Want to be at the head of the pack. Loose 20 lbs.

No there is a rule of thumb I can relate to. I've only got 19 pounds to go.

Going by Bac's rule of thumb, it would be more like 45 pounds.

I wish it were my original thought. I first saw it in Joe Friel's "The Cyclists Training Bible".

... Brad

As I went from 205 lbs to my current 165 at 5'9", I not only noticed that I was faster up the hills, but hills that I previously struggled on got much easier. I know, this is pretty much the same thing, but mentally it seems a lot different. For example, at a heavier weight, I would be suffering, heavy breathing, just dying going up a little overpass. On anything over a ~6% grade, I would be in my lowest gear for the entire climb.

Now, at 165, I have options. Grades over 10% still hurt, but I can get up them. For those same 6% grades I can fly up them, or if I'm riding slower with a group, I don't have to expend nearly as much energy as I used to.

Hopefully I'll lose another 10lbs for next year and those 10% grades won't hurt as much at the same speeds, and the 17% grades that I have to race up at least once a year won't entirely destroy me like they did this year.

Try climbing your usual hill with four bags of sugar strapped to your back and see how it goes.

Still too fat for cycling you would be.

http://www.formfunctionemotion.net/i/yoda.jpg

Some of you guys have a height deficiency,
making sub. 165lbs. seem reasonable.
At 6', I couldn't imagine being less than 185lbs.

Hip, I'm a bit curious by this. Why is eating less not an option? It's one of the most effective pieces to the weight loss puzzle.

I'm no nutritionaloligist or anything fancy like that, but smaller portions mean less calories. It doesn't mean changing your diet, it just means eating less.

So why is this not something that you could incorporate into your daily routine? Nobody ever said it would be easy, right?

went from 179 in Jan. to 157 by late March. Climbing improvement is huge, endless endurance for going vertical. Downside, huge powerloss from weightloss hurts (in short term) speed and power on flats. Losing 5-6 pounds should net a small gain. Get to 175 and you'll see big diff.

Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean that it's not reasonable. 6'/148lbs would be the same height/weight ratio as me and a perfectly "normal" BMI of 20.1.

I'm 70 inches and 165, 60 years old, larger framed using the "do your fingers touch when wrapped around your wrist" determination. Climbing is easier at 165 that it was at 200 but I'm sure conditioning played a role. Also, I climb differently from virtually everyone I ride with. As long as you don't compromise the "engine" (loose muscle), a lower weight is easier to drag up a hill.

When I was dropping weight on the FX, I used the 26 chainwheel initially and a large rear cog and developed my spin going up hills, didn't worry about speed at first, just maintaining a good cadence without running out of breath (my version of max heart rate determination - if I can talk, I'm not at it yet).

I try to stay > 100, 110 rpm cadence ideally, going up hills, 95-105 on the flats. I don't stand up, feel off balance if I do. I use a compact crank and 12-25 cassette. 34/21,23,25 works really well on hills for me.

OP, you hit it on the nose when you said your body wants to be 190. Bodies have a way of doing this.

Mine seems to have reset at 165 (down from 235 when I started riding for real in 2005, one year to drop to 165). I've stayed within five lbs of that figure since, including 8 weeks last summer letting a broken clavicle heal. I don't diet or work out other than riding and walking but follow a "eat reasonably" plan.

Last fall I did diet a bit and really trained hard, I was curious to see what my Met Life table ideal weight of 155 would do. I felt awful at that weight. No energy reserves, bonked just thinking about it, so I let things go back to 165 over last winter, feel fine at that weight. Met Life tables have been heavily criticized as undershooting proper weights, particularly for taller, athletic, big framed (fingers around the wrist don't touch) individuals. According to Met Life stuff, I would still be okay at 135 or so. Right, can you say anorexic?

I'd not worry too much about "forcing" more weight off but would work on a more efficient spin, and bring enough gears for the ride in question. The muscles used in spinning burn quickly replenished fatty "fuel". Muscles used in pounding in a higher gear using a lot of "power" burn glycogen, most fit folks have about 2000 calories on board at any time, when it's gone, it takes a while to replenish, according to what I read. There are lots of articles out there about using a candles metaphor for burning up calorie reserves.

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/cm...?articleid=433 is a good one. I love this quote from the article "In my experience, the only people who attach sexual competency issues to the gearing on their bike are folks who don’t climb."

Have a great day,

Bill

6'3'' - 175 pounds.

my height seems fine. :p

later.

Climbers height = 175lbs / 2" = 87.5"

It looks like you need to either grow over a foot, or lose about 25 pounds. :D

... Brad

No need to; I already ran that experiment. :(

so...?

didn't help my climbing.

damn... :p I was looking for the easy way.

I think it's hard to answer with a black and white response. I've lost weight, but it's because I've been riding a lot. Riding a lot has made me stronger, thus I can climb a lot better than before. The best test, is to put a 10 lb backpack on your back and climb a hill. The next day do it without the pack. Were you faster?

http://mrbikefantastic.blogspot.com/

i'll work on that ;).

but i wasnt saying i am a climber. im just saying. later.

nah....he's a stick. If he lost anything else I would be able to see his vital organs through his jersey....


....no I wasn't talking about THAT organ you sickos.

Not including my bike, my commute riding weight on top of my naked weight is like 23-26 lbs. The hill to work with a 10-12% section, I can still make it up almost the the same time most of the time and sometimes a few seconds more. However with out a PT, I do not know if I am putting more watts when commuting up that hill.

Did anyone here do a liposuction at one point, lost 10 lbs and see the difference before and after.

I have put a lot of miles this year (already 3.7K) and getting faster, now rarely going down 88 RPM on the flats or 1-2% grades and not lower than 77 when climbing but I lost only 7 lbs.

I know if I do the master cleanse fast, I can loose 10-15 lbs but I am afraid muscle would go with it too. I think my problem is that I do not have enough time for those low intensity bike rides. I think you have to ride at least 3 hours for those LSD fat burning miles. As long as I can pinch the gut, not there yet.

Climbing in my opinion will only improve if your breathing improves. Weight loss helps too to a point.

+1

I'm a better climber now at 202 pounds than I was at 187 pounds due to increased muscle.

And relearning how to breath properly is a huge plus.

Move over Ulle.

General efficiency is very important as well. A smooth even pedalstroke is worth a lot.

To others, losing weight is a fine line between losing fat and losing muscle/power. IF you can lose weight and not lose power, then of course you will be faster up hills. Period. It's not even a debate. This includes such obvious things as liposuctioning fat out, not carrying a commuting backpack, and using a lighter bike.

I agree.

And if I can simplify what I wrote earlier: climb hills repeatedly and eat what's right for your body.