Originally Posted by onkey

plus, gaining weight is very easy when your over 40 :)

Originally Posted by patentcad

>>I would have to say, comparably, most people on this forum are in "reasonably good shape"<<

Really. You don't have to ride 200-300 miles per week to make that claim. If you're riding an hour 3-4x weekly (which for many cyclists might only be 50-60 miles) you're probably in better shape than 90%+ of the rest of our relatively overweight and sedentary society. And THAT meets my definition of 'reasonably fit' for sure.

Cycling may be a geekfest, but the fringe benefits are so overwhelmingly positive - why would you even give that a second thought? F' em. I look like some nerd in lycra? That's OK. It beats the hell out of having a HEART CONDITION doesn't it. And in street clothes I look great. I feel fantastic.

My hats off to every racer/tourist/OCP/wannabe/fred/bike weenie/commuter on this Forum. If you ride you have the right idea. The more cyclists, the better off we ALL are. Anybody want to go for a ride : )?

Interesting thread Machka.

Originally Posted by Machka

Thanks .......

..... and ummmmmmm .... I'm BOTH a cyclist, AND a woman with a heart condition. :D

Originally Posted by patentcad

I don't think bench pressing your body weight x 5 or those other strength tests do too much for 'reasonable fitness'. Actually walking or jogging 45 mins. daily would do more for most of us than that. And I'm being facetious when I discuss my own personal fitness goals - because I realize they're rather extreme by any 'reasonable' amateur/hack athlete standard. But that's part of what makes it fun. I guess if everybody did it, what fun would THAT be? Then I wouldn't be the Insane Neighbor Who's Always Riding His Bike Up This Crazy Hill. They all think I'm nuts.

But I thrive on that. I run into my neighbor's 19 year old daughter at the supermarket a few weeks ago, who hasn't seen me in a while. It gets back to me that she thought I looked 'emaciated' (this from a girl who's probably 30+ lbs. overweight herself, just so you know her own frame of reference). The skinnier they think I am and the crazier they consider me, the more I like it.

So 'reasonable' depends on your vantage point. Anyone who expects a Tour de France clmber like Rasumssen to look 'reasonably' fit is losing the plot. The guy is TRYING TO RIDE UP THE ALPS WITH LANCE ARMSTRONG. That doesn't require 'reasonable' fitness, it require other-worldly-you-can't-even-begin-to-imagine-it fitness. Which is different. The fact that he looks like a WWII camp survivor doesn't mean he's not healthy. It means he's VERY thin. Again, don't worry, I never really heard of a bicycle racer who had trouble gaining weight once he stopped riding SEVEN HUNDRED MILES A WEEK.

When Lance raced he was so paranoid about gaining upper body muscle weight that he put off building a stone wall on his Texas property for many years. I'm still doing pushups and situps - because having some shoulder/arm muscle is the only thing that may prevent me from looking like a POW come July. And I'm not trying to race up L'Alp D'Huez at the Tour either...

Originally Posted by altoption

My main sport is road cycling. It's what I love to do. I'm 6' tall, weigh 160 lbs. at start of this season, 150 lbs end of last. But my definition of "reasonable physical shape" includes more than what you can do on a bike. It includes some measure of strength, for sure. It doesn't mean looking emaciated, or sacrificing your health, or your overall fitness for your sport. So, if Michael Rasmussen or Lance can't do 10 pullups, even if he's the best climber in the world, I'd say he's *not* in reasonable physical shape.

My .02.

Originally Posted by patentcad

>> how would YOU define "reasonable physical shape"<<

Resting pulse of <45, body fat of <13%, low BMI.

Originally Posted by reneuend

If you set the standard, I'm in trouble! :eek:

Originally Posted by chipcom

OK, minimum physical fitness test results for Marines (circa 1986 )

3 pull ups - from a hang

40 sit ups in 2 minutes

3 mile run under 28 minutes

Originally Posted by awunder

If he sets the standard, I'm actually dead.

Originally Posted by webist

There are many, including myself, who are or have been able to do that while statistically obese according even to the overly generous insurance tables.

Originally Posted by Machka

That's normal after a century or other long ride.

What happens is this ... most people ride long distances slightly dehydrated (and from your account, you were likely quite dehydrated). So the body assesses the situation and says to itself, "OK, I'm going to have to take some precautionary measures here if I'm going to be dehydrated like this" ... and it starts retaining water. When you finish the ride, your natural instinct is to drink ... if you have been dehdrated during your ride, you are very likely thirsty. And your body takes all of that and retains it ... it will continue to retain whatever you drink for several hours after your century.

Sometimes you'll even notice that your hands and feet start to swell. I've done rides where I'm swollen from the knees down!!

Then when you step on the scale, you will see that you've gained weight ... even after all that riding!

But the next day, you may discover that you seem to be making a lot of trips to the toilet ... and after a day or two, you should be back down to your normal weight or lower.

It happens to a lot of long distance cyclists.

Originally Posted by altoption

For what it's worth, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov:

What does it mean to be physically "fit?" Physical fitness is defined as "a set of attributes that people have or achieve that relates to the ability to perform physical activity" (USDHHS, 1996). In other words, it is more than being able to run a long distance or lift a lot of weight at the gym. Being fit is not defined only by what kind of activity you do, how long you do it, or at what level of intensity. While these are important measures of fitness, they only address single areas. Overall fitness is made up of five main components:

Cardiorespiratory endurance
Muscular strength
Muscular endurance
Body composition
Flexibility

Originally Posted by john bono

The problem is that there are so many variations on fitness that to define it except in the most general of terms. Strength? Fine, but anyone who bikes or runs distance will be not qualify. Endurance? People who lift weights need not apply. BMI? No good either. While most morbidly obese people have a poor level of fitness, speaking personally, I'm in better physical condition than most people who are 50- 100 lbs lighter than myself--and anyone who does serious lifting is going to fall into the overweight/obese category, even if they'd have no problem running 5 miles(albeit a bit slowly compared to some too-thin Kenyan).

Originally Posted by patentcad

I watch Domino's Pizza commercials on TV in November and gain 5lbs.

Originally Posted by patentcad

Oops. Sorry Machka. But I would presume cycling is GOOD for your heart and that's one of the reasons why you do it. Doesn't cycling reduce your risks of further heart disease - heart condition or no?

Originally Posted by KrisPistofferson

Probably 'cuz you've destroyed your metabolism with your numbskull diet the rest of the year. ;)

Originally Posted by Machka

The jury is still out on the effect cycling is having on my heart ...... and I know quite a few endurance athletes (marathon runners and ultra-distance cyclists) who have died of heart failure in their 50s and 60s in the middle of training rides/runs, etc. ..... so I couldn't say for sure that cycling is, indeed, good for my heart.

The thing it does do for me is to keep my weight down, my cholesterol level down, and my blood pressure down ......... plus it is something I really enjoy, so if I'm going to keel over in the middle of a ride, at some point, from heart failure at least I'll go doing something I love! :) And I'll go without regrets! :) :)