| |
Main
Date: 01 Feb 2007 01:40:13
From: richardb20
Subject: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
I'm off criterium racing this year, at Cat4, Cat3 level.
I'm 188cm tall (about 6'3" in the old money), how much should I weigh
to be sucessfull?
R.
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Feb 2007 19:10:16
From: Stu Fleming
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
richardb20 wrote:
> I'm off criterium racing this year, at Cat4, Cat3 level.
>
> I'm 188cm tall (about 6'3" in the old money), how much should I weigh
> to be sucessfull?
I used to race between 68 and 75kg at that height. More successfully in
road races at the bottom end; more successfully in TTs at the top end.
VO2max tested out at 70kg/ml/min.
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 14:40:10
From: ilan
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
On Feb 1, 5:17 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >
wrote:
> richardb20 wrote:
> > I'm off criterium racing this year, at Cat4, Cat3 level.
>
> > I'm 188cm tall (about 6'3" in the old money), how much should I weigh
> > to be sucessfull?
>
> > R.
>
> The average BMI in the 1997 Tour was 21.47 kg/m^2. This corresponds to
> 1.88m^2 * 21.47 kg/m^2 = 75.9 kg.
>
> Dan
The Tour has only one criterium and last year it was won by a rider
with BMI 24.187.
This corresponds to 85.4867 kg for 1.88 m.
-ilan
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 14:46:54
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
ilan wrote:
> The Tour has only one criterium and last year it was won by a rider
> with BMI 24.187.
Is this before or after his haircut?
Dan
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 13:17:38
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
On Feb 1, 9:17 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >
wrote:
> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I didn't mean to imply that fat percantage alone was the overriding
> > factor in cycling, just that BMI is a lousy yardstick.
>
> > But for crits, weight is certainly not the penalty it is in mountain
> > stages for example. I am also of the opinion that the importance of
> > weight is overrated for non top-level cyclists. It is important, but
> > not as important a factor as for pros.
>
> An issue with muscle mass is that there is a metabolic cost for it: it
> takes oxygen from blood pumped by the heart to support, whether or not
> it's contributing to turning the pedals. Thus losing excess muscle can
> be advantageous, just as losing fat is. That said, I still agree with
> you that losing weight is over-rated if you don't care about climbing.
>
> Dan
Even if you do care about climbing (at least to a passable level),
most cyclists are so far from their maximum potential in terms of
output, that it is easier for them to just gain more power. This is
when the weight is from muscle. Obviously, the easiest way to improve
climbing is to eliminate excess weight from fat. Then look to improve
power. When you reach an elite power output, but you still weigh too
much from too much muscle, that's the end of the rope. But most
cyclists are no where near their max power so it doesn't really matter
that they have extra weight to carry around.
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 11:02:51
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
On Feb 1, 7:53 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >
wrote:
> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com wrote:
> > And BMI of course does not take into account body composition. There
> > are plenty of people 188cm (or 190 or whatever) with similar fat
> > percentages that have drastically different weights.
>
> > Joseph
>
> In cycling, body fat's not the issue, it's weight. Beyond a modest
> level, more muscle won't help your cardiovascular system deliver oxygen
> more effectively to generate more aerobic power. Even sprinting
> specialists, in road racing, have relatively low muscle mass compared
> with many other sports.
>
> So "my body fat is low" isn't a defense for high BMI*, where BMI* is a
> refined statistic which avoids potential limitations of the conventional
> definition of BMI.
>
> Dan
I didn't mean to imply that fat percantage alone was the overriding
factor in cycling, just that BMI is a lousy yardstick.
But for crits, weight is certainly not the penalty it is in mountain
stages for example. I am also of the opinion that the importance of
weight is overrated for non top-level cyclists. It is important, but
not as important a factor as for pros.
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 20:17:37
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> I didn't mean to imply that fat percantage alone was the overriding
> factor in cycling, just that BMI is a lousy yardstick.
>
> But for crits, weight is certainly not the penalty it is in mountain
> stages for example. I am also of the opinion that the importance of
> weight is overrated for non top-level cyclists. It is important, but
> not as important a factor as for pros.
An issue with muscle mass is that there is a metabolic cost for it: it
takes oxygen from blood pumped by the heart to support, whether or not
it's contributing to turning the pedals. Thus losing excess muscle can
be advantageous, just as losing fat is. That said, I still agree with
you that losing weight is over-rated if you don't care about climbing.
Dan
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 10:38:42
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
On Feb 1, 6:11 pm, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> Dan Connelly wrote:
> > The average BMI in the 1997 Tour was 21.47 kg/m^2. This corresponds
> > to 1.88m^2 * 21.47 kg/m^2 = 75.9 kg.
>
> The average height in the Tours is less than 1.88m, and BMI doesn't scale
> linearly with height.
>
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/nba-tdf-bmi.png
>
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/tdf97-bmi.pnghttp://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/tdf04-bmi.pnghttp://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/tdf06-bmi.png
And BMI of course does not take into account body composition. There
are plenty of people 188cm (or 190 or whatever) with similar fat
percentages that have drastically different weights.
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 18:53:34
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> And BMI of course does not take into account body composition. There
> are plenty of people 188cm (or 190 or whatever) with similar fat
> percentages that have drastically different weights.
>
> Joseph
>
In cycling, body fat's not the issue, it's weight. Beyond a modest
level, more muscle won't help your cardiovascular system deliver oxygen
more effectively to generate more aerobic power. Even sprinting
specialists, in road racing, have relatively low muscle mass compared
with many other sports.
So "my body fat is low" isn't a defense for high BMI*, where BMI* is a
refined statistic which avoids potential limitations of the conventional
definition of BMI.
Dan
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 16:17:54
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
richardb20 wrote:
> I'm off criterium racing this year, at Cat4, Cat3 level.
>
> I'm 188cm tall (about 6'3" in the old money), how much should I weigh
> to be sucessfull?
>
> R.
>
The average BMI in the 1997 Tour was 21.47 kg/m^2. This corresponds to
1.88m^2 * 21.47 kg/m^2 = 75.9 kg.
Dan
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 09:11:31
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
Dan Connelly wrote:
> The average BMI in the 1997 Tour was 21.47 kg/m^2. This corresponds
> to 1.88m^2 * 21.47 kg/m^2 = 75.9 kg.
The average height in the Tours is less than 1.88m, and BMI doesn't scale
linearly with height.
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/nba-tdf-bmi.png
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/tdf97-bmi.png
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/tdf04-bmi.png
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/tdf06-bmi.png
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 17:28:40
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:17:54 GMT, Dan Connelly wrote:
> The average BMI in the 1997 Tour was 21.47 kg/m^2. This corresponds to
> 1.88m^2 * 21.47 kg/m^2 = 75.9 kg.
Ha! I just guessed and I got 75.9 kg too.
(Actually, and to state the obvious, crit riders are heavier than Tour
riders, especially if they're cat 3 or 4.)
--
E. Dronkert
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 05:44:43
From: Randy Beaver
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
It depends. Will you be racing downhill? Will you be racing uphill? Will
you be racing in flat time trials? Will you be over trained? Will you be
under rested? Will you...
"richardb20" <richard@lbrc.org > wrote in message
news:1170322813.903411.112700@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> I'm off criterium racing this year, at Cat4, Cat3 level.
>
> I'm 188cm tall (about 6'3" in the old money), how much should I weigh
> to be sucessfull?
>
> R.
>
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 16:43:06
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
Randy Beaver wrote:
> It depends. Will you be racing downhill? Will you be racing uphill? Will
> you be racing in flat time trials? Will you be over trained? Will you be
> under rested? Will you...
...be super-motivated ? Will you have access to panache ? Will you have a
wasp in your inner tube ?
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 05:16:49
From: richardb20
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
On Feb 1, 10:22 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 10:40 am, "richardb20" <rich...@lbrc.org> wrote:
>
> > I'm off criterium racing this year, at Cat4, Cat3 level.
>
> > I'm 188cm tall (about 6'3" in the old money), how much should I weigh
> > to be sucessfull?
>
> > R.
>
> 188cm = 6'3" ?
>
> Joseph
6 foot three inches..
R.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 11:37:57
From: KC
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
richardb20 wrote:
> On Feb 1, 10:22 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 10:40 am, "richardb20" <rich...@lbrc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm off criterium racing this year, at Cat4, Cat3 level.
>>> I'm 188cm tall (about 6'3" in the old money), how much should I weigh
>>> to be sucessfull?
>>> R.
>> 188cm = 6'3" ?
>>
>> Joseph
>
> 6 foot three inches..
> R.
>
188 / 2.54 = 74.016.
74.016 inches = 6 feet, 2.016 inches.
I've heard of exagerating & rounding up, but really! If you're really
6'3", then say so: 190.5cm
-Kieran
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 02:22:07
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
On Feb 1, 10:40 am, "richardb20" <rich...@lbrc.org > wrote:
> I'm off criterium racing this year, at Cat4, Cat3 level.
>
> I'm 188cm tall (about 6'3" in the old money), how much should I weigh
> to be sucessfull?
>
> R.
188cm = 6'3" ?
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 11:34:30
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
On 1 Feb 2007 02:22:07 -0800, joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 10:40 am, "richardb20" <rich...@lbrc.org> wrote:
>> I'm 188cm tall (about 6'3" in the old money), how much should I weigh
>> to be sucessfull?
>
> 188cm = 6'3" ?
No, 6'2". He should weigh 75.9 kg, have 11.7% fat and 7.2 l lung
volume. But the most important physical parameter for crit riders is,
of course, their 'crit.
--
E. Dronkert
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 11:35:28
From: KC
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2007 02:22:07 -0800, joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 10:40 am, "richardb20" <rich...@lbrc.org> wrote:
>>> I'm 188cm tall (about 6'3" in the old money), how much should I weigh
>>> to be sucessfull?
>> 188cm = 6'3" ?
>
> No, 6'2". He should weigh 75.9 kg, have 11.7% fat and 7.2 l lung
> volume. But the most important physical parameter for crit riders is,
> of course, their 'crit.
>
7.2L lung /volume/, or do you mean vital capacity? Or maybe VO2max?
7.2L is pretty small for total lung volume... :^)
-Kieran
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 17:43:42
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 11:35:28 -0500, KC wrote:
> 7.2L lung /volume/, or do you mean vital capacity? Or maybe VO2max?
> 7.2L is pretty small for total lung volume... :^)
What you can exhale. Is that called vital capacity? And it's rbr not
rsr so they have smaller trunks I guess.
--
E. Dronkert
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2007 11:56:17
From: KC
Subject: Re: ? 188cm tall, how fat?
|
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 11:35:28 -0500, KC wrote:
>> 7.2L lung /volume/, or do you mean vital capacity? Or maybe VO2max?
>> 7.2L is pretty small for total lung volume... :^)
>
> What you can exhale. Is that called vital capacity? And it's rbr not
> rsr so they have smaller trunks I guess.
>
I was just teasing... 7.2L isn't THAT small... but yeah, I think what
you're looking for is vital capacity, the max volume you exhale after a
maximal inhalation.
-K
|
|
