Are you a Clyde/Athena because of a large build and muscle, or because of fat.
12-11-10, 03:57 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chino Hills
Posts: 46
Bikes: Trek 1500 (Early 90's), Peugoet UO-8(197x)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Are you a Clyde/Athena because of a large build and muscle, or because of fat.
Just curious how many here qualify as Clydesdales and Athenas because of say a lot of muscle and a large/tall build, as opposed to how many are here because they could stand to lose weight? I would like to make a poll but I am not entirely sure I can do so on this forum.
As for me I am not particularly tall at only 6ft, however I do have a very large frame. I will say though that I qualify as a Clyde because I crash diet and haven't been active nor eat well causing my weight to fluctuate terribly. I am currently rather chubby at 230-240. I will say though I have been under 200 before, actually 190 after being my largest at 270 and I will say at that weight I looked great however any lighter and I wouldn't look right. That being said, no matter what I do, I will because of my build be a Clyde or darn near it, but how big I get after 200-210 is simply my fault by making bad choices.
As for me I am not particularly tall at only 6ft, however I do have a very large frame. I will say though that I qualify as a Clyde because I crash diet and haven't been active nor eat well causing my weight to fluctuate terribly. I am currently rather chubby at 230-240. I will say though I have been under 200 before, actually 190 after being my largest at 270 and I will say at that weight I looked great however any lighter and I wouldn't look right. That being said, no matter what I do, I will because of my build be a Clyde or darn near it, but how big I get after 200-210 is simply my fault by making bad choices.
12-11-10, 06:30 AM
#4
Starting over
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,077
Bikes: 1990 Trek 1500; 2006 Gary Fisher Marlin; 2011 Cannondale Synapse Alloy 105; 2012 Catrike Trail
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
I'd like to say both, since I do have a broad-ish build. But at only 5'-10" that build would still have my ideal weight around 165 to 170, and only heavier than that if I had some serious muscle on top of it all, which I don't and probably never will. So that leaves fat. Which my mirror confirms every day. 
12-11-10, 06:36 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Up
Posts: 4,695
Bikes: Masi, Giant TCR, Eisentraut (retired), Jamis Aurora Elite, Zullo, Cannondale, 84 & 93 Stumpjumpers, Waterford, Tern D8, Bianchi, Gunner Roadie, Serotta, Serotta Duette, was gifted a Diamond Back
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked 2,038 Times
in
604 Posts
Both, I am a clyde since I am taller than 6 feet and weigh over 200 lbs but I have too much body fat also.
12-11-10, 07:01 AM
#6
Senior Member
Def. carry too much fat. But, that said, if I had 0% body fat, I'd be right about 200 lbs.
12-11-10, 07:26 AM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Central PA
Posts: 629
Bikes: Cannondale Six5, Specialized Stumpjumper FSR & old Hard Rock
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I'm a clyde who is / has always been a big guy. I graduated highschool @ 6 '4 218lbs.and lean, muscular build. I have always had a large frame who worked a physical job and stayed fairly active. However, over time I'd put on some weight. I was 240 when I started riding 3 years ago. I raced my last adventure race back in November @ 217 lbs. So the muscle has always been there, I just try to maintain it while keeping down on the rest.
12-11-10, 07:27 AM
#8
Uber Goober
The 200 lb criteria isn't that significant, really. But it seems to me that the "large build", "big bones", "carries it well", etc., are all just kind of justifications for not losing weight. (I don't recall ever seeing a skeleton that had "big bones"!)
One thing to think about- if you are reasonably active, but overweight, you will have extra muscle just to tote all that weight around. That doesn't mean you SHOULD have that extra muscle, or that your ideal build would be the same muscle with zero fat. I got into cycling, and it wasn't that hard in a way because I had good strong legs. But my legs got good and strong from toting all my fat around.
One thing to think about- if you are reasonably active, but overweight, you will have extra muscle just to tote all that weight around. That doesn't mean you SHOULD have that extra muscle, or that your ideal build would be the same muscle with zero fat. I got into cycling, and it wasn't that hard in a way because I had good strong legs. But my legs got good and strong from toting all my fat around.
__________________
"be careful this rando stuff is addictive and dan's the 'pusher'."
"be careful this rando stuff is addictive and dan's the 'pusher'."
12-11-10, 07:54 AM
#10
Senior Member
12-11-10, 09:13 AM
#13
Out fishing with Annie on his lap, a cigar in one hand and a ginger ale in the other, watching the sunset.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida
Posts: 16,056
Bikes: Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 22 Times
in
17 Posts
Height, weight, and muscle.....all three.
__________________
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche
"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche
"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
12-11-10, 09:53 AM
#16
Bulky Bullet
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Smyrna Beach, FL
Posts: 1,101
Bikes: Burley Koosah / RANS Zenetik Pro / Catrike Expedition
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The 200 lb criteria isn't that significant, really. But it seems to me that the "large build", "big bones", "carries it well", etc., are all just kind of justifications for not losing weight. (I don't recall ever seeing a skeleton that had "big bones"!)
One thing to think about- if you are reasonably active, but overweight, you will have extra muscle just to tote all that weight around. That doesn't mean you SHOULD have that extra muscle, or that your ideal build would be the same muscle with zero fat. I got into cycling, and it wasn't that hard in a way because I had good strong legs. But my legs got good and strong from toting all my fat around.
One thing to think about- if you are reasonably active, but overweight, you will have extra muscle just to tote all that weight around. That doesn't mean you SHOULD have that extra muscle, or that your ideal build would be the same muscle with zero fat. I got into cycling, and it wasn't that hard in a way because I had good strong legs. But my legs got good and strong from toting all my fat around.
__________________
"Obstacles don't like me very much. I make them look bad."
"Obstacles don't like me very much. I make them look bad."
12-11-10, 10:05 AM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Have we had the discussion about loose skin yet, Sayre? Think of Tom and the shaved flying squirrel. That's happening with you too.
12-11-10, 10:49 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Posts: 3,370
Bikes: Colnago C-50, Calfee Dragonfly Tandem, Specialized Allez Pro, Peugeot Competition Light
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm both depending on the time of year. Like most people, this is my heaviest time of the year. Too much fixin's and pumpkin pie! Even when I'm in prime shape though I'm still considered "obese" on a BMI scale (for what that's worth). I'm 6'3" and range between 210 and 240...
12-11-10, 11:01 AM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,931
Bikes: Old Bike: 1975 Raleigh Delta, New Bike: 2004 Norco Bushpilot
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
Just curious how many here qualify as Clydesdales and Athenas because of say a lot of muscle and a large/tall build, as opposed to how many are here because they could stand to lose weight? I would like to make a poll but I am not entirely sure I can do so on this forum.
As for me I am not particularly tall at only 6ft, however I do have a very large frame. I will say though that I qualify as a Clyde because I crash diet and haven't been active nor eat well causing my weight to fluctuate terribly. I am currently rather chubby at 230-240. I will say though I have been under 200 before, actually 190 after being my largest at 270 and I will say at that weight I looked great however any lighter and I wouldn't look right. That being said, no matter what I do, I will because of my build be a Clyde or darn near it, but how big I get after 200-210 is simply my fault by making bad choices.
As for me I am not particularly tall at only 6ft, however I do have a very large frame. I will say though that I qualify as a Clyde because I crash diet and haven't been active nor eat well causing my weight to fluctuate terribly. I am currently rather chubby at 230-240. I will say though I have been under 200 before, actually 190 after being my largest at 270 and I will say at that weight I looked great however any lighter and I wouldn't look right. That being said, no matter what I do, I will because of my build be a Clyde or darn near it, but how big I get after 200-210 is simply my fault by making bad choices.
12-11-10, 11:32 AM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 2,470
Bikes: -1973 Motobecane Mirage -197? Velosolex L'Etoile -'71 Raleigh Super Course
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Both, now; though 10 years ago at 7-8% bodyfat, I still weighed about 210 (6'3" tall). 34 inch waist, XXL t-shirt, 20" arms back then. I was yoooge.
12-11-10, 11:54 AM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rochester MN
Posts: 927
Bikes: Raleigh Port Townsend, Raleigh Tourist
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times
in
8 Posts
Both. I'm 5'9", and when I was in the military I wore a 30 inch waist and weighed 210. Not 250 with a larger waist size.
12-11-10, 12:33 PM
#22
Have bike, will travel
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lake Geneva, WI
Posts: 12,284
Bikes: Ridley Helium SLX, Canyon Endurance SL, De Rosa Professional, Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra, Schwinn Paramount (1 painted, 1 chrome), Peugeot PX10, Serotta Nova X, Simoncini Cyclocross Special, Raleigh Roker, Pedal Force CG2 and CX2
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 910 Post(s)
Liked 288 Times
in
158 Posts
Both. I'm 210 lbs and about 35 lbs above my lean weight, less than 175 lbs and I would be less strong that ideal.
If I lost the weight, I would no longer be a Clyde, but a Clyde I am!
If I lost the weight, I would no longer be a Clyde, but a Clyde I am!
12-11-10, 06:47 PM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Fat
I'm pretty stocky, but at 5'9 I'd need to be carrying a lot of muscle. In college I was 190 with a 32" waste and 48" chest, but I haven't lifted in six years. At 215 with a 39" waist and 44" chest I've exceeded my capacity to carry it well. Mostly its the moobs. Moobs just aint attractive; although a hell of a lot better now than at 230.
I'm pretty stocky, but at 5'9 I'd need to be carrying a lot of muscle. In college I was 190 with a 32" waste and 48" chest, but I haven't lifted in six years. At 215 with a 39" waist and 44" chest I've exceeded my capacity to carry it well. Mostly its the moobs. Moobs just aint attractive; although a hell of a lot better now than at 230.
12-11-10, 08:13 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Northern Utah, U.S.A.
Posts: 117
Bikes: 2015 Giant Anthem SX,2015 Giant Talon2, 2010 Giant Defy 1, 2005 Specialized Expedition
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Mostly fat, at 6", my ideal weight would put me just under the clyde rating.
