Typical weight for pro riders: 2 lbs per inch
 

Want to feel like a lardbutt? I can't remember where I saw this, but when I was on vacation last week, I came across a story that said the average rider in the pro peloton weighs 2 pounds per inch of height, and NO first-rate rider hits a kilogram (2.2 pounds) per inch.
I'm 6'4", so that means I should get down to around 155... Man, that last 75 pounds is going to be tough to lose.

Oh my...I'm 6'1" and would need to lose about 20 lbs. I can already almost see my ribs so I wonder what in the heck I'd look like......

I think your number may be a little off. Hincapie races at ~2.2 lbs per inch and he's pretty lean. Some of the best climbers may get to 2 lbs per inch, but that's very lean, even for a pro. Here's an article where Friel talks briefly about weight per inch in his response to a question from a reader.

http://www.velonews.com/train/articles/6060.0.html

Holy cow, I only have to loose 4 pounds and then I can turn pro. Even if I lost 40 pounds I still could not ride as a pro which is the sad realization no matter what I weigh.

Hmm,

According to the formula I should stand 8' 9" tall. Maybe basketball ....

2 of the best female climbers I know are at 2 lbs per inch and a few guys I know who are great climbers are close to that number. Strangely, one of the best climbers I know is quite a bit over that. I suck at climbing and would need to lose 60 lbs to reach 2 per inch, never gonna happen, not even half that.

2lbs per inch works for distance runners of short to medium stature, but the formula breaks down with increasing height, because mass increases with the cube of height. The lowest weight I maintained in college was 137lbs, only 1lb above twice my 68" height. However, I was pretty much devoid of upper body strength in those days, so I would be happier weighing 10lbs more than that, which means I have 5lbs of gut-flab to lose, which looks and sounds about right.

I'm at 2.1 at the moment.

Not sure what that means.

I'm not in particularly great shape, okay but not great.

If you have ever been around the pro racers much you can believe that they are that light. It is unreal how thin they are, even the ones who look relatively bulky. I bet Janez Brajkovich, winner of the 2007 Tour de Georgia, is even below that ratio. He is a toothpick!

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d1...Brajkovich.jpg

Wow...I only have to lose a pound and a half per inch!

In the latest Bicycling it lists Tom Danielson as something like 5'10 (or 6' I cannot recall exact height) and 130 pounds. It's an article about how the pro's lose weight! They are getting as anorexic as fashion models!

I must be close at 68.25 inches. I weighed 138 at the Dr.'s office Monday with my pockets full.

If I take both prosthetic feet off, I would weigh about 122. But then I would be only 60" tall.:D

Since muscle weighs more than fat, these statistics are interesting.

Definitely no more than 5'10". He's a little guy.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d1...h_LLTDfans.jpg

Hmmm, I'm at 2.29, another 7 lbs. to be at 2.2. That's the weight I've been shooting for (or more like 2.1) - the Monday weight challenge has kept me motivated.

To be fair, most of the pros mentioned in that article describe using radical weight loss techniques such as ...

- consuming fewer calories than you burn
- cutting out late night snacks
- drinking less beer :eek:
- fewer fatty snacks
- increased activity

...crazy stuff like that

The last time I weighed 140 lbs, I think I was 22, 23 years old.
At 2.78 lbs per inch right now, I'm practically obese. How depressing.
I mean, I've already cut down to one glass of wine per night... what more can I do!?

I'm spot on, but I worder if the same weight ratio applies to female cyclists .

Clearly the most important thing you can do at this point is to buy a new bike. I'd say a LeMond. And I wouldn't wait one more minute. OK, maybe a day or two, but definitely not after Saturday.

:lol: Well, yeah... technically I've already bought it. I just don't own it yet...

Same here. My wife is furious that I dropped to 190 at your size of 6"1". She is seriously pi**d.

Hasn't anybody noticed that proficient long distance runners and bike riders are usually shorter and thinner than us regular folks!

I am 6'3" barefoot (my shrunken height at age 64) and 201 Lbs - stark raving naked this morning - and considered slim by most folks including wife. My Weight/Height ratio is 2.68.

At 6'3" and 165 lbs I would look like I had had a major illness - that was my weight at age 15-16.

Also, some folks develop eating disorders trying to maintain these unrealistically low weights.

I am 6'4" also and 200 now. My fighting weight is 185, hope the hot weather and riding melts it off thats for sure. Then again I never got over 170 or so till I was 35 years old.

T

Are you sure about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong

Full name Lance Edward Armstrong
Nickname Mellow Johnny
(Texan for Maillot Jaune)
Date of birth September 18, 1971 (1971-09-18) (age 35)
Country United States
Height 1.77 m (5 ft 10 in)
Weight 1993: 75 kg (165 lb); 1999: 79 kg (174 lb)

165/70= 2.35 lbs/inch 174/70 = 2.48 lbs/inch.

The 2 lbs per inch thing is about great climbers, obviously there are exceptions, although I doubt Lance was near 175 when he won the TDF. Many men could never get near that number, even if they were starving. It just applies to certain individuals, generally small-framed people.