General Cycling Discussion - Pounds per inch (ppvi)
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.
10-04-02, 10:58 AM
Thought it would be interesting to see how everyday cyclists compare to the pro's in a totally nonqualifying, useless means of measurement, so...since I couldn't find hat sizing information on the internet... how do you measure up in ppvi?
Anne-Caroline Chausson (Down Hill - women) - 120 pounds / 66 inches tall = 1.81 pounds per vertical inch
Steve Tilford (MTB - men) - 160 lbs. / 75" tall = 2.13 pounds per vertical inch
Ned Overend (Triathlete - Ironman)- 148 lbs. / 68" = 2.17 ppvi
Lance Armstrong (Roadie - DUH)- 158 / 70" = 2.25 ppvi
Marty Nothstien (track - Olympic Gold) - 205 / 74 = 2.77 ppvi
threadend (wannabe) = 2.86
Recreational rider = 2.63
10-04-02, 11:06 AM
78inches / 250pnds = 3.2
To be honest this should be done with lean weight. Total body mass is just a messed up way of doing it. SOOOO
215 / 78 = 2.75
2.77 Does this mean I can go pro?
71 inches - 170lbs - 2.39ppvi
10-04-02, 01:36 PM
Not that it matters much but I think Lance is actually 5' 11" (71") tall.
Brian_T: 71" X 170 lbs. = 2.39
156 lbs / 73.5 inches = 2.12ppvi.
Getting down there! Further proving my underweightness!
10-04-02, 04:14 PM
76" 170 lbs = 2.23
10-04-02, 08:58 PM
2.5, if you include my 15-pound pack.
2.9, if you include my bike.
150 / 68 = 2.20
What do I win?
120 / 67 = 1.79
I hope the smaller the number, the better it is ;)
The Speaker Guy
10-04-02, 11:04 PM
232/68" = 3.411
Low profile Clydesdale
10-05-02, 09:41 AM
I ABSOLUTELY refuse to post my results!!
If 3.41 qualifies as a Clydesdale, I guess that makes me the whole team...
10-05-02, 03:33 PM
Commuter and sometimes runner 2.65
Just for interest the top end for optimum weight of the last Height Weight Chart I saw using this formula is about 2.37.
Isn't there also a calculation based on weight divided by waist size?
10-05-02, 03:36 PM
Good point. In reality that would still be too inacurate. I have a naturally wide set waist. The easiest way to do it would be to calculate lean weight and then do it. That would be far more accurate. Either that or include multiple bodypart circumferences as well as a bone structure section worked in as well. :)
10-06-02, 03:57 PM
I've dug out a health assesment I had carried out a month or so back and here are some more ratios to try with what they said where the ranges
Body Mass Index (BMI) = Weight/(Height)2
Desirable 20 - 25
Moderate Obesity 31-40
Severe Obesity > 40
I scored 29 and got a warning to lose some weight.
Waist-Height ratio = Waist/Height
Undesirable (low) < 40
Desirable 41 - 50
caution 51 - 60
Action Needed > 60
I scored 52
BTW all of these calculations need to be done in metric kgs and metres.
The Body Fat Pertecentage test done (conducted by a machine passing electric current from leg to arm) produced a result of 20% on me. The desirable range is 14 - 19.
Taken together these suggest I need to lose a few pounds, which I agree with.
Maelstrom - This may sound like a stupid question and I'm certainly not have a go, but where do you measure your waist?
I've been 'educated' recently by wife (health care professional) that the waist is measured round the naval, I had always assumed it was around the hips .:rolleyes: . This makes it a fairly accurate indication of excess weight as there is no skeletal structure (apart from the spine) to make a waist naturally large.
Lean weight is a tricky thing I've you have too much weight lean or not the heart and lungs have to work harder to service it. So a different kind of strain is placed on the body.
10-06-02, 05:44 PM
The only thing I don't and have never liked about bmi is its lack of accuracy. It doesn't take into account muscle mass (lean body weigh) or for that matter bone structure. I am considered extremely obese according to the bmi while I am in fact out of shape but far from obese. That said if you of average muscle mass then bmi is ok but really you fat% is all that matters.
Also those fat% monitors I believe are +/- 5% (could be 3 but it is very innaccurate) so that means your fat% range is 15 to 25% (high or low, your choice). The average caliper based test is +/- 3.5% I believe which ends up being far more accurate. But in either case both are by far and away better than the bmi (your average football player, bodybilder, weight lifter would all be obese with the bmi standard. If you do a search when I was first starting in physical training I remember a plan to redesign the BMI to take into account bone structure. I am unsure if this has been completed yet though).
Well I suppose there are disagreements about which is waist. When taking a circumference based fat% test you actually measure the waist AND the naval circumference. Also when my doctor back home measured my 'waist' to see if I was obese (at that point I was huge) she measured my hips and not my stomach.(I call each the opposite of your wife as that was the way I learned how to measure bodyfat% which in reality may not be accurate to the health care way)
I would disagree with the last part. Lean weight is alwasy healthier than fat. And normally most people have to work for any amount of lean weight over their bodies norm which in turn will strengthen the heart and lungs to be able to accept it without strain. The strain placed on the body is from the sport of training to maintain it, not just being muscled.
10-06-02, 08:40 PM
270/74" = 3.64
About 8 1/2 stone, 5' 3" tall. So, about 119lbs/63" = 1.89 (to 2 d.p.)
Sounds about right.
10-07-02, 05:33 AM
10-07-02, 08:05 AM
Six months ago was 3.7
Am now 3.0 :D
141lb - 72ins = 1.98
Help..... the lowest to date, new i was loosing bagfulls of weight with all this summer road biking , but its reaching anorexia proportions :(
10-07-02, 02:12 PM
162/72 = 2.25 - that's as close as I'll ever get to any of Lance's numbers.
10-07-02, 02:24 PM
240/72 + 3.333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
3 is my lucky number:D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.