Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    Career Cyclist threadend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    551
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Pounds per inch (ppvi)

    Thought it would be interesting to see how everyday cyclists compare to the pro's in a totally nonqualifying, useless means of measurement, so...since I couldn't find hat sizing information on the internet... how do you measure up in ppvi?

    Anne-Caroline Chausson (Down Hill - women) - 120 pounds / 66 inches tall = 1.81 pounds per vertical inch
    Steve Tilford (MTB - men) - 160 lbs. / 75" tall = 2.13 pounds per vertical inch
    Ned Overend (Triathlete - Ironman)- 148 lbs. / 68" = 2.17 ppvi
    Lance Armstrong (Roadie - DUH)- 158 / 70" = 2.25 ppvi
    Marty Nothstien (track - Olympic Gold) - 205 / 74 = 2.77 ppvi

    threadend (wannabe) = 2.86
    2003 Iceman Challenge - 2:34:55 - 897 / 2,000*
    2002 Iceman Challenge - 2:39:23 - 1093 / 2,186
    2000 Iceman Challenge - 2:49:18 - 1516 / 2,153
    *estimated

  2. #2
    Huachuca Rider webist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    My Bikes
    Fuji CCR1, Specialized Roubaix
    Posts
    4,274
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Recreational rider = 2.63
    Just Peddlin' Around

  3. #3
    Wood Licker Maelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Whistler,BC
    My Bikes
    Transition Dirtbag, Kona Roast 2002 and specialized BMX
    Posts
    16,888
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    78inches / 250pnds = 3.2

    To be honest this should be done with lean weight. Total body mass is just a messed up way of doing it. SOOOO

    215 / 78 = 2.75

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    by a big river
    Posts
    2,459
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    2.77 Does this mean I can go pro?

  5. #5
    Senior Member WaltH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    70
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    71 inches - 170lbs - 2.39ppvi

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    64
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Threadend,

    Not that it matters much but I think Lance is actually 5' 11" (71") tall.

    Brian_T: 71" X 170 lbs. = 2.39

  7. #7
    山馬鹿 Spire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan
    My Bikes
    TREK 1000 and a junk bike with a basket on the front to go to the shops.
    Posts
    1,398
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    156 lbs / 73.5 inches = 2.12ppvi.

    Getting down there! Further proving my underweightness!
    http://www.cyclistsroadmap.com/eng/ - Cyclists' road map. Checkout which roads are good for cycling and rate roads in your area.

  8. #8
    BikeForums Founder Joe Gardner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Holladay, Utah.
    My Bikes
    Santa Cruz Superlight w/ Roholoff 500 & Bob IBEX
    Posts
    4,257
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    76" 170 lbs = 2.23

  9. #9
    It's in my blood Pete Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga
    Posts
    1,222
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    2.3.

    2.5, if you include my 15-pound pack.

    2.9, if you include my bike.
    Next in line

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Cherry Hill, NJ
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    150 / 68 = 2.20

    What do I win?

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    1,452
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    120 / 67 = 1.79

    I hope the smaller the number, the better it is

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    147
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    232/68" = 3.411

    Low profile Clydesdale

  13. #13
    hehe...He said "member" ChipRGW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale, FLA
    Posts
    630
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I ABSOLUTELY refuse to post my results!!

    If 3.41 qualifies as a Clydesdale, I guess that makes me the whole team...


  14. #14
    Senior Member Hants Commuter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hampshire UK
    Posts
    232
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Commuter and sometimes runner 2.65

    Just for interest the top end for optimum weight of the last Height Weight Chart I saw using this formula is about 2.37.

    Isn't there also a calculation based on weight divided by waist size?

  15. #15
    Wood Licker Maelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Whistler,BC
    My Bikes
    Transition Dirtbag, Kona Roast 2002 and specialized BMX
    Posts
    16,888
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Good point. In reality that would still be too inacurate. I have a naturally wide set waist. The easiest way to do it would be to calculate lean weight and then do it. That would be far more accurate. Either that or include multiple bodypart circumferences as well as a bone structure section worked in as well.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Hants Commuter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hampshire UK
    Posts
    232
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've dug out a health assesment I had carried out a month or so back and here are some more ratios to try with what they said where the ranges

    Body Mass Index (BMI) = Weight/(Height)2

    Underweight <20
    Desirable 20 - 25
    Overweight 26-30
    Moderate Obesity 31-40
    Severe Obesity > 40

    I scored 29 and got a warning to lose some weight.

    Waist-Height ratio = Waist/Height
    Undesirable (low) < 40
    Desirable 41 - 50
    caution 51 - 60
    Action Needed > 60

    I scored 52

    BTW all of these calculations need to be done in metric kgs and metres.
    The Body Fat Pertecentage test done (conducted by a machine passing electric current from leg to arm) produced a result of 20% on me. The desirable range is 14 - 19.

    Taken together these suggest I need to lose a few pounds, which I agree with.

    Maelstrom - This may sound like a stupid question and I'm certainly not have a go, but where do you measure your waist?

    I've been 'educated' recently by wife (health care professional) that the waist is measured round the naval, I had always assumed it was around the hips . . This makes it a fairly accurate indication of excess weight as there is no skeletal structure (apart from the spine) to make a waist naturally large.

    Lean weight is a tricky thing I've you have too much weight lean or not the heart and lungs have to work harder to service it. So a different kind of strain is placed on the body.

  17. #17
    Wood Licker Maelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Whistler,BC
    My Bikes
    Transition Dirtbag, Kona Roast 2002 and specialized BMX
    Posts
    16,888
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The only thing I don't and have never liked about bmi is its lack of accuracy. It doesn't take into account muscle mass (lean body weigh) or for that matter bone structure. I am considered extremely obese according to the bmi while I am in fact out of shape but far from obese. That said if you of average muscle mass then bmi is ok but really you fat% is all that matters.

    Also those fat% monitors I believe are +/- 5% (could be 3 but it is very innaccurate) so that means your fat% range is 15 to 25% (high or low, your choice). The average caliper based test is +/- 3.5% I believe which ends up being far more accurate. But in either case both are by far and away better than the bmi (your average football player, bodybilder, weight lifter would all be obese with the bmi standard. If you do a search when I was first starting in physical training I remember a plan to redesign the BMI to take into account bone structure. I am unsure if this has been completed yet though).

    Well I suppose there are disagreements about which is waist. When taking a circumference based fat% test you actually measure the waist AND the naval circumference. Also when my doctor back home measured my 'waist' to see if I was obese (at that point I was huge) she measured my hips and not my stomach.(I call each the opposite of your wife as that was the way I learned how to measure bodyfat% which in reality may not be accurate to the health care way)

    I would disagree with the last part. Lean weight is alwasy healthier than fat. And normally most people have to work for any amount of lean weight over their bodies norm which in turn will strengthen the heart and lungs to be able to accept it without strain. The strain placed on the body is from the sport of training to maintain it, not just being muscled.

  18. #18
    Gravity Is Yer Friend dirtbikedude's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    "Over the Hill" and going down fast in the 805.
    My Bikes
    Scott Gambler, Scott Ransom, Kona Bear, Bianchi 928 Carbon/Chorus, C'Dale Rize4
    Posts
    2,961
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    270/74" = 3.64

  19. #19
    Dazed and confused Ellie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    My Bikes
    Trek 1000, Kona Caldera, Raleigh Record ("Rusty"), Tiger Foldaway ("Cub")
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    About 8 1/2 stone, 5' 3" tall. So, about 119lbs/63" = 1.89 (to 2 d.p.)

    Sounds about right.

    Ellie

  20. #20
    Senior Member joeprim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Northern Neck Tidewater Va.
    Posts
    1,688
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    3.4
    Joe

  21. #21
    Senior Member Hawkster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Taylors Island, MD
    Posts
    79
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Six months ago was 3.7

    Am now 3.0

    Later, Paul:cool:
    Three wheels do not a bicycle make.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    N.E.England.(geordieland)
    Posts
    605
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    141lb - 72ins = 1.98

    Help..... the lowest to date, new i was loosing bagfulls of weight with all this summer road biking , but its reaching anorexia proportions

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    upstate New York
    Posts
    1,688
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    185/74=2.5
    Je vais à vélo, donc je suis!

  24. #24
    Senior Member purple hayes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Posts
    230
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    162/72 = 2.25 - that's as close as I'll ever get to any of Lance's numbers.

  25. #25
    Zzzzzzzzzzz earleybird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Somerset, England
    Posts
    385
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    240/72 + 3.333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

    3 is my lucky number
    I'm ready for something , but I don't know what!!..

Posting Permissions

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