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


Go Back   > >

General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-04-02, 10:58 AM   #1
threadend
Career Cyclist
Thread Starter
 
threadend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Michigan, USA
Bikes:
Posts: 551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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
threadend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-02, 11:05 AM   #2
webist
Huachuca Rider
 
webist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Bikes: Fuji CCR1, Specialized Roubaix
Posts: 4,275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Recreational rider = 2.63
__________________
Just Peddlin' Around
webist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-02, 11:06 AM   #3
Maelstrom 
Wood Licker
 
Maelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Whistler,BC
Bikes: Transition Dirtbag, Kona Roast 2002 and specialized BMX
Posts: 16,885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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
Maelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-02, 12:09 PM   #4
MKRG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: by a big river
Bikes:
Posts: 2,459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
2.77 Does this mean I can go pro?
MKRG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-02, 12:45 PM   #5
WaltH
Senior Member
 
WaltH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Bikes:
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
71 inches - 170lbs - 2.39ppvi
WaltH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-02, 01:36 PM   #6
Brian_T
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Bikes:
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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
Brian_T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-02, 04:11 PM   #7
Spire
山馬鹿
 
Spire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan
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)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Spire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-02, 04:14 PM   #8
Joe Gardner
BikeForums Founder
 
Joe Gardner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Utah.
Bikes:
Posts: 4,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
76" 170 lbs = 2.23
Joe Gardner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-02, 08:58 PM   #9
Pete Clark
It's in my blood
 
Pete Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Bikes:
Posts: 1,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
2.3.

2.5, if you include my 15-pound pack.

2.9, if you include my bike.
Pete Clark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-02, 09:12 PM   #10
dougc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ
Bikes:
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
150 / 68 = 2.20

What do I win?
dougc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-02, 10:22 PM   #11
Cadd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Bikes:
Posts: 1,452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
120 / 67 = 1.79

I hope the smaller the number, the better it is
Cadd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-02, 11:04 PM   #12
The Speaker Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Bikes:
Posts: 155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
232/68" = 3.411

Low profile Clydesdale
The Speaker Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-02, 09:41 AM   #13
ChipRGW
hehe...He said "member"
 
ChipRGW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FLA
Bikes:
Posts: 630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I ABSOLUTELY refuse to post my results!!

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

ChipRGW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-02, 03:33 PM   #14
Hants Commuter
Senior Member
 
Hants Commuter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hampshire UK
Bikes:
Posts: 232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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?
Hants Commuter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-02, 03:36 PM   #15
Maelstrom 
Wood Licker
 
Maelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Whistler,BC
Bikes: Transition Dirtbag, Kona Roast 2002 and specialized BMX
Posts: 16,885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Maelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-02, 03:57 PM   #16
Hants Commuter
Senior Member
 
Hants Commuter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hampshire UK
Bikes:
Posts: 232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Hants Commuter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-02, 05:44 PM   #17
Maelstrom 
Wood Licker
 
Maelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Whistler,BC
Bikes: Transition Dirtbag, Kona Roast 2002 and specialized BMX
Posts: 16,885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
Maelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-02, 08:40 PM   #18
dirtbikedude
Gravity Is Yer Friend
 
dirtbikedude's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Over the Hill" and going down fast in the 805.
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)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
270/74" = 3.64
dirtbikedude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-02, 02:55 AM   #19
Ellie
Dazed and confused
 
Ellie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cambridge UK
Bikes: Trek 1000, Kona Caldera, Raleigh Record ("Rusty"), Tiger Foldaway ("Cub")
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
About 8 1/2 stone, 5' 3" tall. So, about 119lbs/63" = 1.89 (to 2 d.p.)

Sounds about right.

Ellie
Ellie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-02, 05:33 AM   #20
joeprim
Senior Member
 
joeprim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Northern Neck Tidewater Va.
Bikes:
Posts: 1,688
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
3.4
Joe
joeprim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-02, 08:05 AM   #21
Hawkster
Senior Member
 
Hawkster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taylors Island, MD
Bikes:
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Six months ago was 3.7

Am now 3.0

Later, Paul:cool:
Hawkster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-02, 09:11 AM   #22
willic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: N.E.England.(geordieland)
Bikes:
Posts: 605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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
willic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-02, 01:42 PM   #23
D*Alex
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: upstate New York
Bikes:
Posts: 1,688
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
185/74=2.5
__________________
Je vais à vélo, donc je suis!
D*Alex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-02, 02:12 PM   #24
purple hayes
Senior Member
 
purple hayes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Bikes:
Posts: 230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
162/72 = 2.25 - that's as close as I'll ever get to any of Lance's numbers.
purple hayes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-02, 02:24 PM   #25
earleybird
Zzzzzzzzzzz
 
earleybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somerset, England
Bikes:
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
240/72 + 3.333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

3 is my lucky number
earleybird 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 09:50 PM.