threadend

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

webist

Recreational rider = 2.63

Maelstrom 

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

MKRG

2.77 Does this mean I can go pro?

WaltH

71 inches - 170lbs - 2.39ppvi

Brian_T

Threadend,

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

Brian_T: 71" X 170 lbs. = 2.39

Spire

156 lbs / 73.5 inches = 2.12ppvi.

Getting down there! Further proving my underweightness!

Joe Gardner

76" 170 lbs = 2.23

Pete Clark

2.3.

2.5, if you include my 15-pound pack.

2.9, if you include my bike.

dougc

150 / 68 = 2.20

What do I win?

Cadd

120 / 67 = 1.79

I hope the smaller the number, the better it is

The Speaker Guy

232/68" = 3.411

Low profile Clydesdale

ChipRGW

I ABSOLUTELY refuse to post my results!!

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

Hants Commuter

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?

Maelstrom 

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.

Hants Commuter

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.

Maelstrom 

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.

dirtbikedude

270/74" = 3.64

Ellie

About 8 1/2 stone, 5' 3" tall. So, about 119lbs/63" = 1.89 (to 2 d.p.)

Sounds about right.

Ellie

joeprim

3.4
Joe

Hawkster

Six months ago was 3.7

Am now 3.0

Later, Paul:cool:

willic

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

D*Alex

185/74=2.5

purple hayes

162/72 = 2.25 - that's as close as I'll ever get to any of Lance's numbers.

earleybird

240/72 + 3.333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

3 is my lucky number