Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 77
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    409
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    200 lbs is Overweight?

    I am a little bit annoyed that there is an assumption that 200 lbs. is considered heavy or that the sport is ""geared for the ultra light". I was 205 lbs with 4% body fat. and I am 210 now.

    The lycra clad whippets I see out on their weekend warrior rides might look like lance but he is light because he is short.

    Muscle is heavy, if you are less than 200 lbs how tall can you be without being emaciated?

    Additionally, why are you making muscular riders feel like outsiders? For that matter why are you describing riding as a "sport". Both of these fallacies work against widespread cycling and the benefits it can bring.
    Buy less, make more.

  2. #2
    Have bike, will travel Barrettscv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edwardsville, Illinois
    My Bikes
    Motobecane Grand Record, Peugeot PX10, Serotta Nova X, Simoncini Cyclocross Special, Origin8 monstercross, Pedal Force CG2 and CX2
    Posts
    9,686
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I wish I had your issues

    200 lbs can be healthy. My Doctor insisted I was healthy at 245 lbs. But I am losing wieght anyway and the overall improvement is great.
    Last edited by Barrettscv; 04-06-09 at 12:46 PM.
    When I ride my bike I feel free and happy and strong. I'm liberated from the usual nonsense of day to day life. Solid, dependable, silent, my bike is my horse, my fighter jet, my island, my friend. Together we will conquer that hill and thereafter the world.

  3. #3
    Wookie Fred chewybrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    East Florida
    My Bikes
    '66 Raleigh Superbe, 80 Nishiki Maxima, 07 Gary Fisher Utopia, 09 Surly LHT
    Posts
    1,451
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I could not agree more about the 200 pound limit. I lost 115 pounds to get to 215, and more weight loss would not necessarily be healthy for me.

    The second part, well... It's a sport if you take it to that level, or a leisure activity if you wish. Like swimming, golf, many other activities, it's either or both.
    Campione Del Mondo Immaginario

  4. #4
    Senior Member gus69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Køge; Denmark
    My Bikes
    only 8 or 9 at present.
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    200/91 kg lbs doesn't have to be overweight. But most bike manufacturers only test wheels/ parts
    up to 85 kg and therefore only guarantee to that rider+ bike weight.
    We might need stronger wheels and frames, that's why we are Clydesdales but not necessary overweight.

  5. #5
    Senior Member yeamac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Central IL
    My Bikes
    2013 Marin Pioneer Trail MTB; 2012 Marin Verona T3; 2012 Marin Bridgeway; 2008 Cannondale Touring 2; 1996 Cannondale MT1000 tandem
    Posts
    1,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RedDeMartini View Post
    Muscle is heavy, if you are less than 200 lbs how tall can you be without being emaciated?
    http://www.weightwatchers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

    Check out the chart at this link. According to this info, one would need to be 6'-3" or taller to not be overweight at 200+ pounds. Even at 6'-6" a person would be considered to be in a healthy weight range from 173 to 216 pounds.

    My guess is the majority of people over 200 pounds and classified as clydesdales ARE overweight.

  6. #6
    Downtown Spanky Brown bautieri's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Camp Hill, Pennsyltucky
    My Bikes
    14 Motobecane Phantom Cross Pro 2000 Kona Lana'I
    Posts
    2,102
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I believe that the 200lb mark was originally set as a race category not a measurement of rider ability nor equipment specification. Just like racing is divided by engine size or how weight division is amongst boxers.

    So head out there and kick some skinny butt

  7. #7
    Senior Member theetruscan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    386
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RedDeMartini View Post
    I am a little bit annoyed that there is an assumption that 200 lbs. is considered heavy or that the sport is ""geared for the ultra light". I was 205 lbs with 4% body fat. and I am 210 now.

    The lycra clad whippets I see out on their weekend warrior rides might look like lance but he is light because he is short.

    Muscle is heavy, if you are less than 200 lbs how tall can you be without being emaciated?

    Additionally, why are you making muscular riders feel like outsiders? For that matter why are you describing riding as a "sport". Both of these fallacies work against widespread cycling and the benefits it can bring.
    You're an outlier. I'm an outlier for all intents, and I'm a few pounds overweight at 200 pounds with a reasonable amount of muscle.

    Yes, of course there will be people who are healthy at weights far outside the norm, but that's because your body is far outside the norm. Plenty of tall people are also fairly light because they're narrow framed, being tall doesn't mean 200 pounds is healthy (nor does it mean it is unhealthy). 200 pounds and tall won't be emaciated unless you're extremely broad, or you're saying tall is 6'6"+

  8. #8
    Senior Member squirtdad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    San Jose (Willow Glen) Ca
    My Bikes
    '89 Miyata 1400, '82 nishiski (current utilty/commuter project)
    Posts
    3,642
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by yeamac View Post
    http://www.weightwatchers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

    Check out the chart at this link. According to this info, one would need to be 6'-3" or taller to not be overweight at 200+ pounds. Even at 6'-6" a person would be considered to be in a healthy weight range from 173 to 216 pounds.

    My guess is the majority of people over 200 pounds and classified as clydesdales ARE overweight.
    Remember charts are averages.......individuals will vary.....my doctor did a very simple screening test, had me grasp my wrist with thumb and index finger and see if they went all the way around the wrist and touched or not. The idea is to get a feel of bone size.......he said based on that he would target a goal weight of 200 pounds for me, but would have targeted 175 or so if I had been able to completely circle my wrist.... Now I am far from that goal, and may be he is a quack, but there are individual differences.

  9. #9
    Administrator CbadRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    On the bridge with Picard
    My Bikes
    Specialized Allez, Specialized Sirrus
    Posts
    5,908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Clyde/Athena categories aren't just for cycling. They apply to running and triathlon as well. I believe they were started to give the bigger folks their own category and a more level playing field. In running events the category is mainy for bigger runners, not necessarily overweight ones.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerum 525 View Post
    Now get on your cheap bike and give me a double century. You walking can of Crisco!!

    Forum Guidelines *click here*

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    My Bikes
    Opus Andante/Parleez5i/Burley Tosa Tandem
    Posts
    2,129
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I really think it depends on the person. I myself wiegh in just under 220lbs at 6'1" and yes I consider myself overwieght but by no means unfit. Kinda hard to explain. I have a gut yes but I work with tons of guys who are skinny little guys that a stiff breeze would blow away who are winded after going up a flight of stairs. Am I fat, you bet, but don't make it decide I'm unfit. And to be honest yes I want to wiegh less and I'm getting to under 200 slowly but surely. Mainly because of my cycling addiction. Most will be fat but do actually want to trim some upper body muscle, takes a lot of oxygen to feed those un cycling specific muscles. My workouts now consist of yoga and core exercises.
    Best thing about cycling is when I'm at work I'm thinking of cycling, when I'm cycling I'm thinking about cycling.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    My Bikes
    GT Transeo
    Posts
    192
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm 6'4". If I drop down to under 200, I'll look really really bad, like famine victim bad. Around 215-220's probably where I need to be, and I'm working down to that.

  12. #12
    Gears? CliftonGK1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    My Bikes
    '08 Surly Cross-Check, 2011 Redline Conquest Pro, 2012 Spesh FSR Comp EVO, 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 disc
    Posts
    11,356
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't go by charts, calculations, tables and any other nonsense. I go by what my doctor tells me.

    My blood pressure is great. My midday HR is in the low 50s. My respiratory exchage volumes are fantastic. No cholesterol issues. Good fasting blood sugar. Aside from being nearsighted and having arthritic hands, I'm in great shape...

    At 6'6", 250 pounds, and over 15% bodyfat. Could I stand to lose a few pounds? Sure. I'm slowly working my way back down to 10% or less, but it's apparently not impacting my health, no matter what the most recent doomsayer health magazines want to tell me about how my 40" waist is going to give me diabetes/cancer/aneurisms/harpooned or whatever.
    "I feel like my world was classier before I found cyclocross."
    - Mandi M.

  13. #13
    fishologist cohophysh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    My Bikes
    Diamondback MTB; Leader 736R
    Posts
    1,201
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CbadRider View Post
    The Clyde/Athena categories aren't just for cycling. They apply to running and triathlon as well. I believe they were started to give the bigger folks their own category and a more level playing field. In running events the category is mainy for bigger runners, not necessarily overweight ones.
    who let you out of foo
    We cannot solve problems with the same level of consciousness that created them. A.E.

    1990 Diamond Back MTB
    2007 Leader 736R
    www.cohocyclist.blogspot.com
    http://www.loopd.com/members/cohocyclist/Default.aspx



  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    NZ
    My Bikes
    More than 1, but, less than S-1
    Posts
    3,832
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    First of all, being a Clyde has nothing to do with being fit or overweight. It's simply a category of athletes that do not fit within the norm for endurance athletes. The original Clydesdale category used to start at 185 lbs. If you visit the road racing and triathalon forums you will find a patern that suggests athletes at or above this weight are competitively disadvantaged. Plain and simple, to climb well on a bike, lighter is better, to a point. It's didn't initially have anything to do with a lack of fitness. It was just a way to recognize athletes that were particularly fit but not of the necessary physical frame to be competitive against 135-165 lb 5'9"-6'2" spiders.

    It has since, also been adopted by those participants that are not fit. So, a lot of the discussions around here revolve around the challenges of folks who are looking to loose weight. Keep in mind that any of those charts that are at all based on BMI (body mass index) are hugely inaccurate and horrible for people who are not of average build and height. Specially those who are taller than average. At 6'5", 42" waist, 54" chest, but weighing more than I would like to, not many would look at me and call me "obese" as the bmi charts do. My goal weight of 250#, just gets me into "overweight". To become "normal" I would have to get down to 215 or so. That weight would be completely "undoable" for me. No doctor would ever suggest that 215 would be a healthy weight for me. So, with regard to BMI, don't pay attention to it. Instead, look to measure you fitness and health, with regard to your body fat percentage, resistance to illness, and physical strength(measured however you like).

    With regard to "geared for the ultra light": Let's face it. When it comes to competing at an elite level, "it is". That's not to say that any and everyone can't enjoy cycling. We can,.....just not at a level that is likely to see us win at an elite level. The exception for someone of a build like yourself might be track sprinting or criterium racing(if it lacks significant climbs). But, when it comes to road racing and long climbs, long limbed (for torque) but extremely thin and light (for better power to weight) riders will consistantly dominate.

    It's still fun to drop the all too frequent poser :-) !!!!!
    Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Marysville WA
    Posts
    439
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  16. #16
    Senior Member Wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
    My Bikes
    Norco Bushpilot (out of commission), Raleigh Delta
    Posts
    6,942
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RedDeMartini View Post
    I am a little bit annoyed that there is an assumption that 200 lbs. is considered heavy or that the sport is ""geared for the ultra light". I was 205 lbs with 4% body fat. and I am 210 now.

    The lycra clad whippets I see out on their weekend warrior rides might look like lance but he is light because he is short.

    Muscle is heavy, if you are less than 200 lbs how tall can you be without being emaciated?

    Additionally, why are you making muscular riders feel like outsiders? For that matter why are you describing riding as a "sport". Both of these fallacies work against widespread cycling and the benefits it can bring.
    For here, it's not that 200lbs is overweight, it depends on so many factors, the same one that make people snicker at the monthly BMI thread. There are riders that are short and muscular, riders that are short and fat, riders that are tall and skinny (if your 7' tall, 200lbs would probably make you look like a fishing rod with a head on the end).

    All however have the same problem, most bicycle equipment is designed for a guy who is 5'10" and 150-170lbs, so if your 200lbs then whether your 4% body fat or 40% body fat, you have the same issues. I happen to have the 5'10" part down (5'9½ actually), but at 220lb I need to work on the other part I think that makes me a rather average C&A member, most of us would like to get those extra few pounds off, and the weather isn't helping, yesterday was sunny and 10℃, with little wind, had other commitments that meant riding wasn't really possible other then testing a new bike computer Today it's 0℃ with a nasty North wind and it's snowing

  17. #17
    Senior Member longbeachgary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Long Beach California
    My Bikes
    Eddy Merckx MXL; 2012 CAAD10; 2013 CAAD10 - The Silver and Black; Cannondale CAAD10 DI2 - The Black Dahlia; 2013 Cannondale CAAD10 DI2, The Black Mambo
    Posts
    3,268
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I was at the Long Beach bicycle grand prix over the weekend as a spectator and most of these guys are rail thin. Former teammate of Lance's (Tony Cruz) was there and he probably weights in at no more than 135-140. He is short but even so. There were also more people than you would expect that were kind-of big to be running around in team gear riding against the skinny guys.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Aurora, CO
    My Bikes
    CAAD9-1, Windsor Cliff 29er
    Posts
    1,306
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by EGUNWT View Post
    I'm 6'4". If I drop down to under 200, I'll look really really bad, like famine victim bad. Around 215-220's probably where I need to be, and I'm working down to that.
    While I agree with the sentiment I might disagree with the numbers. I'm 6'5" and a year and a half ago I weighed up to 235 lbs. I didn't look that bad, I had to be wearing something fairly tight (like a bike jersey) to see a belly. I thought if I lost 20 lbs I'd be perfect.

    Well, I started losing weight. I'm not at 185 and I could still stand to lose more weight (body fat around 12%). I know a lot depends on your body type though. I'm not very muscular, so that would make a big difference.

  19. #19
    Council of the Elders billydonn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    My Bikes
    1990 Schwinn Crosscut, 5 Lemonds
    Posts
    3,761
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chewybrian View Post
    ...
    The second part, well... It's a sport if you take it to that level, or a leisure activity if you wish. Like swimming, golf, many other activities, it's either or both.
    A good way to look at it is as "Serious Leisure":

    Serious leisure is the systematic pursuit of an amateur, hobbyist, or volunteer core activity that is highly substantial, interesting, and fulfilling and where, in the typical case, participants find a career in acquiring and expressing a combination of its special skills, knowledge, and experience (Stebbins, 1992, p.3). The adjective "serious" (a word Stebbins's research respondents often used) embodies such qualities as earnestness, sincerity, importance, and carefulness. This adjective, basically a folk term, signals the importance of these three types of activity in the everyday lives of participants, in that pursuing the three eventually engenders deep self-fulfillment.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    There is a time to resign oneself
    to old age and infirmity. You first.
    My Cycling Blogspot

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    1,622
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    weight watcher site says 147-184 for 6'.... while 184 is attainable and woud be very fit looking for me 147 would be showing alot of bones and require losing over 50lbs of muscle.

  21. #21
    Humvee of bikes =Worksman Nightshade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,359
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Care not what others think. Your guide is how you feel and if your doctor has issues with your
    health. Nobody else matters.
    My preferred bicycle brand is.......WORKSMAN CYCLES
    I dislike clipless pedals on any city bike since I feel they are unsafe.

    Originally Posted by krazygluon
    Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
    Aluminum: barely a hundred, which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Marysville, WA
    My Bikes
    Trek Portland/Gary Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo/LeMond Versailles
    Posts
    463
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It isn't hard to find information about male body types. This article is why the BMI chart makes no sense. It is just an average, and depending on what kind of body type you have, you aren't very average.

    http://www.muscleandstrength.com/art...endomorph.html

  23. #23
    Senior Member yeamac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Central IL
    My Bikes
    2013 Marin Pioneer Trail MTB; 2012 Marin Verona T3; 2012 Marin Bridgeway; 2008 Cannondale Touring 2; 1996 Cannondale MT1000 tandem
    Posts
    1,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dlester View Post
    It isn't hard to find information about male body types. This article is why the BMI chart makes no sense. It is just an average, and depending on what kind of body type you have, you aren't very average.

    http://www.muscleandstrength.com/art...endomorph.html
    Correct me if I'm misreading the information, but I don't see a discrepancy between the BMI weight chart and your article. At the bottom of the BMI chart it says: Weight ranges are used to provide information about the range of weights with the lowest risk of developing weight-related conditions. Which is why this is called a "healthy" weight range. Like you say, it is just an average. It seems to take into account the 3 various body types from the link you reference. For more muscular types, you would be near the top of the weight range (as am I). If you are not so muscular, you would be near the lower end of the spectrum. Sure, you can be overweight and fit, but so far those clydes who have commented in this thread about their weight all seem to say they could loose a few pounds.

    I got down to 193 about a year ago, and at 6'-1", according to the BMI chart, was just barely overweight (189 top of the range). And guess what, I still had a gut at 193 pounds. Now I've crept back up to around 206 and my gut is even bigger and I'm putting a strain on all the new clothes I had to buy. I'm very fit -- I rode a 125 mile ride last Friday with an 18.5 mph computer average. I rode a 50 mile ride the next day in a paceline with a 21.3 mph average. But, to the original question, yeah, I still say 200 pounds for almost anyone under 6'-3" is going to be overweight. Maybe not by a large margin, but still wanting to loose a few pounds anyway and reduce the size of that gut.

  24. #24
    Senior Member baron von trail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Time & Space
    My Bikes
    3 good used ones
    Posts
    2,402
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    At 6'3", with large boned frame, 200/198 is perfect for me. I'm a bit above that right now as I drop from a high of 225 lbs closer to 215. But, I have read more than one chart that says I ought to be weighing 180 lbs or so.

    My dad, who at 67 is retired and rides 50 to 75 miles a day minimum (every day), weighs 205. That man has not an ounce of fat. Go figure!

    BTW: those same stupid charts insist that boney-looking Obama is in the upper range his ideal weight. That is just crazy.

    To cut through this insanity: I go more by the waist size, using the weight thing more as a barometer than as something etched in stone. I aim for 34" on the waist; find that I can live with 36"; start working harder when I hit 38", and make damned sure I never reach 40".

  25. #25
    Uber Goober StephenH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Dallas area, Texas
    Posts
    10,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I might point out that Clydesdale horse are big horses, not just fat horses.
    "be careful this rando stuff is addictive and dan's the 'pusher'."

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •