Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) Looking to lose that spare tire? Ideal weight 200+? Frustrated being a large cyclist in a sport geared for the ultra-light? Learn about the bikes and parts that can take the abuse of a heavier cyclist, how to keep your body going while losing the weight, and get support from others who've been successful.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-24-09, 10:08 AM   #1
jross
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: southern indiana
Bikes: dicks special!
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
body charts vs reality question

I was reading one of those body charts and I should be no more that 188 lbs for 6'. right now I'm 266. Is it possible to be at 188? I played sports in high school and some in college and was very active. I've never weighed 188 (except when much younger). Is this really possible that I need to lose another 80lbs? Has anyone experienced this?
jross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-09, 10:26 AM   #2
RyStan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pasadena, CA
Bikes: 1995 Cannondale R500 2010 Specialized Tarmac Comp
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ya those charts are "ideal body weight" charts, they dont take into account genetics (Just big a$$ people) or even higher muscle mass...Im very fit and im at 235 right now at 6'5". According to those charts my max weight should be 210 which ain't happening...unless i get really really sick. Im a clyde for life .

If you're like me, just a bigger human, Body fat % would be a more practical measurement to go by.
RyStan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-09, 10:57 AM   #3
old and new
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 3,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Start with losing 40 ,aside from theories, 266 is too much for a six footer. Most agree that charts are either unrealistic or overly generalized. You'll get comments for sure. I recommend that you search the threads as this topic occurs monthly. And yes I've exp. this.
old and new is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-09, 11:18 AM   #4
RatedZeroHero
foolishly delirious
 
RatedZeroHero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Panhandle of NE
Bikes:
Posts: 798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
body composition is the key, not a chart...

accurately figured body fat % (I think the most accurate is the float method)

i am 6'6" 260# atm... could I lose 60 more lbs? my current body fat is 24% according to that I could...

but it would put me right at 0% body fat... not possible... I'm probably a Clyde for life... but me at a super fit 215 would be really nice!!!
RatedZeroHero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-09, 11:21 AM   #5
old and new
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 3,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RatedZeroHero View Post
body composition is the key, not a chart...

accurately figured body fat % (I think the most accurate is the float method)

i am 6'6" 260# atm... could I lose 60 more lbs? my current body fat is 24% according to that I could...

but it would put me right at 0% body fat... not possible... I'm probably a Clyde for life... but me at a super fit 215 would be really nice!!!
You're 6'6" not six foot even, you ain't that fat.
old and new is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-09, 12:10 PM   #6
bautieri
Downtown Spanky Brown
 
bautieri's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Camp Hill, Pennsyltucky
Bikes: 14 Motobecane Phantom Cross Pro 2000 Kona Lana'I
Posts: 2,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yes, for the most part they are quite based in reality as much as I don't want to believe it either. What they fail to take into acount is muscle mass and bone density. (example, Arnold was about 220 in his prime)

A better measurment is definatly body fat %. A bathroom scale with body fat analysis is relativly inexpensive (about $50), and easy way to track your fitness progression. I'm sure it's not the most accurate tool by any means but should be good enough for rough ideas. This morning I weighed in at 208 with 20% body fat meaning that I have roughly 40lbs of goo left on my frame. If I weigh myself next month and find that I weigh 210 and have 18% body fat then I know that even though I gained weight my fitness and muscle mass increased so I won't sweat the extra pound or two.
bautieri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-09, 12:19 PM   #7
Kamala
Clyde - Grinder
 
Kamala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Seattle
Bikes: 2009 Jamis Aurora Elite - 2007 Specialized Hardrock
Posts: 321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Check out the Coast Guard standards for fit weight. They actually take into account differing frame sizes relative to height. At the weight at which I would be fit for duty in a military organization I would be obese according to a BMI chart.

The pages you would need are 2-9 and 7-2. Most of the rest of it is a lot of bureaucratic fun.
http://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/1...IM_1020_8G.pdf

Also, here's a good article on the trouble with BMI from a scientific standpoint: http://www.slate.com/id/2223095/.
Kamala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-09, 12:45 PM   #8
Doohickie 
You gonna eat that?
 
Doohickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
Bikes: 1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS
Posts: 14,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
In my case, when they talk about BMI, that's pretty much right on for me. I'm 6'-2". When I was 240 (which is just into the Obese range for BMI), I felt like I was going to die a lot- out of breath easy, light headed, etc., even from mild activity. I went on the South Beach Diet and lost down to a little under 168, a little on the light side of Normal BMI I think. That wasn't good either; I was too skinny. I think I'm at my best at about 190 lb., which is right at the high end of the Normal range. I'm sitting at 210 right now and would like to get down about 20.

BMI ratings work for me. But when I was a kid, I wasn't athletic. So I don't have any of that "but I'm a muscular build" stuff to fall back on. I think for people who have carried additional muscle mass due to athletics, carrying a little more weight isn't too bad. Out of the various forums I post to, though, a much greater portion of this crowd can claim "mucular build" and get away with it. Cycling is a healthy activity and you do tend to put additional muscle on in your most powerful muscle groups.

Even though I'd like to lose 20 lb., as long as I ride I feel really good, health-wise.
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.



Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
Doohickie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-09, 03:05 PM   #9
kgriffioen
Go Leafs
 
kgriffioen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Milwaukee
Bikes:
Posts: 348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jross View Post
I was reading one of those body charts and I should be no more that 188 lbs for 6'. right now I'm 266. Is it possible to be at 188? I played sports in high school and some in college and was very active. I've never weighed 188 (except when much younger). Is this really possible that I need to lose another 80lbs? Has anyone experienced this?
You bet I have. I'm 6'1" and at my biggest I went around 225-230. Today 182 and I feel great!!
kgriffioen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-09, 03:44 PM   #10
RatedZeroHero
foolishly delirious
 
RatedZeroHero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Panhandle of NE
Bikes:
Posts: 798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by old and new View Post
You're 6'6" not six foot even, you ain't that fat.
thanks for noticing!

at 24% BF I have alot I could stand to lose...
RatedZeroHero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-09, 04:02 PM   #11
John Bailey
Senior Member
 
John Bailey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: East Jordan, MI
Bikes: Trek FX 7.3
Posts: 219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My doctor, many years ago, explained that the weight charts weren't to be trusted. His method was pretty simple. He asked me, up to age 25, when did I feel the most fit. I told him it was after I had done a section of the Appalachian Trail. I was fit before I went and after weeks carrying 50 lbs. I felt great. I weighed 195 at the time at 6'. He said between age 25 and 40, I would gain one pound a year through change in my body. He told me that would be my best weight throughout my adult life until I became very elderly. For me, that meant 210. Until my back and knee surgeries, that's about what I weighed.

John

Last edited by John Bailey; 09-25-09 at 02:24 AM.
John Bailey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-09, 04:03 PM   #12
hopsing08
Senior Member
 
hopsing08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
the common issue is that people with more muscle mass dont see how they can lose extra weight. from lifting weights i was around 15% body fat weighing in at 230. that was about 3 years ago. then i lost weight all the way to 190. still at around 12% body fat. but i gained it back and was up to 235, but much more unhealthy. i started training and everyone said, dont lose too much weight. well im at 206 and i still have a gut. its because my muscles leaned out also.

i run into this issue with a few women i know. they look at other women and say she weighs 120, there is no way i could get to 120, but they can, same as you can get to 180... what happens is you have to decide first off if you want to lose the muscle too.
when you do a serious training routine and alot of endurance sports you dont lose strength all together but your muscles "lean" out. so you may have legs that can squat 500lbs and be 8% BF and weigh 250 but when you start cycling, or in my case doing triathlons your muscles realize...i dont need legs that can squat 500lbs. (it helps but you dont need all that muscle.)i need legs that can propel me as i run or as i bike. so your body begins to lean out the muscle.
also another big thing is that when people who weigh alot start to lose weight they lose the fat first, most likely, and then are left with the muscle that was needed to support that weight, then you lose that muscle and since muscle weighs more, you continue to lose weight.

blah blah blah, it can be done. but again many BF calculators say that i should weigh 150 to have a 8% BF. because i have more muscle and like having more muscle, i think my ideal weight is 185 to 190
hopsing08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-09, 06:19 PM   #13
cooleric1234
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Aurora, CO
Bikes: CAAD9-1, Windsor Cliff 29er
Posts: 1,306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I used to disagree with those charts too, until I started losing weight. I'm 6'5" and weighed about 230 lbs for a long time. I thought I'd be fine losing 15-20 lbs. Right now I'm weighing in at 185 and still have 12% body fat, I could feasibly dip into the 170's and still be healthy.
cooleric1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-09, 08:05 PM   #14
DX-MAN
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 4,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm 6'1", about 230-235; a little heavier than I want to be, but not bad.

Ideally, for my body and health, I can roll in about 220 or so. F the BMI's and ideal weight charts. I know when i feel good, and my 'vital numbers' are already good!
DX-MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-09, 07:20 PM   #15
Doohickie 
You gonna eat that?
 
Doohickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
Bikes: 1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS
Posts: 14,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
When I was about that weight (6'-2" and 240 lb.) I seriously felt like I was gonna die.
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.



Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
Doohickie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-09, 07:36 PM   #16
Varina Drag
Working On My Kit Tan
 
Varina Drag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Bikes: 2010 Specialized Allez Double
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As others have said, body fat is a much better measure (although the charts aren't bad for general guidance). My favorite frame of reference is Evander Holyfield. In his prime, he weighed 220 and was considered obese by the BMI chart. We're both 6'1". Since I'm down to 216, I must be in better shape, right?

At the best shape of my life I weighed in at 185, the upper end of my band. I felt really good there and feel like that was my ideal weight. I know I'm a bit over-weight now but I'm not sure 175 is reachable. So, I'm shooting for body fat in the low teens and looking good in my clothes, what ever weight that might be.
Varina Drag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-09, 08:05 PM   #17
downtube42
Senior Member
 
downtube42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Angelo, TX
Bikes: Volae Team, '76 Motobecane Grand Jubile
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think the charts are a good rough guideline. I also think a full-length mirror tells a pretty true story.
downtube42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-09, 06:27 AM   #18
ntime60
Senior Member
 
ntime60's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Indiana
Bikes: Trek 7.3FX
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As long as it is a slightly convex mirror...ahaha

I don't hold much stock in those charts because there are too many variables to account for. Even using them as a rough guideline is error prone. I don't know why people insist on using such crude devices to determine how healthy we are or should be.

How do you feel? How do you look? Are you satisfied with those answers? These are the proper questions to answer.

If you have an insatiable need to know, then get your actual percentage through a body impedance scale and not some very general chart provided by the insurance industry.
ntime60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-09, 09:06 AM   #19
nymtber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NY state
Bikes: See Signature...
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I dont pay attention to those charts. Right now I have a bit to lose, but even if I got down to being in good shape again, I would not be in their "ideal" range. I'm 5'8, they think I should be around 150, that aint gonna happen with these broad shoulders!

Its a good chart, for skinny tiny framed people...
nymtber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-09, 12:38 PM   #20
nkfrench 
Senior Member
 
nkfrench's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Bikes: 2006 Specialized Ruby Pro aka "Rhubarb" / and a backup road bike
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
According to BMI charts and my height I should weigh 126#. My lowest adult weight was 139# and there my body fat was too low and I had no energy, was sick all the time, and was performing very poorly in sports. 145-150 was a much stronger/more sustainable weight for me and is where I had my best swimming times.

Right now I am at a BMI level that suggests my body fat should be in the mid 40's when I am < 35%. BMI may be great as an easy statistical average but that doesn't work for all of us. I also don't fit the averages being 5'6" with size 11W feet, hands too big for XL women's gloves, lung capacity off the charts, etc. I'm more interested in body composition and "what" the pounds I lose are made up of rather than just the changes in pounds and BMI.

When you lose weight there is typically some muscle weight loss. As a smaller person you just don't need all the skeletal muscle you did when larger. Set ballpark goals at first, then re-evaluate as you lose weight.

Last edited by nkfrench; 09-29-09 at 07:02 AM.
nkfrench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-09, 04:56 PM   #21
lunchbox1972
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tucson
Bikes: 01 Specialized Rockhopper A1 and 07 Felt Z80 05 Canondale Prophet
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
BMI charts work sometimes.. Sometimes not.

When I weighed 260, I'm 5'10", my doctor used to pull out the BMI chart and tell me that I should weigh no more than 175.. I'd chuckle and tell him that I weighed 205 when I got out of the Army and nobody would have called me fat.. I did have to get taped every weigh in, but that was not an issue.

A couple of years later, after a MI and subsequent weight loss.. I'm down to 215, 40 lbs over what he said my max was.. Last time I saw him, he said "you look fit".. I'm about 20% body fat, I can live with that.

Could I stand to lose some weight? Yep, but I won't complain where I'm at..

For the record, in the Army, I got down to 178 and taped at 8% body fat.. I would guess that 195-200 lbs is a lean fighting weight for my frame...

In my case the BMI chart doesn't work very well..
lunchbox1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:11 AM.