General Cycling Discussion - Can someone who is not over weight explain this to me?

I am over weight. I have no doubt that those that are not over weight are probably in better shape then me. Even non-cyclists, & maybe even smokers who are not over weight with exception of the lungs. I am talking on the basis of physical ability & mobility. It takes more energy & effort to move more weight then not.

So why do the non-cyclists who barely have an ounce of fat on them think I am in better shape then they are? I bet if they got on a bike they'd kick my ass & out ride me. They think the opposite.

A friend of mine is a cyclist & not at all over weight & does not smoke. I asked him if he was doing the club century this weekend. He stated no because he is not in shape for it. I walked away thinking, why? I'm way over weight compared to him & I'm riding it. I have ridden a little over 700 miles for the year so far, which includes a solo century I rode 2 weeks ago. The club century will be my second in 2 weeks time. Even if he has ridden less miles then me how can he not be in shape or ready for the century?

I do not understand this. Why do those who are not over weight think they are in worse shape then me? I ride slower because I am over weight, but I finish every ride I start unless there is a mechanical problem with the bike. Is it because I might have more "heart" then some of these people? I don't let my weight stop me from riding?

Can a non-over weight person shed some light on this? Those who are over weight can also comment too.

Thinner does not always mean a person is in better shape than someone heavier. I am a thin person and I know riders who are overweight that can outride me any day. Just because you might have a few pounds you could lose does not mean that you are not in as good of shape as someone thinner.

I well remember my first couple of weeks in basic training, way back in '64. Lots of young, athletic-looking lads absolutely dying during our pre-breakfast run and simple PT.
Just because someone appears to be "thin" does not mean they are in shape.

Likewise, look at a lot of pro football players, the lineman-type guys. These guys would be classed as "overweight" by most medical scales, but you wouldn't want to get in their way....

Of course, the price of moving all that weight around is usually severe problems later in life.

Ok I am starting to get the idea that less weight does not equate better shape physically. Thank you. I am losing the weight. Cycling plays a big roll in that. I am 34 years old, 5' 11", large frame & 300 pounds. Most of my weight is above the waist. Because I ride a recumbent my legs are very strong. I bet about 1/4 of my weight is the muscle in my legs, my quads especially, the rest is above.

Those of whom you speed have not developed any endurance in their muscles... While they may look better than you, their Cardio Vascular system is not used to doing "work" in the manner you describe. Therefore you are in better CV shape than they are, while they have a better "shape" than you.

The basic answer is pretty simple really.........
It's all about "conditioning" for the sport or activity at hand.

Cycling will tax your body in certain way,swimming will tax your
body in other different ways. it's all in what you train for or are
used to doing. I'm a Clydesdale but can out do many of my
friend that are thinner on bikes because I've built up the wind
and leg muscles along with good cadio support.

It's as I said....
It's all in what you train ,or have your body do over and over as
work, for. I know guys that can take a 3 ft tree down with an ax
before I can even get my chainsaw started. They run a tree service
so they do this all the time. That's the whole point. Tune your body
to what it is you want /need to do.

6'3" 201 pounds 26 yrs old when I started riding a few months ago I figured "nah I can nail this easy bring it on...." haa right nearly killed myself. Few months later and its another story.. but im still not as good as my eyedoctor who I ride with, he is twice my age 250ish pounds and he rides circles around me.

Your friend probably is in shape to do the century, but not at the level he wants to do it in.

It's all conditioning. I've been on both sides of the issue, currently losing weight.

I've got a friend that's a mountain biker, he's short, like maybe 5-6, and goes at the most 145. I'm not quite 5-10 and about 195, and I beat his ass on the road. he can tear me up on a sprint or a climb, but at the end of a 30 mile ride (that's what I've got him worked up to) he's doing nothing but drafting.

Well, my physical shape has not changed much, but I am in much better cardiovascular shape than last year. Cycling would be a heck of a lot easier if I was thinner, but that is no excuse for not training. Even plenty of thin, in shape people don't have the guts to do a race or century if they don't think they cannot compete in the top 20. Some people would rather not bother if they think they might be embarassed. I personally have no problem if I finish last, as long as I finish.

Thanks for the comments & answers. Keep them coming if you wish.

I think the issue with my friend is me doesn't want to get dropped by the group. Which never bothers me. I always get dropped. I do not mind riding a club ride by myself. In part because of my weight I can not move as fast for a sustained period & probably in part because I ride a recumbent, not nearly as fast on hills. But in a head wind on the flats I catch up with the group all the time if the distance apart is not that far. I also pass the group on a down hill as well if I happen to be with them.

On the longer club rides there are certain stopping points in the towns the ride passes through. So I know they will wait for me. We do not have to stop so I may even keep going through a few of the towns with out stopping to see how long I can stay ahead. If I can stay ahead all the way to the next town I'll wait for the group there. On occasion there are riders who are slower then me, so every now & then I am not tail end charlie.

Pick up the book by Sally Edwards- "Fit But Fat". It probably will help explain quite a bit.

Koffee

Wife and I both did our first century last month, me on road bike and her on a 'bent. We had a couple hours worth of tire troubles early in the ride, and at one point between 70-80 miles we were last, but we were passing people in the last 10 miles and didn't finish last.

Now look at your situation another way. When you've been riding to lose the weight, and get down closer to the level of body mass that these guys are, think about how much better shape you'll be in than they are.

Ok I am starting to get the idea that less weight does not equate better shape physically. Thank you. I am losing the weight. Cycling plays a big roll in that. I am 34 years old, 5' 11", large frame & 300 pounds. Most of my weight is above the waist. Because I ride a recumbent my legs are very strong. I bet about 1/4 of my weight is the muscle in my legs, my quads especially, the rest is above.


You have to understand the implications of being twice as heavy as other people.

Just walking around you do a lot more work than most skinny people. If you asked some skinny 150 lb kid to walk around carrying 150 lbs of potatoes in a backpack, they couldn't do it for long. So every time you walk anywhere, or climb stairs, you get a good cardiovascular workout, and your legs must be huge to carry that weight.

Now, if you try to run, or climb several flights of stairs, or ride uphill, your weight puts you at a huge disadvantage and lots of skinny people will be able to outperform you even without being in particularily good shape. But get on a bike where your weight is supported, and stick to a flat course, and all the work you do every day just moving that heavy body around will pay off and you can do very well. And on the downhill, you rule.

Most of the guys I've known who had to have triple or quadruple bypasses were actually thin (or at least slender).

I'm 30-40 lbs overweight, and I know for a fact that I am in better shape than some thinner people. And worse than others.

NC, if you ride even half as much as you post on here, you're probably doing alright.

Overweight here. I rode home with a thin coworker who wasn't in too bad a shape but hadn't been riding much for a while. I made every effort to go slow. The next day she told all our coworkers I nearly killed her. I think she was embarrassed. I am beginning to notice that I'm passing a lot more people on my rides and nearly all of them are a lot thinner than me. Maybe it helps that I don't smoke.

I've always been slightly overweight (OK, OK, I was very overweight for awhile). However, I'm still able to do whatever I want, be it ride a century, or 20 mile hikes. I guess the 12 years of construction work had some benefit! I've just decided I'll always have a bit of a "pudge".

I guess there would be many reasons. I've seen where women with a high BMI live longer then men with a really low BMI. Not sure that Overweight = Fat. For example I suppose you can be "overwieght" by the age/sex/weight charts, but have a low BMI.

Conditioning is important. Most century plans, entail that you do several hundred miles over a month or 2 before actually doing the century.

I guess there would be many reasons. I've seen where women with a high BMI live longer then men with a really low BMI. Not sure that Overweight = Fat. For example I suppose you can be "overwieght" by the age/sex/weight charts, but have a low BMI.

Conditioning is important. Most century plans, entail that you do several hundred miles over a month or 2 before actually doing the century.
BMI is a crook of guano. BMI does NOT consider lean muscle mass. Large, muscular folks are considered obese when you use BMI. My endroconoligist confirmed this fact. She prefers to measure fat content with BMI to make her diagnoses and recommendation.

I'm not overweight, although I used to be, somewhat, but not very.

People who are not overweight are not used to being slow or last, and it bothers them. For you, finishing the ride is quite an accomplishment. For your thinner friend, finishing last just will not do.

I think your attitude is great because you are not afraid to go for it. Fear of being last is no way to live.

I agree that it's a matter of attitude and state of mind. I'm a former clydesdale, and just recently crossed into my ideal weight range. Previously, I had a determination that pushed me to do long 40 mile rides weekly, and now I'm just as content to do a 30 mile or 15 mile ride.

I'm not overweight and I think I'm in better shape than you. There, feel better?

You are in perfect shape... a perfectly round shape. ;) J/K

Anyway, "shape" can be defined in several ways.

You also have to separate out:
health -> Such as heart, cholesterol, blood pressure, bone density... etc..
cardiovasular -> Oxygen transfer efficiency and duration
muscle tone -> Body fat percentage
Strength -> Muscle power
Mental stamina -> Ability to push oneself

Thin people are not always in shape in all the categories, and fat people aren't always out of shape in all the categories. You probably have better cardio, strength, and mental stamina than some of your skinny counterparts. However, they are just thinner, or have less body fat. Remember, bodybuilders are usually not considered "healthy" even though they are strong and lean. A great athlete will have all of the above categories. You should strive for all of them, to at least the level your own personal genetics allow.

I do not understand this. Why do those who are not over weight think they are in worse shape then me? I ride slower because I am over weight, but I finish every ride I start unless there is a mechanical problem with the bike. Is it because I might have more "heart" then some of these people? I don't let my weight stop me from riding?It's all in the attitude and frame of mind. "In shape" like "BMI" is a relative assessment and in reality, is worthless. Overall fitness might be summarized by combining numerous measurements:

- weight to height (BMI probably least significant factor)
- body-fat percentage
- lean-muscle mass percentage
- resting-HR, AT, VO2-max relative to max-HR
- recovery-rate from max-HR to some lower percentage
- max-strength of muscles relative to their size
- muscle-efficiency (oxygen-consumed for power-output)
- continuous power-output at various time-intervals 3,5,10,20-minutes
- muscle/glycogen recovery between events
- etc.

Comparing a comprehensive list like this between people would be a better indicator of "fitness" or "shape" and even then their performances will vary depending upon the event. Centuries are easy, just eat often (250-300 cal/hr), drink lots, and go at a slow enough pace to not bonk and anyone and everyone can complete a century with minimal training. Centuries tax your energy-delivery system while staying far, far away from the limits of your muscular and aerobic systems. :) So big "overweight" people aren't at any more of a disadvantage in long endurance events as "underweight" folks. If anything, the thin people may not have that much of energy stores and may not be able to go as far before bonking.

On the other hand, performance in other areas such as hill-climbing, average time-trial speed, sprints will be affected differently by weight and body-fat percentage. Two people with identical height and weights of 175lbs may perform completely differently based upon their body-composition and "fitness". A super-lean 175lb 5% body-fat well-trained athlete will completely kick-@ss over someone else of the same BMI but with 20% body-fat and no training. Or conversely, a big 180lb well-trained person with 10% body-fat will walk away from a 150lb untrained person with 20% body-fat in just about all areas of performance.

And the biggest factor in cycling is mental; learning tactics and strategies to maximize performance given your body and equipment. Due to the physics of wind-drag, speed & power, you can do a lot with drafting, learning to spin easy gears to conserve your muscles and not fatigue them. Being able to pace yourself for the course and maintaining proper nutrition. I've known people that have have come out of the gym looking like Greek gods, but on the bike, they just can't cut it. They go all out as fast as they can for any ride, be it a 5-mile stroll to the market or a century. Of course on the century, they're riding back in the broom-wagon by 50-miles... ;)

There are lots of differences between people. Heart size for example. I think Miguel Indurain had a resting pulse less than 20. He just moved more blood around.

Bicycling for 5 hours may not appeal to people.

Thinner does not always mean a person is in better shape than someone heavier. I am a thin person and I know riders who are overweight that can outride me any day. Just because you might have a few pounds you could lose does not mean that you are not in as good of shape as someone thinner.

Agreed I'm "too thin" according to my doc. I just have a high metabolism, which is why I chose cycling. It keeps me in shape, and helps me maintain my "aerodynamic" physique.

I am not considered overweight, my CV health is decent for my age, but could be better:p . I have ridden many a century...in the past and have no desire to ride one now.;) Currently a 25 mile ride fills the bill. Maybe the friend just doesn't want to explain why he isn't interested in riding 100 miles. I used to do club rides and a certain segement of the club could not understand why some of us were not interested in the number of miles we rode, we were more interested in where we rode, mileage was secondary or totaly unimportant to us.

Aaron:)

I've got a little theory about this. I'm 6' 250ish & 23yrs. w/ exception of the last year I haven't really seen my weight change in the last 6 (i hit that height and weight in HS and just haven't changed much) aside from a regular amount of walking, I've had zip exercise. I had to take PE in college (liberal arts...lol) and did a pretty extensive fitness pre and post test for the class. I was out of shape in pretty much every category, especially my upper body, but get this: I maxed out the leg press machine and was more flexible than any guy in the class, 1/4 of which were baseball/soccer players for the school (not div1 or anything, but still lifetime athletes)

I can also carry much heavier things than most "athletic" or in shape people because I lift with my legs and "hang" the items off my arms.

I've been what I'd consider overweight my whole life, why in these few random categories was I better off? partially the theory someone else stated about the body tuning itself to what it does most.

but my theory is this: people who are moderately active and overweight for long periods of time (say...childhood) have a certain built in level of muscular strength/endurance that skinny people just don't get because they don't need as much muscle to do everyday activities. I have to lift more weight getting up out of chairs/climbing stairs/etc than lighter people do so underneath all the fat i've got a stronger foundation.

my gf and I are perfect comparisons for this...she gained a lot of weight after age 18 and could barely lug her books to class in college. I've been fat my whole life and could carry both of our books without complaint from my knees or back.

I'm overweight by most calculations. I weigh 225 and have a large percentage of muscle mass, although I could easily lose another 20lbs of fat. Refusing to diet, I sarted cycling a year ago at 270. It was alot of work.

I still consider hills to be hard, but it's because I take them so fast now. I wait for the skinnies at the top. In the last six months I've yet to be passed on a hill by anyone my age (50). I will get passed by young men on very light bikes. Centuries have become a cake-walk.

It's conditioning, that's all.

Pick up the book by Sally Edwards- "Fit But Fat". It probably will help explain quite a bit.

Koffee

Did you mean Fit And Fat? I looked under the title you mentioned, did not find anything. Looked it up by author & found Fit And Fat. I noticed Sally also has a lot of other books that could do me & probably everyone else here a lot of good.

BMI is a crook of guano. BMI does NOT consider lean muscle mass. Large, muscular folks are considered obese when you use BMI. My endroconoligist confirmed this fact. She prefers to measure fat content with BMI to make her diagnoses and recommendation.

BMI is used because people can sit on their couches and figure it out with a simple calculation. For the kind of people it's aimed at, it's not a bad measurement (though I agree that many equate low BMI with health, which isn't necessarily true). If you are athletic at all, you should ignore BMI.

% body fat is the measurement you want to use, but it's harder to measure accurately (though it's okay *if* your hydration level is similar across measurements and you use it as a relative rather than absolute measure).

Not 2 weeks ago i road with a guy early mid 40s 260 270 pounds and he totaly smoked my 34 year old 150 pound butt. He was about my height so he was easly "over weight" now i am a light smoker he was not that might play a small roll" He did tell me that he cant do huge distances while my skinny rear can do 40 50+ and not break a sweat.

Like koffee said over weight does not mean unfit. I know many people who are by medical book over weight and are much more fit than me.

oh yeh n c if you are by chance trying various diet plans and finding that they suck cause your left feeling hungry try this one if you can find a copy of it. Its called the hilton head matabolism diet. Basically it re trains your bodies matabolism and ramps it up. My mom was on it for a while and you eat pretty much every thing you normaly do it just tells you when to eat it (based on day of the week and meal breakfast lunch dinner etc.)

Yah I just ran my height and weight through a BMI calculator and it told me i was overweight... haa sure I am .... :lol: I think if you want to know go get a physical from a professional.

Hah! The BMI calculator considers me OBESE! And I can average 23mph on a 40K TT and top out my solo sprints around 35mph. Do centuries around 5-hours.... Hills on the other hand... :(

Back when I was playing tennis, I would often get fooled by girls who were overweight. I'd see them and think there's no way they could beat me. But often they would. Why? They may have been carrying extra weight, but for the good players that gave them more power that my skinny self could handle. The best I could do was try to run them around and tucker them out, but in the end their superior power would often get me.

Now that I'm riding, I've learned that many larger riders, men and women, can easily outride me. I may look "more fit", but I'm still slower on the bike. I think it's also about power.

There are many many measures of fitness.

I've met people who looked thin and "fit". I remember two in particular, both attractive girls sunning by the pool, whom I asked if they knew where a good place to run was (I had just moved there.) They looked like they may be the physically active type.

I recieved incredulous looks, with a response of "huh, we don't run." (Insert snide angry valley girl accent there.)

I've known many thin people who were probably "obese" by body fat percentage (mostly women, interestingly enough) who couldn't sustain physical activity if their life depended on it. I've known overweight persons who could bike all day. I've know overweight persons for whom the slightest effort was a monumental undertaking, and their life was a monument to laziness. I've known thin persons who could bike and run all day.

It all depends, my friend. You probably are in better cardiovascular shape than many people thinner than you if you've been biking for a while. In time the weight will probably depart too...and then you'll be a thin in shape person scoffing at all the thin lazy people.

In the meantime, know that in spite of your weight your effort is paying off in ways that aren't necessarily visible yet. Some people are blessed with trim metabolisms...that doesn't make them better, and certainly doesn't put them in better shape (fitness). Be proud of your hard work and effort.

I've known many thin people who were probably "obese" by body fat percentage (mostly women, interestingly enough) who couldn't sustain physical activity if their life depended on it. I've known a tonne of 100-lb sorority chics like this too. In their extreme low-calorie diets (1000 cal/day), they end up losing a lot of muscle along with the fat. So they're at the same 25-30% body-fat as a larger girl. AND they have double-chins! Bizarre looking on a 100-lb waif. But with so little muscle, they were complete wimps when it came to anything that required physical exertion. Heck, they'd DRIVE their cars the long way around campus to get to class rather than bike the 0.75 miles... :(

I've known a tonne of 100-lb sorority chics like this too. In their extreme low-calorie diets (1000 cal/day), they end up losing a lot of muscle along with the fat. So they're at the same 25-30% body-fat as a larger girl. AND they have double-chins! Bizarre looking on a 100-lb waif. But with so little muscle, they were complete wimps when it came to anything that required physical exertion. Heck, they'd DRIVE their cars the long way around campus to get to class rather than bike the 0.75 miles... :(

Low any thing diets are a bad idea imo. Your bdy burns fat for energy it also uses carbs and sugars etc for energy (all diffrent types). Fact is when you low somethign diet your doign your self more harm than good in the end especially if your active. If all your going to do is sit and watch tv play computer games or type on a computer at work then by all means low fat diet all you want. You wont need the fat in your diet to use for energy.

Did you mean Fit And Fat? I looked under the title you mentioned, did not find anything. Looked it up by author & found Fit And Fat. I recommend Fit or Fat by Dr. Covert Bailey. The most recent revision is called The Ultimate Fit or Fat. Covert is a nutrional biochemist and relates a fair intro to how your body uses the various types of fuel you feed it. He also provides a decent understanding of how your body changes with exercise and how you can select exercises to produce the changes you want. The book is an easy read and can be had through the amazon.com affiliates for $5 including shipping.

"Getting in shape" generally means two things: 1) Increasing cardiovascular capacity, and 2) Losing weight. ("Getting in shape for X" will usually include the strengthing of certain muscles.) Exercise can do both. Aerobic exercise increases CVC if done right, and cycling is very good for that. All types of exercise burn calories. The other factor for losing weight is to moderate your intake of calories. Covert has another book about that, but it boils down to, "Don't eat fat." Fat is highly concentrated calories.

Another point he makes is that body shape does not relate much to fitness. For instance, some once-fit people with Greek-god physiques can become very unfit without gaining a pound or changing physique. As under-used muscles atrophy, they become infused with fat. (They might actually lose weight as the muscles become less dense.) That will show up as a decrease in LBM (lean body mass), but outwardly the person will look at 'fit' as ever. Likewise some pear-shaped people can become very fit yet never lose the pear shape. Unfortunate, but true.

In the past six months I've lost 'only' about 15 lbs (to 240), but I figure I've "moved" another 10 lbs from fat to muscle. More importantly, I can now climb hills I would have had trouble walking a bike up. I'll never look like Apollo, but compared to most of the population, I am a Greek god. :D