General Cycling Discussion - How many lbs. do your glutes and calves weigh ?

We bike-alcoholics can also be weight obsessed. I think like I have lost about 25-30 lbs. since I started biking.. My question. Muscle mass weighs more.. Maybe I lost more than 25 lbs, when you consider weight of muscle..?
Look at your calves and glutes.. I know my glute diameter. I fitted myself for a custom wet suit. I gained like 3 inches on my upper legs- glute area. Before they were flab..
Prediction. I bet my caves weigh about 3 lbs each and glutes, not sure, each. - 6 lbs. ?
Any ideas how much your legs weigh? I know my wife does not like me flopping them across her at night. Too heavy ! So that means we actually exchanged muscle mass for flab.. That should be counted in your equation of weight loss, No?

Heah, we do not need our Merchant of Venice, weighing our pound of flesh. All just predictions, OK.

dunno the weight, dunno even how to guess, but i'll give you measurements of my leg if you want :)

lengths:
top of thigh to middle of kneecap - 14"
middle of kneecap to ankle - 14"

circumferences:
thigh (right at the top) - 24.5"
thigh (right above knee) - 17.25"
knee (middle of kneecap) - 16.25"
calf (right below kneecap) - 14"
calf (middle/widest point) - 18"
ankle - 10.25"

I would guess that each leg, depending on your proportions, is about a quarter of your weight.
:beer:

Originally posted by fore
dunno the weight, dunno even how to guess, but i'll give you measurements of my leg if you want :)

lengths:
top of thigh to middle of kneecap - 14"
middle of kneecap to ankle - 14"

circumferences:
thigh (right at the top) - 24.5"
thigh (right above knee) - 17.25"
knee (middle of kneecap) - 16.25"
calf (right below kneecap) - 14"
calf (middle/widest point) - 18"
ankle - 10.25"

holy crap..your legs must be gigantic :eek:
I have pretty big/muscular calves and my legs are longer than yours but I found that my calf is about 15''-16'' at the widest point...yikes.

Originally posted by fore
dunno the weight, dunno even how to guess, but i'll give you measurements of my leg if you want :)


Perfect, thank you.

http://asuaf.org/~nanookdude/media/Swedish%20Chef/PICTURES/chef7.jpg

Well...when you took your measurements, was your leg straight out or bent...flexed or relaxed...were you standing or sitting?
These would really throw off results in the measurements.

sitting, leg relaxed, out straight

except for the ankle circumference. i think i had my knee bent for that one.

Had not measured my calfs until tonight. I noticed my calf only expands 1/4 of an inch whether flexing it or not.. Do most of us gain more mass than that upon flexing our legs??
So knees bent or muscles flexed diameter grew from 16 to 16-1/4 inches.. Don't know what my calf sized was before I started cycling, but my upper thighs grew by about 3 inches.
So think my legs increased in mass about same as for all cyclists..? Anyone have an ideas about how cycling affected your leg mass.
Someone said our legs probably account for about 25 % of our body mass.? So if we gain about 2" in the calfs and 3" in the glutes, that can off- set quit a bit of the loss in our upper body?

All this talk about inches, size, weight, circumference, is getting a little scary.:D :D

CHEERS.

Mark

Ah what the hell here gose:
upper thigh - 29 3/4"
lower thigh - 22"
calf - 17 1/4"
ankle - 10"

Granted these measurments are with 12% body fat. They should go down a bit once I get beck into a regular training regimen. It makes my wife and I laugh every time we go to by me some shorts. We ask if they have any thing that would fit large legs and they usually say, " These do, these are what I wear and..."
They realy do not understand what us larger folk are talking about.
Slainte:beer: :beer:

I am sorry, but this sounds to much like a "how far can you pee" contest to me.

Guess I always think Parody and bizareness is my kind of humor. Did not think the question totally serious. However, if Fore's 18" calfs would get me up a 10,000 ft. pass, I would gladly trade them..
To get cyclists muscles that big, a person must do lots of mountain climbing.. Do not want leg muscles that big, just to have them; but to consider doing the Tour De Colorado..

Aaaaaaaaaaaanyways... It doesn't really matter what size your legs are (sorta). Its mostly all of those other energy systems and the sort that make the difference. A bigger heart and lungs will make one guy much better than the next, along with a high lactic thresh hold. There are plenty of people out there with bigger legs than Lance. Can they even touch him on a mountain...you do the math.
Cheers

As kewlrunningz stated, it is the whole package, heart, lungs and muscle endurance rather then muscel size and strength. In a place like CO. I would much rather have smaller legs muscles because they would not use up as much O2 and being lighter would make it easier to climb. The only time muscle strength becomes a big factor would be for short quick sprints, but for long distance their endurance is more important.
Slainte:beer:

I tried to have mine surgically removed so they could be weighed individually, but the guy at the meat counter said I should leave. Now.

Tom

Okay, heres a foolproof way to find the answer to your question.

Find a trash can that is as high as your butt. Set the trash can on a scale and fill it to the very edge with water and record the weight. Take the trash can off the scale and carefully climb into it, you may want to do this near a wall or bench to aid you getting in and out of the can. Again fill the can with water to the very edge and carefully climb out of the can (it might be best to do this naked so your clothes do not absorb water and taint the results), now weigh the trash can again, the water level should be lowered equal to the displacement of your legs. Since the human body is like 99.something % water, the weight of the water displaced should be very close to the weight of your legs.

Be sure to take pictures so we can all get a good laugh out of you standing naked in a trash can full of water. :D

Originally posted by poululla
I am sorry, but this sounds to much like a "how far can you pee" contest to me. Now there's a great idea. What distance do you get? Are there variations for wind conditions?:D

aaaaa

Heah. Threatened is a real research scientists. Should put you in a think tank of sorts.. I will hope that no one will speculate on what the other 1% consists of..
The original question had a sort of serious motivation, because the size of my glutes almost bulked me out of my new wetsuit.. Last dive I could just squeeze in.. I equate calf size with power, It is a relief to think I can be a good climber and not have legs like a mule..

....did you know that the human glutes & calves weigh 20 lbs? (the kid from jerry mcguire)

aaaaa

I thought it was more like 70% water, but I may be wrong.


Originally posted by dprayvd
What is the other 1%?

I don't think there is much water in the bones, for example. And if the rest was 100% water I think we all would look pretty skinny :).

/Csson

My apologies, I didn't realize this would generate such a response, and I just spouted off some numbers without regard to accuracy. To rectify my grievous error I offer the following.

Body Composition

Summary prepared by Mary Fran Sowers in collaboration with the Allostatic Load working group. Last revised 1997


The term densitometry refers to general procedures of estimating body composition from body density, under the assumption that the density of any material is the function of the proportion and densities of its components. Until recently, body composition was characterized by underwater weighing which generated knowledge of two compartments, the fat and the fat-free masses. The fat free mass is a heterogeneous compartment which could be further subdivided according to its primary constituents: water (73.8%), protein (19.4%), and mineral (7.8%).

I think you would still get a farily accurate weight using the method I suggested considering that your legs border on bouyancy in water, not to mention the hilarious pictures for the family scrapbook.

Originally posted by threadend
I think you would still get a farily accurate weight using the method I suggested

Absolutely! (http://physics.weber.edu/carroll/Archimedes/principle.htm) :)

OK, so you now know what your calves and quads weigh...what the hell are you going to do with this information...!!!!????

THANK YOU. ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE POINTLESS THREADS THAT GAVE US SOMETHING TO DO WITH OUR TIME...WHICH SHOULD REALLY BE USED RIDING THOSE BIKES OF OURS!!!

Well said kewlrunningz , lets stop weighing things in this forum for a while, and get back on our bikes like we ought to!!:beer:

Heah group, there was some substance to my silly question..Besides, having a difficult time fitting into my wet suit; I thought It possible the weight I was hoping to loose, might in part be tied up in muslce. So the scales would not have told me the full story...
I think we are instructed in diving school if you are more muscular, you might need more weight to get you 'negatively bouyant.' So Threatened's ideas about body composition has some fairly significant applications. Probably not too many of us need much added motivation to get us on the bike.

Originally posted by poululla
OK, so you now know what your calves and quads weigh...what the hell are you going to do with this information...!!!!????

Easy, man, it's just a innocuous subject.

hey, im to lazy to measure... but you know what?
that muscle on the front of my shins is growing... and growing cause im climbing and climbing... one day I may become vain enough to pull out the tape!

oh yeah...

about the how far one can pee thing:

now if i were standing on a bridge with the wind at my back...
you'd try and shove me huh?

Many many times more than my head.

Ride more think less
Pat

This thread reminds me of a joke I heard many years ago - If a penis weighs approx 20 grams, what does an a**hole weigh?

Answer: Well get on a scale and tell us!!:D :D :D