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 03-01-12, 08:38 PM   #1
Mark Stone
Littledog
Thread Starter
 
Mark Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Southwest Desert
Bikes: 2013 Giant Escape 2
Posts: 2,896
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
I'll Always Be a Clydesdale! WOOOOO!!!

At 6'5" tall, my ideal weight is about 205 to 210 lbs. Right now I'm at about 265, but losing weight on Weight Watchers. When I reach my goal weight, I'll still be heavy enough to qualify for this forum! You'll never get rid of me! Muhahahahaha!!!
Mark Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-12, 09:34 PM   #2
IBOHUNT
Senior Member
 
IBOHUNT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Western Maryland - Appalachian Mountains
Bikes: Motobecane Fantom Cross; Cannondale Supersix replaced the Giant TCR which came to an untimely death by truck
Posts: 3,593
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've found that even though I am no longer considered a 'proper' Clyde I'm still welcome at 185 lbs.
IBOHUNT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-12, 10:28 PM   #3
TrojanHorse 
SuperGimp
 
TrojanHorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Whittier, CA
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix
Posts: 11,184
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Clydes are also riders taller than 6 feet... regardless of weight.

Regardless, this forum is a pretty friendly place here at bikeforums.
TrojanHorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-12, 11:35 PM   #4
Big Pete 1982
Senior Member
 
Big Pete 1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chelan, WA
Bikes: Cannondale CAAD-10
Posts: 389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I hear ya! I'm 6'7 myself so it's pretty unrealistic to think i'll ever be much less than about 225. Even that may be a pipe dream as I'm currently 290!
Big Pete 1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-12, 06:39 AM   #5
Beastb15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Bikes:
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
6'4" 230lbs here. I last year I was under 200 lbs I was in high school
Beastb15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-12, 08:13 AM   #6
Neil_B
Guest
 
Bikes:
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
At barely 6'1" I qualify, but even if I shrank an inch and dropped below 200 I'd stay here. Too much fun going on to leave.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-12, 08:17 AM   #7
paisan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrojanHorse View Post
Clydes are also riders taller than 6 feet... regardless of weight.
I've never heard this one before.

I am curious to the begining of the "clydesdale" moniker. The earliest I can remember is the mid 90's at regional/state level MTB and enduro race series where it was a category based on weight. I don't remember it ever being a NORBA class but I only raced a handful of those events.

I wonder if anyone whose been in the sport longer than that can shed some light on how this term started getting used in cycling?
paisan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-12, 12:40 PM   #8
Mr. Beanz
Banned.
 
Mr. Beanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Upland Ca
Bikes: Lemond Chambery/Cannondale R-900/Trek 8000 MTB/Burley Duet tandem
Posts: 20,030
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have no desire to lose Clyde status and if I wanted, don't think I could. Back in 04/05 I had watched my weight religiously for 3 years or so. Rode my butt off but the lowest I hit is 220. 20 years ago I exercised and play a whole lot more sports and the best I could do was 205.

At 6'1 these are the lowest weights I've hit. In order to maintain these weights I had to avoid fast foods, salad dressings, goodies, butter and mayo over a period of 3 years. It is too tough for me to watch my weight year after year since I am an eater. Now if somebody challenges me on a rid that is months/year away, it's on but I still won't drop below 220.

On the flip side of the coin, I ride through the bad parts of town and nobody bothers me, why would Ii want to leave Clyde status?



2004/5 (?)...220 lbs



1992...205 lbs

Mr. Beanz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-12, 01:11 PM   #9
goldfinch 
Senior Member
 
goldfinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Minnesota/Arizona and between
Bikes: Trek Madone 4.7 WSD, 1969 Schwinn Collegiate, Surly Long Haul Trucker, Terry Classic, Gary Fisher Marlin, Litespeed Ocoee
Posts: 3,980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Googling about I found this:

Craig Smith Seattle Times (Wash.) (Feb. 9) “The Weigh To Go—Clydesdales Starting To Leave Their Hoofprint On Racing” p. D8: The Clydesdale Runners Association has been founded to lobby for the weight-division awards. “I’m obsessed with this, and it’s driving my family crazy,” said Joe Law, founder of the organization.…Law said the name Clydesdale was a natural because of its connotation of “strength and power.” He said before the name was adopted, people turned up their noses when he approached them about creating “heavyweight divisions.…They thought I was just talking about overweight people.”


http://www.doubletongued.org/index.p...ry/clydesdale/

From Run Big Chicago

The concept of weight division competition and the moniker “Clydesdale”, can be traced back to a Baltimore area statistician name Joe Law who founded the Clydesdale Runners Association in the mid-1980s. Joe Law convinced the race director of the Marine Corps Marathon and several other local races to include a field on race applications for competitors to record their weight. This data provided the basis for Joe’s statistical analysis of running performance vs. weight, and he determined with mathematical precision, that a runner’s weight and speed in road races are inversely proportional. Above 160 or 170 pounds there is a sharp drop off in times. This observation provided the basis for concept of weight division competition, so that big runners could compete amongst their peers, on a more level playing field. The concept is analogous to offering age-division competition in road races and has gained grudging support through the years. Joe coined the term “Clydesdale” to identify big athletes. Clydesdales are big and strong horses—perhaps not the fastest, but certainly amongst the most determined of the workhorses. Weight division competitors relish being compared to their equine anima. Sadly, Joe Law passed away in 1991 and the national Clydesdale movement stalled.
http://clydesdale.org/wherearetheynow/

References to Law and the Clydesdales can be found here too: http://clydesdale.org/wherearetheynow/

It sounds like the initial use of the term was simply for people who were big, tall and strong. On this board it also includes the overweight who may or may not be a Clydesdale (or Athena) when they are at their normal or ideal weight.
goldfinch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-12, 03:13 PM   #10
chefisaac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: cherry hill, nj
Bikes:
Posts: 6,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I will always be a Clydesdale and proud of it.
chefisaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-12, 05:42 PM   #11
Daspydyr 
Pedals, Paddles and Poles
 
Daspydyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Btw the Mohave desert and AREA 51
Bikes: Santa Cruz Tallboy, Ridley Noah, Scott Spark 20
Posts: 5,352
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Last year I had some health problems that took my weight down to 185, I'm 6'3". My wife likes me best @220. So do I, Clyde for life and what my wife says is more important than some chart.
__________________
I think its disgusting and terrible how people treat Lance Armstrong, especially after winning 7 Tour de France Titles while on drugs!

I can't even find my bike when I'm on drugs. -Willie N.
Daspydyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-12, 06:53 PM   #12
paisan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldfinch View Post
Googling about I found this:

Craig Smith Seattle Times (Wash.) (Feb. 9) “The Weigh To Go—Clydesdales Starting To Leave Their Hoofprint On Racing” p. D8: The Clydesdale Runners Association has been founded to lobby for the weight-division awards. “I’m obsessed with this, and it’s driving my family crazy,” said Joe Law, founder of the organization.…Law said the name Clydesdale was a natural because of its connotation of “strength and power.” He said before the name was adopted, people turned up their noses when he approached them about creating “heavyweight divisions.…They thought I was just talking about overweight people.”


http://www.doubletongued.org/index.p...ry/clydesdale/

From Run Big Chicago

The concept of weight division competition and the moniker “Clydesdale”, can be traced back to a Baltimore area statistician name Joe Law who founded the Clydesdale Runners Association in the mid-1980s. Joe Law convinced the race director of the Marine Corps Marathon and several other local races to include a field on race applications for competitors to record their weight. This data provided the basis for Joe’s statistical analysis of running performance vs. weight, and he determined with mathematical precision, that a runner’s weight and speed in road races are inversely proportional. Above 160 or 170 pounds there is a sharp drop off in times. This observation provided the basis for concept of weight division competition, so that big runners could compete amongst their peers, on a more level playing field. The concept is analogous to offering age-division competition in road races and has gained grudging support through the years. Joe coined the term “Clydesdale” to identify big athletes. Clydesdales are big and strong horses—perhaps not the fastest, but certainly amongst the most determined of the workhorses. Weight division competitors relish being compared to their equine anima. Sadly, Joe Law passed away in 1991 and the national Clydesdale movement stalled.
http://clydesdale.org/wherearetheynow/

References to Law and the Clydesdales can be found here too: http://clydesdale.org/wherearetheynow/

It sounds like the initial use of the term was simply for people who were big, tall and strong. On this board it also includes the overweight who may or may not be a Clydesdale (or Athena) when they are at their normal or ideal weight.
Interesting articles which explain where the movement started. This has been something I have always been curious about. However, the one thing those articles mention multiple times is that weight is/was the determining factor, not height. Is there now a "height factor"? I only ask because if I line up as a clydesdale at a local MTB race(which I would like to do a couple of times this year) can I expect to see a 6'3" tall 160 pound guy in my group based on the fact that he's over 6 ft tall? That's a bit ridiculous to consider him a clydesdale, and seems like it would beg for people to sandbag the weight divisions.
paisan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-12, 07:35 PM   #13
youcoming
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ontario Canada
Bikes: Opus Andante/Parleez5i/Burley Tosa Tandem
Posts: 2,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm 6'1" and two years ago got below 200 for the first time in 20 years, and I loved it but the weight came back when I hit a dark chapter in my life. I'm now working my way out of that chapter and the weight is coming off with it. I don't want to be a clyde and will not be truely happy till I'm not and that's what really matters. Be happy, if that's 230lbs then that's what it is.
youcoming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-12, 07:37 PM   #14
goldfinch 
Senior Member
 
goldfinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Minnesota/Arizona and between
Bikes: Trek Madone 4.7 WSD, 1969 Schwinn Collegiate, Surly Long Haul Trucker, Terry Classic, Gary Fisher Marlin, Litespeed Ocoee
Posts: 3,980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by paisan View Post
Interesting articles which explain where the movement started. This has been something I have always been curious about. However, the one thing those articles mention multiple times is that weight is/was the determining factor, not height. Is there now a "height factor"? I only ask because if I line up as a clydesdale at a local MTB race(which I would like to do a couple of times this year) can I expect to see a 6'3" tall 160 pound guy in my group based on the fact that he's over 6 ft tall? That's a bit ridiculous to consider him a clydesdale, and seems like it would beg for people to sandbag the weight divisions.
I think that it would not be height alone.
goldfinch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-12, 02:25 AM   #15
brawlo
Senior Member
 
brawlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Australia
Bikes:
Posts: 584
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
The lightest I've been in my 6'5" adult life was 115kg (250ish lbs), during my hardest season playing rugby where I was playing full 80min games week in week out. I finished rugby and pushed up to 140kg and hovered there for a few years. I took up cycling 2 1/2 years ago and after getting into racing, I have come down to 120kg and will be heading lower still, but I've lost a fair amount of muscle I once had from doing heavy weighlifting. I plan to have a good go at track cycling for next summer season, and that will involve getting back into weights. Even though I could lose 15kg or so in fat, I think I will probably hover closer to 110kg if I can stick to my planand build some muscle.

I've never really thought of myself as a clydesdale per se but more see myself under the super clydesdale monniker. Despite my weight, which went up to 150kg while I was doing heavy weights, I have always been fairly fit. When I was 150kg I was doing weights 6 days a week, as well as up to 12 hours of half court basketball spread over 3-4 days. Back then I could because I was a uni student.

Like the OP, unless I suffer some serious health problems, my height and build dictate that I will always be a clyesdale.
brawlo 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 04:41 PM.