USA Triathlon changes definitions for Athena's and Clydes
 

Athena go from 150 to 165
Clydes go from 200 to 220

I found this on the Beginner Triathlete Forum

I know we have a sticky'd Triathlete thread but I thought it might be of interest to some non triathlon cyclists as well.

Those bums!

I'm sticking with 200# because I don't like wearing sleeveless jerseys and I don't like running. :D

I was reading a forum talking about it, and they have a point. It should be height to weight ratio as far as qualifying for competitions. I'm short, very short, so at 150 I would still be chubby and out of shape. (In fact, once upon a time I was 150 and out of shape. According to my BMI I'm supposed to be 123 or somewhere around there, making me eighty pounds overweight.) A friend of mine is super short and skinny, doesn't even break 100 lbs wet. If she was where I'm supposed to be, she would be overweight. So there are a lot of factors that define Clydes and Athenas. As for me, I hate running and can't swim competitively, so I'll decide how long I consider myself an athena. :P

I will probably always be an Athena as even my ideal weight is around the cut-off for Athena's. I am big boned and have broad shoulders for a woman so my ideal weight is in the 145-160 range. I am aiming for 155 currently.

I agree! I'm 5'8" and 208. Crossing 200 just means I still have 30lbs of belly to go.

My first sprint triathlon is in a couple of weeks. Training for it has helped me get through a couple of weight plateaus.

I'm just glad I don't have to change my tattoo.

A bit of a bizzaar move. Certainly those clydes between 200-220 are at a disadvantage when competing against the average 135-165 lb athlete.One thing that is important to remember is that: the Clyde and Athena categories were not originally created in order to provide consideration for those who are over weight. The origins were from an effort to allow recognition of those athletes that were everybit as fit as other top competitors, but, because of their body type or muscle mass were at a significant disadvantage and unlikely to see the podium. As I recall the original category started at 185 for men.Unfortunately that seems to have been forgotten and it's become a circus side show for the over weight.

I'm at 183 now, from 228. Based on my BMI, I still have [strike]33[/strike] 20 pounds to go to be considered normal, and 28 lbs to go to my goal, so I'm still a Clyde in certain respects.

But in terms of the load I put on a frame, wheels, saddle, etc, I guess I no longer have all the same concerns that a heavier Clyde would.

This.

Even if I do qualify and there is a Clyde class, I never race in it anymore.

And it's a trend I've noticed amongst my fellow relatively fit clydes. None of us race clydesdale class anymore. It feels too much like sandbagging.

And really, if you're 200-220lbs and relatively fit, you have an honest shot at the regular podium positions in many forms of bike racing. Even I've managed a few non-clyde trophies.

But lately I've been a fan of one race/one podium. No short distances. No age categories. No single speed/fat bike/fat rider class. I'll maybe give you a gender based podium, but that's it.

That's why I hesitate to enter one. That and not being able to swim more than 50 meters without stopping to rest.

OK you lightweights time to quit whining and go race with the little people.

197cm/6' 4 1/2" 113kg/250 lbs ensures that I'll never be a "lightweight". At best I'll get down to around 108kg or 235lbs. I have "No" chance of ever being anything but a clyde, subsequently, as a clyde for life, I reserve my right to comment on the issue.

I laughed when I read this. :)

A point that other forum made was that the clyde class was great for beginners trying to get in shape. Somewhere they actually had a chance to win instead of getting left in the dust. Not a circus freakshow, but a starting point.

3 years ago I got back into shape for a timed climbing century. Best I could do was 228 lbs so I'll still be a Clyde even when I am in form. Not to mention 6'1 :p


http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3664/3...6fa52bbdcc.jpg
GMR51509 by mrbeanz1, on Flickr

This seems silly to me. I'm 5'10" and about 190, I've lost over 100lbs in the past year and I could probably lose 20 more lbs and remain very healthy. It's arguable that 200 lbs @5'10" is still quite obese.

I was so jazzed yesterday when I read this. All right, yeah! I'm not a clyde anymore. Then...I weighed myself this morning.

Body type is an odd thing. I mean I'm and inch or two taller than you Beanz and at ~220 8 lbs lighter, but I definitely have much more of a gut than you show in those pictures. I like the idea of typing based on experience (like a Cat5) for beginners rather than weight, but I don't run anymore (knees) and haven't swum much in the last couple of years so I don't see my myself competing in any triathlons and having to worry about it.

I know your feeling. Last week, I wouldn't have been a clyde under the new guidelines. This week, I am. :(