Road Cycling - What's your BMI?

I've noticed that Tyler Hamilton looked quite skinny, so I've checked out his BMI. The guy is 173 cm tall and weighs 62 kg, giving him a BMI of about 21. Oscar Sevilla and Camezind also have BMIs of about 21. And Armstrong's is around 22-23, right? Are all cyclists that lean? What about you? (You can just take the poll anonymously. :) )

I'm curious what the average BMI on this board is. Are we leaner than the general? (Hopefully yes).

P.S. I'm fully aware that BMI does not accurately reflect fitness as it doesn't take in account the difference between muscle and fat, for example. But it's a rough predictor of health.

Currently 21.5, 129#, 5'5", 15-16% BF
Since I started tracking in January, I've gone from 141#, 18-19% BF to current.
I've worked harder at fitness since doing so poorly in my last CycloCross race :D

BMI is a ratio of weight to hight.. it doesn't take into account ratio of muscle mass to fat, or even bone mass,,,
I you will look at a body builder's BMI it will fall into the obese category (30+), even though he is probably too lean to be healthy..

I do not pay attention to BMI. Unfortunately health insurance companies do use it to assess health risks..

My BMI is 30.3 which puts me into the obese category. I'm 6'1" and 230 pounds at 9% body fat, and I'm probably one of the best all-around athletes on this forum.

BMI is BS.

fat ass here too...

i'm 6'2'', 215lbs and i run right about 25%. I consider it training weight.

So who's the other ******? ;)

and I'm probably one of the best all-around athletes on this forum.


Statements like that never cease to amuse me.

My BMI is 19.2 at 5'9" and 130lbs. I have no idea what my body fat is. I will agree that BMI is useless for athletes.

I think that the BMI thing is bull****- I weight about 220 lbs and am 5 ft 11 inches in bare feet- that gives me a BMI of 30.7- I admit I could stand to lose a few pounds but there is no way that I am obese (although I am sure that I am not one of the best all-round athletes on this forum)- I do some weight training once or maybe twice a week so this does not help with the result

I think that the BMI thing is bull****- I weight about 220 lbs and am 5 ft 11 inches in bare feet- that gives me a BMI of 30.7- I admit I could stand to lose a few pounds but there is no way that I am obese (although I am sure that I am not one of the best all-round athletes on this forum)- I do some weight training once or maybe twice a week so this does not help with the result

For most people, BMI is a reasonable estimate of fatness (although the BMI number is not the same as body fat percentage). This is not the case for bodybuilders, but they are probably no more than 5% of the population.

To see if your high BMI number (which puts you clearly into the "Obese" category) is a result of musculature, or whether you're simply carrying too much fat around, check out this web site:

http://www.he.net/%7Ezone/prothd2.html

It uses the "Navy" formula for estimating your body fat percentage, using a couple of simply body measurement. For men, 15% body fat is a good goal to shoot for...athletes are often at 10% or lower.

For cycling performance, lower BMI's generally translate to a better power-to-weight ratio and thus higher cycling speed (with the possible exception of some of the big sprinters).

Losing excess weight can really help in terms of cycling performance. This year I focused on getting my weight down - I'm 6', 172 lbs (down about 10 lbs from my usual cycling weight) with BMI=23.4, and have found that I am a lot better on the hills, and my average speeds are up.

5ft 9in, 230lbs, BMI of 34.....

And I bet I can still outrun, outlift, and outendure the people that give me crap about my size..there may be a huge belly, but there's some serious muscle under that too :)

For most people, BMI is a reasonable estimate of fatness (although the BMI number is not the same as body fat percentage). This is not the case for bodybuilders, but they are probably no more than 5% of the population.

To see if your high BMI number (which puts you clearly into the "Obese" category) is a result of musculature, or whether you're simply carrying too much fat around, check out this web site:

http://www.he.net/%7Ezone/prothd2.html

It uses the "Navy" formula for estimating your body fat percentage, using a couple of simply body measurement. For men, 15% body fat is a good goal to shoot for...athletes are often at 10% or lower.

For cycling performance, lower BMI's generally translate to a better power-to-weight ratio and thus higher cycling speed (with the possible exception of some of the big sprinters).

Losing excess weight can really help in terms of cycling performance. This year I focused on getting my weight down - I'm 6', 172 lbs (down about 10 lbs from my usual cycling weight) with BMI=23.4, and have found that I am a lot better on the hills, and my average speeds are up.

that formula is broken...check this out:

Your weight is: 230 pounds
Your sex is: Male
Your Body Fat percentage is: 58
Your Lean Body Mass is: 97 pounds
Your 'Ideal' weight is: 111 pounds
Your activity factor is: 1
Your recommend blocks per day are: 13 (97 grams of protein)


111 pounds....i'm 5ft 9.....sheesh.... :rolleyes:

that formula is broken...check this out:

Your weight is: 230 pounds
Your sex is: Male
Your Body Fat percentage is: 58
Your Lean Body Mass is: 97 pounds
Your 'Ideal' weight is: 111 pounds
Your activity factor is: 1
Your recommend blocks per day are: 13 (97 grams of protein)


111 pounds....i'm 5ft 9.....sheesh.... :rolleyes:

I don't know where they got their "Ideal" weight calculation from...that certainly does look suspect (are you sure you plugged your numbers in correctly?). A more reasonable "Ideal" weight would be 170 lbs (BMI = 25).

The Body Fat Percentage number is calculated using the Navy (actually US Dept of Defense) formula for estimating body fat. It should be reasonably accurate for most adults.

If you Body Fat Percentage really is 58, and your BMI is 34 then you are carrying quite a bit of excess flab around. While you might be fit and strong, you are still at increased risk for disease and death. If your waist is 40" or less, you are at "High Risk" (per the US Centers for Disease Control). If your waist is >40", you are at "Very High Risk".

Of course, if you are as fit as you claim then your fitness might reduce that risk somewhat (hard to say how much...more research needs to be done on "fat but fit" folks to see).

Regardless of disease risk, your cycling performance would improve significantly if you dropped the excess weight (especially in the hills).

Your Recommended Blocks
Your weight is: 190 pounds
Your sex is: Male
Your Body Fat percentage is: 15
Your Lean Body Mass is: 162 pounds
Your 'Ideal' weight is: 186 pounds
Your activity factor is: 0.91
Your recommend blocks per day are: 20 (150 grams of protein)

That sounds about right to me. I was about 200 lbs 2 months ago, have knocked off 10 and would like to get to 186. Make a huge difference to me when chugging up those hills. My BMI is 24 which is toward the high end of the "acceptable' scale.

BMI is used to assess risk in populations. For example, there is a positive correlation between BMI and diabetes in the population. I don't think BMI is very useful for assessing whether or not an particular athelete is "overweight" or "overfat."

Your weight is: 130 pounds
Your sex is: Male
Your Body Fat percentage is: 7
Your Lean Body Mass is: 121 pounds
Your 'Ideal' weight is: 139 pounds
Your activity factor is: 0.91
Your recommend blocks per day are: 15 (112 grams of protein)

Again, abosolutely no idea if it's right.

BMI is used to assess risk in populations. For example, there is a positive correlation between BMI and diabetes in the population. I don't think BMI is very useful for assessing whether or not an particular athelete is "overweight" or "overfat."

But, most unfortunately, that is EXACTLY what it is being used for. Evidently, there is even software for you to compare yourself to the general population.

The best site on the web for BMI information is http://www.halls.md . Steven Halls, MD has done a very good job of interpreting BMI and explaining what it means.

His BMI calculator for men is here: http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/av.htm . That same page will show your US weight percentile (based on comparisons with others of your gender, age, and height).

In terms of cycling, lower BMI (down to the low 20's or so), generally translates into increased performance on the bike, and most fast cyclists are considered "thin" or "skinny" by current standards.

Of course, this doesn't mean that someone who is overweight or obese is not a real cyclist. Anyone who gets out and rides regularly should be respected for that, regardless of weight.

I'm fat. So much of this depends on your age.

But, most unfortunately, that is EXACTLY what it is being used for. Evidently, there is even software for you to compare yourself to the general population.

In terms of cycling performance, BMI and Body Fat Percentage can both be important predictors of performance. Up to a point, "lower is better" for competitive cyclists.

As for BMI specifically, it can certainly be relevant for athletes. For example...Tyler Hamilton currently has a BMI around 21, and presumably his body fat is around 5-6%. If he started an upper body weight lifting program, his BMI would increase, even though his body fat remained the same. In this case, his increased BMI would be an accurate predictor of decreased performance on the bike.

BTW, what's wrong with comparing onself to the general population?

I remember when they started talking about BMI a few years ago, Evander Holyfield was heavyweight champ at the time and the news reports all said that, according to his BMI, Evander was considered obese by the U.S. govt.

My BMI is 21.9
Your Recommended Blocks
Your weight is: 140 pounds
Your sex is: Male
Your Body Fat percentage is: 8
Your Lean Body Mass is: 129 pounds
Your 'Ideal' weight is: 148 pounds
Your activity factor is: 0.87
Your recommend blocks per day are: 15 (112 grams of protein)

Your Recommended Blocks
Your weight is: 175 pounds
Your sex is: Male
Your Body Fat percentage is: 13
Your Lean Body Mass is: 152 pounds
Your 'Ideal' weight is: 175 pounds
Your activity factor is: 0.79
Your recommend blocks per day are: 16 (120 grams of protein)

Statements like that never cease to amuse me.

Why's that?

BTW, what's wrong with comparing onself to the general population?

The factors of fitness are:

1. Strength

2. Flexibility

3. Aerobic/cardio efficiency

4. Proper body composition

BMI is a poor substitute for a measure of fitness, yet it is used by many as a substitute - sort of a fitness number - when it isn't that at all. That may not be the intent of the BMI, but that is how it gets used.

It is wrong to attempt to display ones "anything" in life as a simple number - IQ, richnes, fitness, soul. Just can't capture much in one number, and you shouldn't.

So who's the other ******? ;)



Four of us now... ;)

36.3kg/m2 here, 25%bf, obese and in the 97th percentile.

I ROCK!* ;)

Doesn't stop me cycling, climbing, hiking, rowing, weight-training or swimming though, even more than ever recently. I'm EASILY more active than everyone I know - 90 hours of a range of exercises in the last 7 weeks, nearly 2 hours a day on average, and it's causing the weight to trickle down at just a pound of fat a week, which I'm finding fun to sustain. No crash dieting here, learned from mistakes.



















* Strictly speaking, more of a wobble than a rock...

Four of us now... ;)

36.3kg/m2 here, 25%bf, obese and in the 97th percentile.

I ROCK!* ;)

Doesn't stop me cycling, climbing, hiking, rowing, weight-training or swimming though, even more than ever recently. I'm EASILY more active than everyone I know - 90 hours of a range of exercises in the last 7 weeks, nearly 2 hours a day on average, and it's causing the weight to trickle down at just a pound of fat a week, which I'm finding fun to sustain. No crash dieting here, learned from mistakes.

* Strictly speaking, more of a wobble than a rock...

FWIW, weight loss of 1 lb per week might seem like a "trickle", but it is actually a perfect rate for long term success. Losing faster than that requires significant lifestyle changes that are difficult for most folks to sustain...thus the high failure rate for most "diets". It sounds like you are making a lifestyle change, instead of going "on a diet". From my research on the subject, this is one of the keys to success.

The only thing you may need to watch out for is if your exercise program gets interrupted for some reason (family vacation, injury, etc.). If you continue to eat like a person who exercises a lot, but you're not, you'll pile on the weight quickly (been there, done that...).

Anyway, best of luck.

BTW - if you're into numbers and graphs, you might want to check out my "WeightWare" program (http://www.WeightWare.com ). It's a weight and health diary that can be used to keep track of your weight and how it changes over time. You can download a free trial version from the website.

FWIW, weight loss of 1 lb per week might seem like a "trickle", but it is actually a perfect rate for long term success. [...] Anyway, best of luck.

BTW - if you're into numbers and graphs, you might want to check out my "WeightWare" program (http://www.WeightWare.com ). It's a weight and health diary that can be used to keep track of your weight and how it changes over time. You can download a free trial version from the website.


Cheers!

I use MySportTraining on PC and Pocket PC (I'd be lost, lost without them!) to track absolutely everything in my quest to reinvent myself - bodyweight, %bodyfat, type, intensity, resting heart rate, blood pressure, energy intake vs. expenditure, protein/carbs/fat, training heart rate, cycling ascent, distance, cadence, duation, courses, pace, intervals, food, weight training weights, sets and reps, you name it, MST does it. All links to a Polar HRM for ease of use too. Great to be able to bring it to the gym too.

Yup, I used to be a couch potato and am now aspiring to be a weird exercise junkie! ;)




p.s. Nice lookin web site, nice looking software. Ever thought of doing pocket pc stuff?

Why's that?

It's one of those "my dad can beat up your dad" statements. It is completely irrelevant and unfounded since you surely haven’t met the vast majority of members on the boards.

Cheers!

p.s. Nice lookin web site, nice looking software. Ever thought of doing pocket pc stuff?

Thanks! I've got a list of new features a mile long to add to both CycliStats (http://www.CycliStats.com ) and WeightWare (http://www.WeightWare.com ). So, that will keep me busy for quite a while before I can get to a pocket pc version...but, I'm also market driven so if more folks ask for it, I'll try to accomodate.

FWIW, CycliStats can be used with pocket PC or Palm to log rides, using a simple spreadsheet that can then be imported (better than nothing, but not the same as a real application). I'll be cloning that feature for WeightWare in the near future.

If you're focused on weight loss, you still might want to give WeightWare a look. MySportTraining seems to do a pretty good job of logging exercise, but WeightWare is much more focused on weight management and health tracking (and CycliStats does a better job with bike-specific stuff, IMO...but, I'm 100% biased! :)).

It's one of those "my dad can beat up your dad" statements. It is completely irrelevant and unfounded since you surely haven’t met the vast majority of members on the boards.


I think you misunderstood what I was trying to convey. According to my BMI, I am grossly obese, yet I am a great athlete and compete professionally. I was using that as an example as to how incorrect the BMI can be.

I reguarly see an endroconoligist for treatment of diabetes, and she has thrown out using BMI with me. While I do have a sizable midsection and my BMI is high, her body fat meter registers me around 14%, which is mildly overweight.

Mass is not weight.

Poorly worded perhaps, but I get what you're saying now. No hard feelings.

I hate the use of BMI as a measure of fitness, but this seems almost too reassuring. I always like to figure that I have about 30 pounds to go, not just 9. That's interesting. Then again, my resting heart rate is somewhere south of 45 bpm these days, so maybe I'm in better shape than I thought. Hmmm...


Your Recommended Blocks
Your weight is: 255 pounds
Your sex is: Male
Your Body Fat percentage is: 16
Your Lean Body Mass is: 214 pounds
Your 'Ideal' weight is: 246 pounds
Your activity factor is: 0.83
Your recommend blocks per day are: 24 (180 grams of protein)

Two years ago I had my BF checked and it was just under 6% - and I don't think I'm as lean now as I was then so I don't know where they get thier numbers -

Your weight is: 155 pounds
Your sex is: Male
Your Body Fat percentage is: 1
Your Lean Body Mass is: 153 pounds
Your 'Ideal' weight is: 176 pounds
Your activity factor is: 0.91
Your recommend blocks per day are: 19 (142 grams of protein)

Mass is not weight.

Yeah, you weight less at the equator than the north pole :) anyone that thinks their overweight should move to africa.

6'2" 180 (on a bad day) and thats a 23.1, wow, looks like I'm "lean" although you would never really see it, and i dont climb nearly as well as lance ;)

Two years ago I had my BF checked and it was just under 6% - and I don't think I'm as lean now as I was then so I don't know where they get thier numbers -

Your weight is: 155 pounds
Your sex is: Male
Your Body Fat percentage is: 1
Your Lean Body Mass is: 153 pounds
Your 'Ideal' weight is: 176 pounds
Your activity factor is: 0.91
Your recommend blocks per day are: 19 (142 grams of protein)

Your Body Fat percentage is: 1 Typo I hope?

Your Recommended Blocks
Your weight is: 145 pounds
Your sex is: Male
Your Body Fat percentage is: 11
Your Lean Body Mass is: 129 pounds
Your 'Ideal' weight is: 149 pounds
Your activity factor is: 0.87
Your recommend blocks per day are: 15 (112 grams of protein)

and according to this (http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/av.htm) page, my BMI is 19.7. I'm considered to be "In Normal Range" although if I weighed 143 instead of 145 that would change to "Underweight." Also "Your Weight is at 11th percentile compared to others of same Height and Age"

Hmm.. interesting stuff :)

Just to make sure that people are using the correct formula, BMI is calculated as follows:
BMI = (Weight in Pounds/(Height in inches) x (Height in inches) ) x 703
or
BMI = wt. in KG/ ((ht. in M) x (ht. in M))
or
BMI = [wt. in KG/((ht. in cm) x (ht. in cm))] x 10,000

Just to make sure that people are using the correct formula, BMI is calculated as follows:
BMI = (Weight in Pounds/(Height in inches) x (Height in inches) ) x 703
or
BMI = wt. in KG/ ((ht. in M) x (ht. in M))
or
BMI = [wt. in KG/((ht. in cm) x (ht. in cm))] x 10,000

I agree, BMI is bull. I'm 6' 235 13%bf (pinch test). The only way to truly test bf% fast is with the pinch. That formula that was posted is a nice try but still off.

My BMI is 31 and it says my ideal weight should be about 185. Again, 185. I haven't been 185 since Jr. High School. The BMI is just not for anybody that has a good supply of muscle on them. When I am at about 7-8%BF, I still weigh about 210-215.

As long as you eat healthy, feel good & look good, you can't go wrong.

I agree, BMI is bull. I'm 6' 235 13%bf (pinch test). The only way to truly test bf% fast is with the pinch. That formula that was posted is a nice try but still off.

My BMI is 31 and it says my ideal weight should be about 185. Again, 185. I haven't been 185 since Jr. High School. The BMI is just not for anybody that has a good supply of muscle on them. When I am at about 7-8%BF, I still weigh about 210-215.

As long as you eat healthy, feel good & look good, you can't go wrong.

BMI is not bull. It's simply a number that indicates how heavy a person is relative to their height. In the US, the vast majority of folks with high BMI are that way due to excess fat. However, heavily muscled people can have high BMI too, even though they have low body fat. Most of the better web sites that calculate BMI mention this fact. That's also why it's good idea to have a body fat analysis (especially if your BMI is > 25).

As for the Navy body fat estimate vs. "pinch" - which "pinch test" are you referring to?

There are quite a few different ways to estimate body fat percentage. The "gold standard" is the water dunk test (aka, hydrostatic weighing), but this is inconvenient and somewhat expensive. Some other methods include X-rays, bio-electric impedance (most body fat scales use this method), and skinfold calipers. The US Dept. of Defense looked at all of these methods and developed their formulas to approximate the best of them using circumference measurements.

I've studied the research behind the development of the US Dept. of Defense formula, and according to their research their formulas should do a pretty good job of estimating body fat. In fact, their formulas are good enough that they use them as part of their personnel physical fitness evaluations, as a way of determining whether specific individuals are overweight due to muscles or fat.

If your "pinch test" body fat percentage was significantly different than the "Navy" body fat estimate, I recommend getting a second opinion from another source, because the Navy body fat estimate is probably within 3-4% of actual (unless you have a very oddly proportioned body).

I've noticed that Tyler Hamilton looked quite skinny, so I've checked out his BMI. The guy is 173 cm tall and weighs 62 kg, giving him a BMI of about 21. Oscar Sevilla and Camezind also have BMIs of about 21. And Armstrong's is around 22-23, right? Are all cyclists that lean? What about you? (You can just take the poll anonymously. :) )

I'm curious what the average BMI on this board is. Are we leaner than the general? (Hopefully yes).

P.S. I'm fully aware that BMI does not accurately reflect fitness as it doesn't take in account the difference between muscle and fat, for example. But it's a rough predictor of health.

18.87 here. 6'2", 147 lbs. (formerly near 200)

BMI is not bull. It's simply a number that indicates how heavy a person is relative to their height. In the US, the vast majority of folks with high BMI are that way due to excess fat. However, heavily muscled people can have high BMI too, even though they have low body fat. Most of the better web sites that calculate BMI mention this fact. That's also why it's good idea to have a body fat analysis (especially if your BMI is > 25).

As for the Navy body fat estimate vs. "pinch" - which "pinch test" are you referring to?

There are quite a few different ways to estimate body fat percentage. The "gold standard" is the water dunk test (aka, hydrostatic weighing), but this is inconvenient and somewhat expensive. Some other methods include X-rays, bio-electric impedance (most body fat scales use this method), and skinfold calipers. The US Dept. of Defense looked at all of these methods and developed their formulas to approximate the best of them using circumference measurements.

I've studied the research behind the development of the US Dept. of Defense formula, and according to their research their formulas should do a pretty good job of estimating body fat. In fact, their formulas are good enough that they use them as part of their personnel physical fitness evaluations, as a way of determining whether specific individuals are overweight due to muscles or fat.

If your "pinch test" body fat percentage was significantly different than the "Navy" body fat estimate, I recommend getting a second opinion from another source, because the Navy body fat estimate is probably within 3-4% of actual (unless you have a very oddly proportioned body).

It's not "my" test. It's the skinfold pinch test with calipers. It's about third behind underwater and the electricity test and somewhat accurate within 3% depending if the person knows what they are doing. I'm not here to debate you and don't care much about it. For us that are heavily muscled, BMI is bull and relatively meaningless to us.

It's not "my" test. It's the skinfold pinch test with calipers. It's about third behind underwater and the electricity test and somewhat accurate within 3% depending if the person knows what they are doing. I'm not here to debate you and don't care much about it. For us that are heavily muscled, BMI is bull and relatively meaningless to us.

Interesting...which caliper test was used (some use 1 site, some up to 7)? In the hands of a skilled tester, that's supposed to be a pretty good estimate.

By way of comparison, what was the result with the "Navy" method?

FWIW, I've heard that all of the body fat tests are estimates only, and they can vary somewhat depending on your body composition (e.g., frame size, where your fat is distributed, etc.). I've also heard the most accurate body fat test is via an autopsy...but, that one will have to wait (hopefully for a good long while! :)).

Your Recommended Blocks
Your weight is: 184 pounds
Your sex is: Male
Your Body Fat percentage is: 20
Your Lean Body Mass is: 147 pounds
Your 'Ideal' weight is: 169 pounds
Your activity factor is: 0.83
Your recommend blocks per day are: 16 (120 grams of protein)

This is close to when I had the caliper test last year. They had me a 17.9% bf and I was weighing 190lbs.

BMI became interesting when somebody has discovered the correlation between it and the chance to experience heart attack. People with the BMI higher than 25 but lower than 30 have 10% greater chance to develop heart problems than the people who were between 20 and 25. BMI higher than 30 means even greater chance for heart problems etc. Pure statistics and nothing else. Nothing to agree or disagree, just numbers. And now, if an athlete measures higher than 25, that does not necessary mean that they will have the chance 10% greater to develop heart problems than somebody who is between 20 and 25. They probably upset the first statistics with some other numbers that talk about the fat content, heart recover rate or something else.

Well I just checked mine at a web site and found out that mine is 22.4 but that's at my heaviest of 165, right now I'm at 163 which is my lightest. Not bad for a 50 year old male. THANK GOD FOR CYCLING!!!!! I do watch what I eat and balance that with my cycling, and by making sure I don't go below 163 and not go above 165. My weight's been this way now for 15 years since I stopped racing.

BMI sucks. I got 24.4 (on the edge of overweight) I don't bodybuild and anyone who knows me will tell you I have no fat. In fact I just have a high bone mass- I sink like a rock compaired to friends built just like me (or any one else for that matter, over a gallon lung capacity and I still sink-good thing I can tread).

Wow. Didn't know that my little poll would generate this many replies. Thanks you all.

It's interesting that there's no bell-shaped distribution as I expected, but that could be due simply to a small sample size. Yes, BMI is not ideal, but we routinely use it and the ratio between abdominal circumference and waist at Harvard hospitals to counsel patients whether they should lose weight or not. Of course, it's easy when you see the patients in front of you. And I have never met anyone whose high BMI doesn't warrant weight loss. Unless you're built like Arnold, you'll be advised to lose a few pounds. Heck, even Arnold will be advised to do less iron pumping and more aerobic exercise if he hasn't done that enough.

I'm 6'1" and a bit under 140, yielding and index of around 18.

I had a pinch test for body fat, three sites checked, and came out at around 4% fat. I don't even read on the electrical impedence gizmos (the nutritionist for UGA's dining halls had one out one day, and we couldn't get me to show up as anything). The BMI thing is probably a decent measure on average, but some folks just have larger or smaller frames. I look fairly normal, even though compared to the numbers of the rest of the population, I seem practically emaciated.