Clydesdale - By the numbers
 

Hi guys-

I want to run something by you all.
I am 6'1" - 6'2" Depending on how tall the person measuring me is. I weigh in right at 200 pounds. I am approx 7% Body Fat. See, I am a personal Trainer at a local Gym. I am a Triathlon & Cycling Coach. I work out sometimes three to six hours a day. I carry my weight very well, and most people guess my weight anywhere from 170-185 pounds

When I compete in a Triathlon, I get all the strange looks from the other Clydesdales in transition and one or two that I know actually give me a jab or two about it!

Look, the number is 200! If I weigh that much, do I not have a right to be there? Why the dirty looks?

I actually like competing in events where we HAVE to weigh in so that everyone knows I'm allowed to be there and not a sand bagger!

my 2 cents: 200 lbs, whether it's fat or muscle is harder on your knees when running, and creates more air/water resistance.

That said, if you're super-fit, wouldn't it be more satisfying to compete against other super-fit people?

Clyde refers to a size not a fitness level no? I thought it was created as a designation for competition purposes.

I have a goal set for myself to finish and olympic distance triathlon in 2008. But, I really wouldn't care if everyone was in the over 200 class or not. I am not there to beat someone that is very low body fat, but over 200 pounds. I am there to meet or exceed one of my goals. If you are there to be competitive, then be competitive in the class you best fit. Age-weight-pro whatever. I honestly don't know how they are all broken down.

From what I understand a clyde is anyone over 200 pounds. It doesn't say anyone over 200 pounds with a body fat % of 15 or higher. I will be very happy when my body fat % reaches 15%. But, since I don't have the money or anywhere to actually test true body fat %, I will have to guess at that figure.

If you feel comfortable running in a class where you are the best fit (by body fat %), then run in that class. If you are questioning that to a web forum, you must already have some doubt. If I ever get under 200 pounds, which is my goal, I will not gain weight to compete as a clyde.

I'd say that the argument is as old as the Clydesdale division, itself... but it's not. I used to race tri's back in the late 80s and early 90s, when the Clydesdale division first started showing up at events. (First one I remember being in was the Columbus, OH Tri at Mosquito Lake in '88) There were no arguments of sandbagging, because the only people racing in the Clyde div. were all tall, lower bodyfat percentage people who happened to weigh over 200 pounds. It was also a rare day when the Clyde start wave was more than 5 or 6 people, even at a big race. It wasn't until the division became more widely known that you started to see the division really fill up, because competitors that wouldn't typically race in an age division now had a more reasonable bracket to race in.
No matter how you look at it, 200 pounds is 200 pounds (unless you're racing on the moon :p) Even if you're 6'2" and 225 pounds of gym-tuned muscle, it's still more effort to move that mass over a race course than if you're 6'2" and 165 pounds, more like an ultradistance runner.
There's one distinct disadvantage to being super-gym hardbody with low bodyfat for racing tri's: You sink like a rock. If it's a "no wetsuits" race, then the muscle monsters are in for some hurt because they have to expend extra energy just to stay afloat. I used to notice a big floatation difference from 11% down to 8% when I raced, and tried to keep myself to the higher end of that range.

Here's a site where you can calculate your bodyfat percentage with moderate accuracy. They use a 4 point tape-measure calculation for men, I can't remember if it was 3 or 4 points for women. A friend of mine had both a caliper and an impedence test done at her nutritionist's office, and this tape-measure test was within 0.5% of the results she got at the doctor... so I trust it to be close enough. (They claim +/- 2% accuracy on the site.)

http://www.healthcentral.com/cholest...-2774-143.html

Here is the definition of a Clyde

Over 200 pounds.
http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/cm...?articleid=270

Interesting site. Mine checked out at 17.9% BF. I'm 210, but only 5'6". I commute 28 miles a day and spend an additional 3 hours/week in the gym doing upper body strength training.

The site asked you to check your waist and hips, which I can understand, but also your forearm and wrist. I would have expected bicep and neck instead.

I did the site, and it has me at 12.8%, which seems a lot low considering my body. I will do it again in a while and see what I come up with.

Thanks for the link.

If you have to be 200 pounds and 200 pounds is what it takes to compete as a Clyde then I say go for it.

I hate that people treat Clyde as Fat.... :( It is so often not the case...

The drop ratio from forearm to wrist, along with some mathemagick involving your height and weight, are a good indicator of body fat percentage because for most cases, there's not a lot of fat at the wrist.

Um...OK, but there's also no fat to speak of on my forearm. I can easily trace the veins on both sides.

The Wikipedia has an interesting article on body fat percentage, including calculations based on height and circumference methods. I particularly liked the last line of that section: Go Neanderthals! :D

Right. So the measured drop, no matter how large, will likely be accounted for in muscle mass. The mathemagickal calculations are likely designed to utilize height/weight ratios and general measurements of muscle vs adipose tissue weight per unit volume when calculating body fat based on circumference.

Maybe the site I listed uses the wrist instead of the neck because it's a measurement which is difficult to cheat? (I can't think of how to flex or suck-in the measurement at my wrist.)

That was very informative. Thank you.

my body fat % = bacon grease.

200 pounds is 200 pounds.

200 pounds is my goal so i can stay in the clyde category in tri's. 25 pounds to go. :)

Hmmm... I'm 6'1", 225 lbs, and that site says my BF% is 14.5.

I was sort of working towards getting into the "healthy" BMI range which starts at about 185 for my height. According to the above, that might be a little hard.

Maybe I'll be joining the OP in the perma-clyde status. :D

I hate to go against the norm here, but 7% body fat and a Personal trainer and a Triathlon & Cycling Coach. Your a pro. Wouldn't it help you compete better of you went to a different class??

btw.. I bet a few days your under 200... 199,198 and somedays your over 201 or 202... it's just what the body does.

Askel - I am also shooting for the top of the BMI chart for the normal range. I went from the obese range to overweight and still have 40 pounds to go to get my goal.

I talked to a few doctors about the BMI chart and they say it is a good range for most people as most people are not lifting weights 3 days a week and trying to get into a better weight range. Two of them said I should get to the body that I feel comfortable with and maintain the weight/size at that point. I have a friend who is 6'0" and is right around 195-200. He is probably in the less than 10% body fat range most of the year, and no he is not a body builder. He lifts weights, runs, swims, etc.......

Do what your body tells you to do. I saw your pictures on the other forum and it shows you have accomplished a lot. Keep up the good work.

i wouldnt worry about the BMI too much if you have a large frame.

it sounds like we have very similar demensions. 6'1" - 225lbs. the calculator on that site says 14%, my body fat calipers say 16% for me.

for me to get to 185 i would need to have 0% body fat or lose some of my muscle mass (which i like and dont want to lose). ive always taken the BMI with a large helping of salt for this reason. its just unrealistic for some people.

I'm 6'1 and 245 'ish. Says I', 23%, 187 of lean muscle and 57 pounds of fat!:D

I did one of those hand held devices when I was 220. Said I was 30% and to seek medical help!:D

The problem with being right at 200lbs is that many clydes are in the 240-250 range so you probably look like a lightweight to them.. If you are over 200+, don't sweat it because you ae within your right to be in that category..

I have been dropping weight fairly consistently since being back on the bike since July, I have gone from 267 to 245 and seem to be on a 2lb weight loss each week.. My body fat is also dropping which is a nice plus..

A Couple of things.
This is a great thread. Lots of fantastic responses! It's really nice to see.
Love the article on Clydes description.

I did the body fat site... 17.3% It's a little off. I have been body scanned on a Dexiscan GE machine. In June after a few months off I was an accurate 8.8% up from 7.7% 3 months prior. This is probably THE most reliable way to test Body Fat in the Industry today. There is also a machine called the POD, but I don't know of one in Las Vegas as of yet. The water dunk test is old school and not as reliable.

I have the professional calipers. They are pretty accurate. They rely on the accuracy of human preforming the test. (+/- 1% variance)
I have access to a very good body fat scale in the gym. Close- (+/-1%) depending on persons knowledge of the unit applying the test. There are two variables- one for normal, one for athletic which can only be applied to persons working out 10+ hours per week.

If I race in my 35-39 age group. I will get top 20%. This is competing against guys 40-70 pounds lighter and with the weight difference, can out-swim, out-bike, and out-run me. Usually. They can spin away on the uphill, but I will of course do a little better downhill. It's usually not enough to catch them by this point. Then on the run, I lose them. They just take off like deer!

So, in the couple races I have done in the last year and a half as a clyde, I find that I place top 10% usually, but it is up against the more fit guys. Not the larger gentleman. They love to race, and I understand that their reasons for doing the tri differ from mine.
It's not a question of competition to win any "thing", but more of a fair competition in regards to what is fun and challenging to participate in.

Technically, by our government's BMI chart. I am overweight. Ridiculous.

Pros are scary fast. And at 36, I'm kinda past that calling.
I also smoked for 10 years. Although I make no excuses.

Weight variance
 

Sure, some days I am under-some days over, but not many. It would be fair to say 200 +/- 3 Pounds
Pro level. I do about a 2:45 Olympic on average. Pros get through in 1:56-1:58
20 minutes out of my run would be a miracle. The swim they finish around :20 minutes. I'm happy with :30. The bike is a around :50 depending on course. I ride 1:05-1:10.

If you're carrying it during the race, then I'm OK with you being there.

Of course, I'm sitting just under 180 now, so... :)