I don't know if this is off topic, but I figure people in here think more about weight than others.

I've seen the full range of people from the 125 lb pros to the 250 lb weekend warriors.

Is there a common weight when a rider is considered to be big or heavy? At least in terms of equipment/equipment abuse.

I'm only 5'9" and 180 lbs. and I think I still fit into the big mold while not being a big person.

I don;t think theere is a clear answer for that... liek you I ahve seen pros in the 130's, and guys and girls in my riding club 250 lbs, or more...

as far as being heavier and equipment abuse... it isn;t a real consideration unless you want to ride some lightweight low spoke wheels... I dunno if I'd trust them unless you were below 170....

at 5'9" and 180, you are not HUGE... I am 5'10" and used to weigh around 195... I'm down to about 160 now.. which is about the right weight for me...

I know much heavier people than you who regularly ride, and don't have too many mechanical problems because of it...

I hope that helped

jeff

I agree that I am not huge (or possibly even big), but I did manage to break some spokes when I was more toward 190.

I've moved back to more durable wheels (better excercise anyway), but I am just sort of curious.

For a cyclist, you're on the big side. Your current Body Mass Index (BMI) is 26.6, which qualifies as "Overweight" per the Centers for Disease Control/World Health Organization (cutoff is 25.0), or "Marginally Overweight" by Steven Halls, MD (http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/bmi.htm) (an excellent resource for understanding BMI).

Losing 10 pounds would be like cutting your bike weight roughly in half, and you would be a lot quicker on climbs.

Ignore bmi. Most useless measurement ever. If you have any degree of muscle mass beyond the average guy the bmi is garbage.

I personally would say 200 is big for a rider. Below that a most parts are made for the 'average' person in mind. 170 to 180. I ride in the ryno class so for me 200 is still small, but on average bikes and bike parts start to break more the closer you get to 200 and over.

I'm 30-40 lbs heavier than most of my riding buddies at 190lbs. So I suppose it is relative to the company you keep.

Most cyclists hang in the 150-180 range.

Sam I like your signature. :beer:

Thanks, that is the kind of info I was curious about.

I agree about BMI. The last time I was at 165 I was also at >6% bodyfat. Muscle or not, I've got big bones! How I love that line... That and BMI dosen't have much to do with the strength of bike gear.

Ignore bmi. Most useless measurement ever. If you have any degree of muscle mass beyond the average guy the bmi is garbage.

I personally would say 200 is big for a rider. Below that a most parts are made for the 'average' person in mind. 170 to 180. I ride in the ryno class so for me 200 is still small, but on average bikes and bike parts start to break more the closer you get to 200 and over.

I'm not sure I follow you. In what sense is BMI the "most useless measurement ever"?

I've been doing quite a bit of research on BMI recently, and it seems that the scientific evidence supports its use in assessing obesity, and in predicting relative risk of mortality (especially as it relates to cardiovascular disease, strokes, and cancer).

In October of '99, the New England Journal of Medicine published the results of a very large scale study titled "BODY-MASS INDEX AND MORTALITY IN A PROSPECTIVE COHORT OF U.S. ADULTS". The conclusion of this study states, "The risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, or other diseases increases throughout the range of moderate and severe overweight for both men and women in all age groups."

With regards to specific BMI values and mortality, the study found that "In healthy people who had never smoked, the nadir of the curve for body-mass index and mortality was found at a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women." (in other words, the lowest risk of mortality for men was around BMI=24.2, while women had the lowest risk around 22.7).

This was a very large prospective study of over a million adults. Presumably, many folks in the study had some "degree of muscle mass beyond the average guy".

Of course, additional research is needed to confirm the applicability of the results for different sub-populations. In particular, it would be interesting to see a study of cyclists or other endurance athletes, comparing mortality rates to see if BMI predicts higher death rates in people who are otherwise fit, but heavy.

SanDiegoSteve - your BMI of 26.6 is still pretty close to the low point of the mortaility curve. It doesn't really start to turn upwards until BMI gets near or above 30. Of course, if your main aim is to be faster on the bike, then getting your weight down will certainly help with that!

Simple ssp, take me at my leanest I was 240 with 15% bf (not low but low enough for me as an endomorph). Thats 36pounds of fat. Remove that in its entirety (almost humanly impossible) and I have an average bmi(with 0 body fat). Sorry bmi does not take into account muscle period. It assume an average which in athletes does not exist. In order to make bmi more accurate they would have to take into account muscle mass and bone structure.

I don't care about statistical averages as I am not statistically average. Neither were most of my friends in football or basketball. We were all generally 'overweight' or 'mobidly (sp) obese' according to the bmi, when in fact we were mostly lean atheletes (with the odd football played being big)...on average it may work...but that isn't good enough. Most good doctors depending on your mass will either use it or not. My doctor back home refused to use it for the above reason, but was able to apply it to my gf.

So saying it is useless was maybe overkill, I just like to make sure people realize it is a very innacurate way to make sure you are normal. It would be interesting to see a study of bmi on strength and power athletes as well as another one on endurance athletes.

SSP,

your info on BMI is interesting. If it is crap or not, I am not one to say. But everyone who looks at me thins I am very lean (particularly my mother in law), and the BMI has me as overweight. What about my sub 10% bodyfat? I've got big bones (no really) and I surf a lot, so my arms have a fair amount of muscle. I have to weigh in for sailing regattas, so I do watch my diet.

Ultimately I don't care about BMI or being fat. Ones enjoyment goes beyond all of that. My buddy and I were working a cool climb in Owens river gorge where the skinny sport climbers flock. The climb was a good, steep 12b, meaning you wouldn't expect a chunky guy to even try it. UP comes this guy who is probably 220+ and not to tall. He didn't give a hoot about BMI and sent the thing. He had a great attitude and drive. That is what counts. And too little body fat leads too all kinds of joint problems for me. I have to stay above 6% if I am playing hard.



So, my original question really is about what the equipment engineers design the gear for. These parts are clearly at a level were there are design differences for big vs. normal riders (not in the direct drive train since muscle plays more, but in wheels, seats, seat posts, forks, ...).

All of this other stuff is interesting, what I would expect for a post in the nutrition arena :) .

Simple ssp, take me at my leanest I was 240 with 15% bf (not low but low enough for me as an endomorph). Thats 36pounds of fat. Remove that in its entirety (almost humanly impossible) and I have an average bmi(with 0 body fat). Sorry bmi does not take into account muscle period. It assume an average which in athletes does not exist. In order to make bmi more accurate they would have to take into account muscle mass and bone structure.

I don't care about statistical averages as I am not statistically average. Neither were most of my friends in football or basketball. We were all generally 'overweight' or 'mobidly (sp) obese' according to the bmi, when in fact we were mostly lean atheletes (with the odd football played being big)...on average it may work...but that isn't good enough. Most good doctors depending on your mass will either use it or not. My doctor back home refused to use it for the above reason, but was able to apply it to my gf.

So saying it is useless was maybe overkill, I just like to make sure people realize it is a very innacurate way to make sure you are normal. It would be interesting to see a study of bmi on strength and power athletes as well as another one on endurance athletes.

Agreed, re: highly muscular folks. Most of the medical stuff I've read recently admits that BMI is not a valid indicator of obesity for highly muscular folks, and caution doctors to not depend on it alone for those folks. But, those folks are probably no more than 5% of the population, which means that BMI is applicable to the rest. And, clearly, BMI has absolutely nothing to do with "fitness".

Most of the medical stuff I've read recently admits that BMI is not a valid indicator of obesity for highly muscular folks, and caution doctors to not depend on it alone for those folks.

And what would highly muscular be considered?

And what would highly muscular be considered?

Not sure...I assume if people compare you to the Incredible Hulk, and you have 10% body fat, that would qualify. Otherwise, it's pretty subjective...at least, I haven't seen any objective criteria.

The US Dept. of Defense uses BMI as its first line standard in evaluating troops for fitness of duty. For troops that exceed the BMI standards, they use this body fat percentage calculation (http://www.he.net/%7Ezone/prothd2.html) to account for troops who may be big due to muscles. Supposedly, this allows them to filter out the heavy fit from the fat.

That is an acceptable system. Not overly accurate but at least it tells you where you stand. That is the sysem I used to use if I didn't have calipers near by. There are 3 or 4 variations and I believe there tell you within a +/- 3.5% accuracy of your bf %.

I know a 300lb rider.

My brother is 235 lbs and he commutes everywhere on his bike, he doesn't even own a car. He's gone through a lot of spokes and a few rims and his frame had to be repaired a couple of times but his bike cost $250 new.

I was 290 when I bought my Mountain bike. I got the Police model Trek, I figured that if cops could ride down stairs and over curbs with this, that it would put up with my weight.
I'm down to 245 now and bought a Surly Cross Check. This bike, too, is pretty heavy duty.
If I can get to 175-195, I may go for a real road bike.

I'm 290 and I ride a Palomar GT mountain bike. I've toured on it twice and it holds up fine. I'm starting my commuting phase now :)

Screw the BMI stuff - I'm 6'5", 290, average 20mph, resting heart rate in the low 40's, did over 2k miles last year. When I first started riding I was popping spokes like it was my job, but got the right wheels and haven't had any problems since. I love coming up behind beanpole riders and yell, "back left!", as I pass by.

Screw the BMI stuff - I'm 6'5", 290, average 20mph, resting heart rate in the low 40's, did over 2k miles last year. When I first started riding I was popping spokes like it was my job, but got the right wheels and haven't had any problems since. I love coming up behind beanpole riders and yell, "back left!", as I pass by.

I call BS on this post. What do you ride? Your resting heart rate is in the low 40s!? You obtained this with only 2k miles? Yeah right. :rolleyes:

I was 290 when I bought my Mountain bike. I got the Police model Trek, I figured that if cops could ride down stairs and over curbs with this, that it would put up with my weight.
I'm down to 245 now and bought a Surly Cross Check. This bike, too, is pretty heavy duty.
If I can get to 175-195, I may go for a real road bike.

I was also 290 when i got me mountain goat, now im 210. No mech problems. I also have that and a singlespeed road bike. Road bike is a blast, and if you want something that handles like a scalpel, go for a snappy, light road bike. Theres just something about that SS too.... :D

Trust me, for a saweet ride and workout, ride any of your old routes with a singlespeed and see how hard your breathing...

And, Finally, regarding the resting rate of 40 and the 290 pounds after riding "2000" miles...i doubt even lance has a resting rate of 40. When i was 290(and yes, i am big boned, and i am 6'2") i would lose my breath thinking about walking, let alone hammering on a bicycle. So, definately throwing the BS flag on that guy...

I call BS on this post. What do you ride? Your resting heart rate is in the low 40s!? You obtained this with only 2k miles? Yeah right. :rolleyes:

I'm inclined to agree. A guy that big would need to put out around 327 watts, to average 20 mph on rolling terrain with his hands on the hoods. In the drops would still require 277 watts. Not that it couldn't be done, but in the last 5 years I've not been passed once by a guy who was pushing 300 pounds.

For races the Clydesdale class is anyone over 200 lb's for men, "Athenas" for women is (I think) 145 lb's. There's a good Clydesdale forum at mtbr.

I call BS on this post. What do you ride? Your resting heart rate is in the low 40s!? You obtained this with only 2k miles? Yeah right. :rolleyes:Whatever - I was just trying to give another big guy some encouragement that us big guys can cycle. If you don't believe it, who cares.

"Screw the BMI stuff - I'm 6'5", 290, average 20mph, resting heart rate in the low 40's, did over 2k miles last year."

- I agree that for many 'normal' people BMI is not a good measurement for comparison, theres just too many body types out there

- I'm not as quick to throw the BS flag on this guy.
1) It doesn't say how long these average rides are. Many clydesdale triathletes in a half-iron distance race will average 20+ mph after swimming 1.2 miles and then go on to run 2 hour half marathons.
2)A resting heart rate in the low 40's is rare, but not unheard of, esp in long-time endurance athletes.
(BTW, LA's RHR is listed as between 32-34 by his coach (http://www.lancearmstrong.com/lance/online2.nsf/html/FAQ))
3)He never said all of this fitness was gained over 2k miles. Only that he rode 2k this year.

- I agree that for many 'normal' people BMI is not a good measurement for comparison, theres just too many body types out there

- I'm not as quick to throw the BS flag on this guy.
1) It doesn't say how long these average rides are. Many clydesdale triathletes in a half-iron distance race will average 20+ mph after swimming 1.2 miles and then go on to run 2 hour half marathons.
2)A resting heart rate in the low 40's is rare, but not unheard of, esp in long-time endurance athletes.
(BTW, LA's RHR is listed as between 32-34 by his coach (http://www.lancearmstrong.com/lance/online2.nsf/html/FAQ))
3)He never said all of this fitness was gained over 2k miles. Only that he rode 2k this year.
Thank you for considering - My average ride is 35 miles, and I don't ride all year, only from about this time of year through November 1, and I do run, about 30 miles a week, including an average of 7 10K's during the running season. I also do full routine weightlifting about 4 times/week.

- I agree that for many 'normal' people BMI is not a good measurement for comparison, theres just too many body types out there

- I'm not as quick to throw the BS flag on this guy.
1) It doesn't say how long these average rides are. Many clydesdale triathletes in a half-iron distance race will average 20+ mph after swimming 1.2 miles and then go on to run 2 hour half marathons.
2)A resting heart rate in the low 40's is rare, but not unheard of, esp in long-time endurance athletes.
(BTW, LA's RHR is listed as between 32-34 by his coach (http://www.lancearmstrong.com/lance/online2.nsf/html/FAQ))
3)He never said all of this fitness was gained over 2k miles. Only that he rode 2k this year.

He said 2K LAST year not THIS year.

I am 6'3'' and currently at 185lbs. I was 200 befor CX season this fall/winter. Now starting on the road again I think I can stand to lose a few more pounds. But how does one know what your target weight should be? I know for a fact though that losing 15lbs has made climbing SO much easier. My new bike is aluminum carbon frame w/ Bontrager race wheels. So far so good. I've never really had any out of the ordinary mechanical problems with any of my bikes in the past. btw I average about 18mps on a 40mile ride and my resting heart rate was 48 yesterday morning.

"I average about 18mps on a 40mile ride and my resting heart rate was 48 yesterday morning."

If I averaged 18 miles per second, I think that NASA would want to talk to me.

ok, so 2k LAST year. either way the point still holds. he didnt gain all of his fitness in 2k miles, it was only mentioned to show he was a consistent rider. in fact, 2k miles/year, while a good amount, is by no means excessive.

I am 6'3'' and currently at 185lbs. I was 200 befor CX season this fall/winter. Now starting on the road again I think I can stand to lose a few more pounds. But how does one know what your target weight should be? I know for a fact though that losing 15lbs has made climbing SO much easier. My new bike is aluminum carbon frame w/ Bontrager race wheels. So far so good. I've never really had any out of the ordinary mechanical problems with any of my bikes in the past. btw I average about 18mps on a 40mile ride and my resting heart rate was 48 yesterday morning.

re: "how does one know what your target weight should be?"

Funny you should ask. I'm currently hard at work on a weight manangement program (to be called WeightWare) that will help answer that question. The program includes a Body Mass Index calculator that can also show you your "weight percentile", i.e. how your weight compares to others of your gender, height, and age.

Your current BMI is 23.1, which is pretty good for a cyclist. If you'll post your age, I'll post your weight percentile.

"I average about 18mps on a 40mile ride and my resting heart rate was 48 yesterday morning."

If I averaged 18 miles per second, I think that NASA would want to talk to me.
LOL oops

re: "how does one know what your target weight should be?"

Funny you should ask. I'm currently hard at work on a weight manangement program (to be called WeightWare) that will help answer that question. The program includes a Body Mass Index calculator that can also show you your "weight percentile", i.e. how your weight compares to others of your gender, height, and age.

Your current BMI is 23.1, which is pretty good for a cyclist. If you'll post your age, I'll post your weight percentile.

34

thanks ssp

34

thanks ssp

A 34 year old male, 75" tall, who weighs 185 lbs, is in the 27th percentile for weight, based on US averages.

At 180 lbs, you would be in the 22nd percentile, with a BMI of 22.5 (considered in the Normal Range).

At 175 lbs, you would be in the 18th percentile, with a BMI of 21.9 (still considered in the Normal Range).

ok, so 2k LAST in fact, 2k miles/year, while a good amount, is by no means excessive.

Thanks for proving my point.

I call BS on this post. What do you ride? Your resting heart rate is in the low 40s!? You obtained this with only 2k miles? Yeah right. :rolleyes:

I don't know if he's not necessarily telling the truth. I'm 255 and very active and my resting rate has been somewhere south of 45 lately (44 just now). He could be telling the truth.

Why would he want to lie about it? If you're big that just means you're big, not necessarily unfit.

re: "how does one know what your target weight should be?"

Funny you should ask. I'm currently hard at work on a weight manangement program (to be called WeightWare) that will help answer that question. The program includes a Body Mass Index calculator that can also show you your "weight percentile", i.e. how your weight compares to others of your gender, height, and age.

Your current BMI is 23.1, which is pretty good for a cyclist. If you'll post your age, I'll post your weight percentile.

Forget the BMI. It has absolutely no meaning for a biker/weightlifter. Most muscular weight lifters, with very little bodyfat, come out as obese on the BMI.

This is just the old insurance physical tables with new clothing. Nothing magical. Instead pay attention to body fat percentage, general fitness, muscularity, etc.

It is NOT some magic number, and has been highly over publicized and over rated.

Forget the BMI. It has absolutely no meaning for a biker/weightlifter. Most muscular weight lifters, with very little bodyfat, come out as obese on the BMI.

This is just the old insurance physical tables with new clothing. Nothing magical. Instead pay attention to body fat percentage, general fitness, muscularity, etc.

It is NOT some magic number, and has been highly over publicized and over rated.

Agreed, BMI is not a magic number. But, it has been statistically correlated with mortality and disease risk. The simple fact is that folks with higher BMI's die sooner than folks with lower BMI's, on average. Typically, this is due to heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.

Do there need to be more studies of highly muscular, and very short people (i.e., folks who might be fit, but have a high BMI)? Yes, absolutely. But, the number of people in the general population who have BMI > 30 due to musculature and not fat is very, very small.

As for cyclists...BMI can be an important predictor of performance, especially with respect to riding uphill. That's why pro riders do everything they can to get their weight down...so they can climb better.

many times it looks to me like you have to be anorexic and under wieght to hit that bmi.

I used to think so too...but, I think that view has more to do with the general "super-sizing" of the population. We've come to expect that big is normal. Look at crowd pictures from the first half of the 20th century, compared to similar pictures today. On average, we're all a lot bigger now than we were back then.

Agreed, BMI is not a magic number. But, it has been statistically correlated with mortality and disease risk. The simple fact is that folks with higher BMI's die sooner than folks with lower BMI's, on average. Typically, this is due to heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.

Do there need to be more studies of highly muscular, and very short people (i.e., folks who might be fit, but have a high BMI)? Yes, absolutely. But, the number of people in the general population who have BMI > 30 due to musculature and not fat is very, very small.

As for cyclists...BMI can be an important predictor of performance, especially with respect to riding uphill. That's why pro riders do everything they can to get their weight down...so they can climb better.

The problem with indexes such as the BMI is that they tend to get applied without any consideration of individual differences, such as automatically rating up the cost of an insurance policy for a weight lifter with 10% body fat and lots of muscles.

As far as correlation, folks with big feet are correlated with folks having high IQ's. Should we then measure someone's foot size to determine intelligence?

There is a close relationship between the salaries of Presbyterian ministers in Massachusetts and the price of rum in Havana.

There is a close correlation between the number of fire engines at the site of a fire and the damage caused by the fire. Therefore, one might conclude that the fire engines caused the damage.

For more on spurious correlations, see:

http://www.burns.com/wcbspurcorl.htm

Please cite your source for the correlation you suggested.

So far, you have shown no causal relationship between BMI and your supposed correlation. Consider:

1. Perhaps those with "appropriate" BMI's smoke less cigarettes, and less cigarette smoking is the causal factor.

2. Perhaps those with "appropriate" BMI's exercise more, and exercise is the causal factor of your supposed correlation.

Or any of a myriad possibilities.

Correlation, by itself, proves nothing.

According to the National Institutes of Health (http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun98/nhlbi-17.htm ):

"These individuals [people with high BMI's] are at increased risk of illness from hypertension, lipid disorders, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis, sleep apnea and respiratory problems, and certain cancers. The total costs attributable to obesity-related disease approaches $100 billion annually."

"The guidelines are based on the most extensive review of the scientific evidence on overweight and obesity conducted to date. The review involved a systematic analysis of the published scientific literature to address 35 key clinical questions on how different treatment strategies affect weight loss and how weight control affects the major risk factors for heart disease and stroke as well as other chronic diseases and conditions."

"The guidelines present a new approach for the assessment of overweight and obesity and establish principles of safe and effective weight loss. According to the guidelines, assessment of overweight involves evaluation of three key measures--body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and a patient's risk factors for diseases and conditions associated with obesity."

"The guidelines' definition of overweight is based on research which relates body mass index to risk of death and illness. The 24-member expert panel that developed the guidelines identified overweight as a BMI of 25 to 29.9 and obesity as a BMI of 30 and above, which is consistent with the definitions used in many other countries, and supports the Dietary Guidelines for Americans issued in 1995. BMI describes body weight relative to height and is strongly correlated with total body fat content in adults. According to the guidelines, a BMI of 30 is about 30 pounds overweight and is equivalent to 221 pounds in a 6' person and to 186 pounds in someone who is 5'6". The BMI numbers apply to both men and women. Some very muscular people may have a high BMI without health risks."

""The evidence is solid that the risk for various cardiovascular and other diseases rises significantly when someone's BMI is over 25 and that risk of death increases as the body mass index reaches and surpasses 30," said Dr. F. Xavier Pi Sunyer, chairman of the expert panel and director of the Obesity Research Center, St. Luke's/Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City. "

"According to a new analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), as BMI levels rise, average blood pressure and total cholesterol levels increase and average HDL or good cholesterol levels decrease. Men in the highest obesity category have more than twice the risk of hypertension, high blood cholesterol, or both compared to men of normal weight. Women in the highest obesity category have four times the risk of either or both of these risk factors."


As you probably noticed the report does say that "Some very muscular people may have a high BMI without health risks". Unfortunately, there is an epidimic of obesity in this country, and the number of people in this category is very, very small. For some people, BMI may not be appropriate, but for 95% of the population it is a statistically significant, easily calculated predictor of relative fatness and related health risks.

Sam I like your signature. :beer:
I concur!!!

Thank you for your reply.

On my weight lifting forums, at least, it is not a "very, very small" number of folks who have been torpedoed by the BMI. Most have. But, you are right, there are not a lot of weight lifters in the world!

Thank you for your reply.

On my weight lifting forums, at least, it is not a "very, very small" number of folks who have been torpedoed by the BMI. Most have. But, you are right, there are not a lot of weight lifters in the world!

The US Dept. of Defense has a similar problem with BMI. They use BMI as part of their routine health assessments, and some "beefier" troops were getting pegged as "obese". So, they instituted a backup body fat analysis...if your BMI is too high, but your body fat is OK, then you're OK. I would hope that insurance companies would do something similar.

According to the National Institutes of Health (http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun98/nhlbi-17.htm ):

"These individuals [people with high BMI's] are at increased risk of illness from hypertension, lipid disorders, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis, sleep apnea and respiratory problems, and certain cancers. The total costs attributable to obesity-related disease approaches $100 billion annually."

"The guidelines are based on the most extensive review of the scientific evidence on overweight and obesity conducted to date. The review involved a systematic analysis of the published scientific literature to address 35 key clinical questions on how different treatment strategies affect weight loss and how weight control affects the major risk factors for heart disease and stroke as well as other chronic diseases and conditions."

"The guidelines present a new approach for the assessment of overweight and obesity and establish principles of safe and effective weight loss. According to the guidelines, assessment of overweight involves evaluation of three key measures--body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and a patient's risk factors for diseases and conditions associated with obesity."

"The guidelines' definition of overweight is based on research which relates body mass index to risk of death and illness. The 24-member expert panel that developed the guidelines identified overweight as a BMI of 25 to 29.9 and obesity as a BMI of 30 and above, which is consistent with the definitions used in many other countries, and supports the Dietary Guidelines for Americans issued in 1995. BMI describes body weight relative to height and is strongly correlated with total body fat content in adults. According to the guidelines, a BMI of 30 is about 30 pounds overweight and is equivalent to 221 pounds in a 6' person and to 186 pounds in someone who is 5'6". The BMI numbers apply to both men and women. Some very muscular people may have a high BMI without health risks."

""The evidence is solid that the risk for various cardiovascular and other diseases rises significantly when someone's BMI is over 25 and that risk of death increases as the body mass index reaches and surpasses 30," said Dr. F. Xavier Pi Sunyer, chairman of the expert panel and director of the Obesity Research Center, St. Luke's/Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City. "

"According to a new analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), as BMI levels rise, average blood pressure and total cholesterol levels increase and average HDL or good cholesterol levels decrease. Men in the highest obesity category have more than twice the risk of hypertension, high blood cholesterol, or both compared to men of normal weight. Women in the highest obesity category have four times the risk of either or both of these risk factors."


As you probably noticed the report does say that "Some very muscular people may have a high BMI without health risks". Unfortunately, there is an epidimic of obesity in this country, and the number of people in this category is very, very small. For some people, BMI may not be appropriate, but for 95% of the population it is a statistically significant, easily calculated predictor of relative fatness and related health risks.

I am too lazy to look for the referrence now, but there is the study out there which is based on statistics only and it indicates recovery rate as the single MOST important factor of all. They have measured I think about 5000 people's recovery rate, how fast heart rate comes back to normal after exercising, and have found that among the people who have needed more than two minutes to drop the rate by at least 40 bpm (do not take this numbers as carved, I might have forgotten the exact values), the death rate in five years was several times, again several times, higher than among the "fast recoverers". Nothing very new, but interesting.

However, I still agree that the BMI is an important indicator. Most people like to beleive that the calculation is too strict and that they too belong to the more masculin part of the population. Sorry, the news is bad, I am afraid. Altough some scales are not calibrated indeed and show more weight than what really is on them, in most casses it is too much to eat and to little exercise what "brakes" the scale. Regards,

D.

Agreed, re: highly muscular folks. Most of the medical stuff I've read recently admits that BMI is not a valid indicator of obesity for highly muscular folks, and caution doctors to not depend on it alone for those folks. But, those folks are probably no more than 5% of the population, which means that BMI is applicable to the rest. And, clearly, BMI has absolutely nothing to do with "fitness".


When I used to work foundry, I was one of those cases...I just think only a fraction of the poeple who fit into this category ever got into the cases for BMI accuracy.

I was 5'9" 194 lbs, 30" waist, and could bench 250 any way you wanted....basically I was supertwig :D

BMI is merely a guideline, and it does work for some folks, but I wouldn't use it for anyone who does sports...skinfold is a more accurate measurement than BMI.

Agreed, BMI is not a magic number. But, it has been statistically correlated with mortality and disease risk. The simple fact is that folks with higher BMI's die sooner than folks with lower BMI's, on average. Typically, this is due to heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.

Do there need to be more studies of highly muscular, and very short people (i.e., folks who might be fit, but have a high BMI)? Yes, absolutely. But, the number of people in the general population who have BMI > 30 due to musculature and not fat is very, very small.

As for cyclists...BMI can be an important predictor of performance, especially with respect to riding uphill. That's why pro riders do everything they can to get their weight down...so they can climb better.

Lifted directly from USENET
Mike Kruger
Blog: http://journals.aol.com/mikekr/ZbicyclistsZlog/

- my apologies

"The Guardian has an excerpt from a new book by Paul Campos, "The Obesity
Myth". The excerpt is titled "The big fat con story."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1200549,00.html

There are some interesting points made about the relative unimportance of
body weight per se; I realize that the Guardian is not a medical journal
(and I have no idea of Campos's credentials), but it makes interesting
reading.

Of most relevance here are the following paragraphs on the relative
importance of overweight versus exercise:

"Over the past 20 years, scientists have gathered a wealth of evidence
indicating that cardiovascular and metabolic fitness, and the activity
levels that promote such fitness, are far more important predictors of both
overall health and mortality risk than weight. Yet none of the studies most
often cited for the proposition that fat kills makes any serious attempt to
control for these variables.

"The most extensive work of this sort has been carried out by Steven Blair
and his colleagues at Dallas's Cooper Institute, involving more than 70,000
people. What they have discovered is that, quite simply, when researchers
take into account the activity levels and resulting fitness of the people
being studied, body mass appears to have no relevance to health whatsoever.
In Blair's studies, obese people who engage in at least moderate levels of
physical activity have around one half the mortality rate of sedentary
people who maintain supposedly ideal weight levels.

"Similarly, a 1999 Cooper Institute study involving 22,000 men found the
highest death rate among sedentary men with waist measurements under 34
inches, while the lowest death rate was found among fit men with waist
measurements of 40 inches or more. A 1995 Blair study found that improved
fitness (ie, going from "unfit" to "fit"), with the latter requiring a level
of exercise equivalent to going for a brisk half-hour walk four or five
times per week, reduced subsequent mortality rates by 50%. As Blair himself
puts it, Americans have "a misdirected obsession with weight and weight
loss. The focus is all wrong. It's fitness that is the key." "

Other interesting claims: (1) people who are overweight have less problem
with osteoporesis, (2) The diet Hillary put Bill Clinton on might have been
partly responsible for his obsession with Monica Lewinsky."

Lifted directly from USENET
Mike Kruger
Blog: http://journals.aol.com/mikekr/ZbicyclistsZlog/

- my apologies

"The Guardian has an excerpt from a new book by Paul Campos, "The Obesity
Myth". The excerpt is titled "The big fat con story."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1200549,00.html

There are some interesting points made about the relative unimportance of
body weight per se; I realize that the Guardian is not a medical journal
(and I have no idea of Campos's credentials), but it makes interesting
reading.

Of most relevance here are the following paragraphs on the relative
importance of overweight versus exercise:

"Over the past 20 years, scientists have gathered a wealth of evidence
indicating that cardiovascular and metabolic fitness, and the activity
levels that promote such fitness, are far more important predictors of both
overall health and mortality risk than weight. Yet none of the studies most
often cited for the proposition that fat kills makes any serious attempt to
control for these variables.

"The most extensive work of this sort has been carried out by Steven Blair
and his colleagues at Dallas's Cooper Institute, involving more than 70,000
people. What they have discovered is that, quite simply, when researchers
take into account the activity levels and resulting fitness of the people
being studied, body mass appears to have no relevance to health whatsoever.
In Blair's studies, obese people who engage in at least moderate levels of
physical activity have around one half the mortality rate of sedentary
people who maintain supposedly ideal weight levels.

"Similarly, a 1999 Cooper Institute study involving 22,000 men found the
highest death rate among sedentary men with waist measurements under 34
inches, while the lowest death rate was found among fit men with waist
measurements of 40 inches or more. A 1995 Blair study found that improved
fitness (ie, going from "unfit" to "fit"), with the latter requiring a level
of exercise equivalent to going for a brisk half-hour walk four or five
times per week, reduced subsequent mortality rates by 50%. As Blair himself
puts it, Americans have "a misdirected obsession with weight and weight
loss. The focus is all wrong. It's fitness that is the key." "

Other interesting claims: (1) people who are overweight have less problem
with osteoporesis, (2) The diet Hillary put Bill Clinton on might have been
partly responsible for his obsession with Monica Lewinsky."

Yes...there appears to be some evidence that physical fitness ameliorates some of the negative health effects of high BMI. Clearly, more research needs to be done in this area (in particular, studies comparing the benefits of low BMI but sedentary people, against high BMI but active people). Unfortunately, America is beset by an epidemic of fat couch potatoes, not fat fitness buffs. And, although physical fitness may help overweight folks maintain cardiovascular health, I fail to see how it can have much impact on other obesity related problems (e.g., diabetes).

Campos appears to have an agenda, and a book to sell.

Those studies, while interesting and worthy of additional research, were pretty small. Compare those numbers to this meta-study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which based their conclusions on a study of one million subjects:

New England Journal of Medicine
Volume 341:1097-1105 October 7, 1999 Number 15

Body-Mass Index and Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of U.S. Adults

Eugenia E. Calle, Ph.D., Michael J. Thun, M.D., Jennifer M. Petrelli, M.P.H., Carmen Rodriguez, M.D., M.P.H., and Clark W. Heath, M.D.

ABSTRACT

Background Body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) is known to be associated with overall mortality. We investigated the effects of age, race, sex, smoking status, and history of disease on the relation between body-mass index and mortality.

Methods
In a prospective study of more than 1 million adults in the United States (457,785 men and 588,369 women), 201,622 deaths occurred during 14 years of follow-up. We examined the relation between body-mass index and the risk of death from all causes in four subgroups categorized according to smoking status and history of disease. In healthy people who had never smoked, we further examined whether the relation varied according to race, cause of death, or age. The relative risk was used to assess the relation between mortality and body-mass index.

Results
The association between body-mass index and the risk of death was substantially modified by smoking status and the presence of disease. In healthy people who had never smoked, the nadir of the curve for body-mass index and mortality was found at a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. Among subjects with the highest body-mass indexes, white men and women had a relative risk of death of 2.58 and 2.00, respectively, as compared with those with a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9. Black men and women with the highest body-mass indexes had much lower risks of death (1.35 and 1.21), which did not differ significantly from 1.00. A high body-mass index was most predictive of death from cardiovascular disease, especially in men (relative risk, 2.90; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.37 to 3.56). Heavier men and women in all age groups had an increased risk of death.

Conclusions
The risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, or other diseases increases throughout the range of moderate and severe overweight for both men and women in all age groups. The risk associated with a high body-mass index is greater for whites than for blacks.

who defines heavy ? i weight 253 @ 5'11" i was @ 315
one year ago. i ride daily average 30 mls. a day. the way
i see it is., keep riding results in getting lighter in weight.
size don't really matter does it ? if it did, a cow could
catch a rabbit. keep riding.








'