Is it time to update the weight requirements for this forum?
 

The average American man weighs 195.7 pounds and the average American woman is 168.5 pounds, according to the CDC. Clydesdales are supposed to be above average, the big and the strong.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm

Ha, I've always thought 200# was a low bar for men.

I accept I am a Clyde for life as at 6'5 I can't imagine being under 200 and will always view myself as 'big'.
But I guess in this sport/activity, 200# is high if you come at it from a competitive perspective.

Over 6' and over 65, 230 is the new 190... comfort/endurance/gravel bikes with 28 tires is the industry's response.

Barring a degenerative disease, I don't see my weight getting under 200lbs. Even if I keep shrinking, I think I'm gonna successfully stay above 6 foot-- I'm down to around 6'1 3/4" from a previous high of 6'2", so I'm feelin' alright about that.

My height and weight aside, as long as those genetically gifted jerks that are 5'10" and weigh 140lbs are out there hoovering up KOMs, I will continue to fall back on the fact that I am a big ol' freight train of a man, and I'll never be fast up hills.

Two hundred pounds might not be a high target for the typical inactive American, but for a cyclist, it's pretty big. Pretty damn big.

No because it also shows the average male is 5'9" (I don't think that's accurate, I think it's lower). At 195 and 5'9" by definition that is overweight and close to moderately obese.

So why update the weight on this forum?

For the same reason that 32 waist shorts are really 34", so that people can feeeeel better. :)

Anyone else old enough to remember "Husky" sized jeans?

WTF:

So I am pretty much spot on average for the first two, but my waist circumference is 34, and pretty much all my body fat is around my waist (the worst place, fwiw). So something is wrong with this picture.

I am 6'3"

I was 212 in April. In August I'm now 194. The goal is to keep easing my way down toward the 180s as long as it feels right.

The concept is simple, and the implementation is hard but thoroughly enjoyable:

• Step 1: Ride 4-5 days a week, 15-60 miles, targeting over 100 for the week (typically around 120 now).
• Step 2: Eat when I'm hungry, until I'm full. Don't eat when I'm not hungry, or when I'm bored.

That's about it. The topography of my area dictates that if I leave my own neighborhood on a ride, I'm going to have 800-2000 feet of climbing, guaranteed. The hills help.

People mention the difference. I state I've been cycling. They nod as if it's a foregone conclusion that getting onto a bike here and there will shed pounds. That assumption is not recognizing that it's not a few miles here and there a couple times a week; it's a commitment to hit that 100+ and 4-5x/week threshold consistently. As for my eating, I eat whatever I want when I'm eating a full meal, and in whatever quantity I want. But I eat full meals when I need them, and stay away from other times.

I always thought "Husky" was a brand when I was growing up.....

I'm doing pretty much the same thing ... I've told my wife and friends, I'm eating JUST enough to take the edge off the hunger when I feel it.

Last few weeks I haven't been as diligent, and put on a couple of pounds, but I've just about dropped them again.

And my legs ... holy crap ... I don't think my legs have ever been this lean.

If you think the standards should be reset, look at new wheel sets and rider weight recommendations.

Oh sure.... making people feel like they don't belong here is just the perfect way to treat people who might have body image issues.

"Sorry dude, you can't be here, you are not fat enough."

Yes, and I used to wear them.

Hunger, like thirst is the worst gauge. Rather, eat/drink on a schedule is the way to control your weight. Also, weight < fat percentage.

One more thing, that scale is dubious. What type of "average" does it refer to?

Works for me. Why does diet need to be more complicated than eat when hungary, stop when not. I'm not saying wait until you"re ravenous, then gorge irresponsibly. Just get a feel for initial hunger and nip in the bud, then stop.

Morphine will kill the pain but it won't cure the disease. Sometimes things seem to work but may not always be the best solution.


The problem with hunger feeding is that it can be triggered by many things. Like Pavlov's dogs for example. And some people just see food or others eating and feel hunger. Even smells can often times trigger what we feel is hunger or the desire to eat.


Anyway, the problem for the majority of the population that rely on hunger as a feeding mechanism is the delayed response: by the time they feel satiated, they've already overeaten.

Just read this in The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rweight-people

The data may be true but incomplete: There were no power chairs for individuals or in big box stores in 1976. Do I need to go on?

Also, this caught my attention.

The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his film The Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use of subliminal scents.

They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance. The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims

They hire biddable scientists and thinktanks to confuse us about the causes of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is a question of “personal responsibility”. After spending billions on overriding our willpower, they blame us for failing to exercise it.

Thanks for reading.

Yep, and I remember jeans before they were all stone washed. I'm pretty weird in a lot of ways, and one is I always loved the smell of brand new denim and I'm frugal enough to not want my jeans "pre-worn". I recently found some throwback jeans by Wrangler that are the exact style and brand of the husky sized jeans of my youth. Stiff as a board and I love 'um :)
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...311af93a9d.jpg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...44c2fc63eb.jpg

Honestly, my weight is sub-clyde now. I'm holding right around 13 stone, and have been since I gained 4-5 pounds back after losing 30+ in November in the accident

However, I'm 6'7. I think that makes me Cyldey! I have the wind resistance of HMS Victory!!

If your 6'7" and under 200 lbs, you could be considered a race horse now!!!!

I've never ... NEVER understood the mentality in this subforum of, "Your diet can't possibly be working because my diet says it shouldn't. You should be doing this and this and that instead."

If something is working for someone in terms of weight loss, why do others feel the need to interject? I know this is an open forum, but seriously ... if someone isn't ASKING for your opinion, there's no need to interject because you feel your brain is bigger.

To each their own, your mileage may vary, you do you and all that other assorted BS.

Sorry ... it touched a nerve today.

Well, the first sentence and the second sentence are not mutually inclusive. I can share my diet that works with people and not claim they are doing it wrong. I am just sharing what works and they can take it for what it is worth.

Misrepresenting it as The One True Way is the problem.