus wrote:Kajjal wrote:BeaconRuth wrote:NeXXus wrote:FYI: BMI is a load of crap
Er, no. It tells us very accurately what the ratio is of someone's weight to their height squared.
If you're particularly interested in how heavy you are compared to your height and how that compares to norms, averages and expectations it can be very interesting/useful to know.
Ruth
It's a useful guide but more accurate if you are average height. If you are tall it over estimates your BMI making you overweight when you clearly aren't and for short people it under estimates it with the opposite effect.
I repeat, your BMI is your weight divided by your height squared. That's all. It is not an average and it is completely individualised because it is YOUR weight and YOUR height used in a calculation.It does NOT. BMI is based on an average, not an individual
What you conclude about your weight using your accurate, personal BMI in comparison to averages and expectations is another matter.
Ruth0 -
BMI is a load of crap for athletes/fit people as it would mean a load of Rugby players are obese etc
Its used as a general guideline but doesn't account of muscle mass or even very low body fat0 -
Really and where did the data on BMI charts come from, that you're comparing yourself to? Averages!BeaconRuth wrote:
Again I have to disagree. The calculation of anyone's BMI is highly accurate, depending only on the accuracy with which you can measure your weight and your height. What you choose to compare your accurately calculated BMI to and whether you can conclude anything meaningful by comparing it with a recommended range of BMIs is another matter.NeXXus wrote:Kajjal wrote:BeaconRuth wrote:NeXXus wrote:FYI: BMI is a load of crap
Er, no. It tells us very accurately what the ratio is of someone's weight to their height squared.
If you're particularly interested in how heavy you are compared to your height and how that compares to norms, averages and expectations it can be very interesting/useful to know.
Ruth
It's a useful guide but more accurate if you are average height. If you are tall it over estimates your BMI making you overweight when you clearly aren't and for short people it under estimates it with the opposite effect.
I repeat, your BMI is your weight divided by your height squared. That's all. It is not an average and it is completely individualised because it is YOUR weight and YOUR height used in a calculation.It does NOT. BMI is based on an average, not an individual
What you conclude about your weight using your accurate, personal BMI in comparison to averages and expectations is another matter.
RuthAnd the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0 -
-
It's true that BMI tends to give taller people a higher score than shorter for a given percentage body fat - that in itself does make it of questionable value.
Yes of course it's anindividual measure in the sense it is your weight and your height but if it doesn't even function as a reliable comparator of healthy weight at a population level (the arguments against it being used at an individual level focusing on muscle mass are well rehearsed) then you have ask whether it tells us anything useful at all.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:.... you have ask whether it tells us anything useful at all.
Yes, it tells you how heavy you are compared to your height - an extremely relevant thing to know if you're an endurance cyclist (i.e. almost every cyclist except track sprinters).
Ruth0 -
Just because you calculate your BMI does not mean you have to look at a chart. You could just take your BMI and compare it to your friend or clubmate's BMI and that might, say, explain why he/she goes up hills better than you.NeXXus wrote:Really and where did the data on BMI charts come from, that you're comparing yourself to? Averages!
Anyway, if I was comparing my BMI to anyone else's I would look at the BMIs of elite cyclists - and when I do that I find that I'm probably at a huge disadvantage to elite rivals if my BMI is much over about 22-23. Really, it doesn't matter whether I'm packed full of muscle - if my BMI is 25+ I'm not fulfilling my potential as an endurance cyclist.
So, BMI is not actually a "load of crap".
Ruth0 -
Oh dear.And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0
