# Does being overweight mean you're slow on a bike?



## screenman (5 Jun 2014)

[*Mod edit:* Posts split from original thread - http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/fao-police-officers-on-here.157869/]
There are some seriously large people in those pictures, in the write up it says they aim to average 18mph, they better lose some of the lard.


----------



## spen666 (5 Jun 2014)

screenman said:


> There are some seriously large people in those pictures, in the write up it says they aim to average 18mph, they better lose some of the lard.


Why do they need to lose any weight?

They managed it last year, and at least one of those large people is a regular triathlete who puts in some very good times!

Don't fall for the myth that all large people can't ride fast or long distances


----------



## screenman (5 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Why do they need to lose any weight?
> 
> They managed it last year, and at least one of those large people is a regular triathlete who puts in some very good times!
> 
> Don't fall for the myth that all large people can't ride fast or long distances



I know some fast heavy people, but they are not the shape of some of those in the picture.


----------



## Crankarm (5 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Why do they need to lose any weight?
> 
> They managed it last year, and at least one of those large people is a regular triathlete who puts in some very good times!
> 
> Don't fall for the myth that all large people can't ride fast or long distances




LoL! If this is the case Spen why aren't there any fat people in distance running or Pro cycling? Should the Brownlee brothers, Mo Farah or Chris Froome or Cav be worried?


----------



## spen666 (6 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> LoL! If this is the case Spen why aren't there any fat people in distance running or Pro cycling? Should the Brownlee brothers, Mo Farah or Chris Froome or Cav be worried?


Clearly you have not read what I posted.

I made no reference to
a) fat people
b) professional athletes

For your benefit, I will repeat what I said


> Don't fall for the myth that all large people can't ride fast or long distances


----------



## Crankarm (6 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Clearly you have not read what I posted.
> 
> I made no reference to
> a) fat people
> ...




What do you define as being LARGE or a LONG distance? See the difficulty in your statement, there are so many ways it can be interpreted.


----------



## subaqua (6 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> What do you define as being LARGE or a LONG distance? See the difficulty in your statement, there are so many ways it can be interpreted.


 by most medical standards I am obese at 18 stone and 6ft 3 . I can average 15 mph on my commute in town, I don't do running except short distance and in school over 25yrs ago I held the 100mtrs record as a "lardy" which really annoyed the racing whippetts. long distance running I hate with a passion.


----------



## Crankarm (6 Jun 2014)

subaqua said:


> by most medical standards I am obese at 18 stone and 6ft 3 . I can average 15 mph on my commute in town, I don't do running except short distance and in school over 25yrs ago I held the 100mtrs record as a "lardy" which really annoyed the racing whippetts. long distance running I hate with a passion.



You are such a rebel. Think how much faster, fitter, healthier, etc. you'd be if you weren't obese! You became obese to annoy thinner normal people. This is an unorthodox reason I've not heard before for being fat.

I can average 20-22mph and I am not obese. Think what more you could achieve if you lost some lbs.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (6 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> You are such a rebel. Think how much faster, fitter, healthier, etc. you'd be if you weren't obese! You became obese to annoy thinner normal people. This is an unorthodox reason I've not heard before for being fat.
> 
> I can average 20-22mph and I am not obese. Think what more you could achieve if you lost some lbs.



Averaging 20-22 and not being obese hasn't done much for your personality, think what you could achieve if you were nice.


----------



## Crankarm (6 Jun 2014)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Averaging 20-22 and not being obese hasn't done much for your personality, think what you could achieve if you were nice.



Get you! You don't even know me.


----------



## subaqua (6 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> You are such a rebel. Think how much faster, fitter, healthier, etc. you'd be if you weren't obese! You became obese to annoy thinner normal people. This is an unorthodox reason I've not heard before for being fat.
> 
> I can average 20-22mph and I am not obese. Think what more you could achieve if you lost some lbs.


 I havent said what I can achieve when not commuting . but am happy enough being medically obese ( same as most of Wales rugby team , and TBH most proffesional teams) I think the Resting heart rate , and how quick mine returns to resting after pushing it hard as well as a sensible blood pressure and sensible cholesterol level are better indicators of fitness and health rather than a early 20th Century formula.

I don't know what menatl health indicators are but i have a feeling some people here might be a little ill and should seek help.


----------



## Markymark (6 Jun 2014)

My takewondo trainer was obese. Not an ounce of fat on him. I also wouldn't have fancied calling him obese.


----------



## screenman (6 Jun 2014)

Have any of you guys looked at the picture, I full understand the obese argument. It is lard they are carrying not muscle.


----------



## jefmcg (6 Jun 2014)

What picture are you talking about? The ones from the site seemed to be from last years ride.

Anyway, why 18mph? If they are only doing 70 or 80 miles in a day, why not a more leisurely pace?


----------



## screenman (6 Jun 2014)

They suggested 18mph not me.


----------



## Big Nick (6 Jun 2014)

I know plenty of 'skinny' looking people of my age and younger who aren't half as fit as me (6'1 and 15 stone)

Being overweight/fat/large or however you describe it does not mean you can't be fit and the opposite is just as true


----------



## theclaud (6 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> I can average 20-22mph and I am not obese.


It may have been pointed out before, but isn't that a trifle too fast to be riding on the pavement?


----------



## Crankarm (6 Jun 2014)

theclaud said:


> It may have been pointed out before, but isn't that a trifle too fast to be riding on the pavement?



GBW, please keep up, oh you can't .


----------



## jefmcg (7 Jun 2014)

screenman said:


> They suggested 18mph not me.


Got that. It was a (semi)rhetorical question.


----------



## screenman (7 Jun 2014)

subaqua said:


> by most medical standards I am obese at 18 stone and 6ft 3 . I can average 15 mph on my commute in town, I don't do running except short distance and in school over 25yrs ago I held the 100mtrs record as a "lardy" which really annoyed the racing whippetts. long distance running I hate with a passion.



Can you also average 18mph for 80 miles?


----------



## threebikesmcginty (7 Jun 2014)

screenman said:


> Can you also average 18mph for 80 miles?



I can but it would be a bit of a pain, at least it's an automatic so I wouldn't be forever switching between first and second.


----------



## screenman (7 Jun 2014)

Going back to my OP, can anyone deny that being overweight is not a disadvantage to maintaining 18mph for 80+ miles.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (7 Jun 2014)

I don't think this is fair @Moderators, this thread has been moved and one of my posts deleted, I see it's OK for crankarm's posts to stay, ones where he's telling people they could be as fantastic as him if they stopped being fat but not one where I call him a nobber for doing so.


----------



## jack smith (7 Jun 2014)

There can be a difference between fat and heavy, although some people who would be called fat cans till get good times as just cause your fat dosent always mean your not fit for certain tasks. I average about 100 kilo which is way over my bmi and I'm classed as obese but I'm not what people would consider fat at all, I can get the bike to 30mph + from the saddle which isn't considered slow, I can average 20+ fairly easily over a flat or lumpy course


----------



## marzjennings (7 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> I can average 20-22mph and I am not obese. Think what more you could achieve if you lost some lbs.



Me too and at 16.5 stone average that sort of speed has never been a problem. The extra mass is a bugger on climbs, but on the flat I'll be right on your tail.


----------



## uclown2002 (7 Jun 2014)

jack smith said:


> There can be a difference between fat and heavy, although some people who would be called fat cans till get good times as just cause your fat dosent always mean your not fit for certain tasks. I average about 100 kilo which is way over my bmi and I'm classed as obese but I'm not what people would consider fat at all, *I can get the bike to 30mph + from the saddle which isn't considered slow, I can average 20+ fairly easily over a flat or lumpy course*


That is seriously impressive; perhaps you would like to join our challenge:- http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/100-miles-in-5-hours-challenge.154680/


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Jun 2014)

Fat fit and happy. That's me.

and I descend like a demon.

And I slow? define slow... I sure ain't normally in a hurry.


----------



## KneesUp (7 Jun 2014)

Take a cyclist of weight x kg. 

Measure their average speed.

Take the same cyclist on the same bike and the same route but add 6 stone to the panniers.

Measure their average speed.

Does anyone really imagine that the second speed will be the same or higher than the first?


----------



## Profpointy (7 Jun 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Take a cyclist of weight x kg.
> 
> Measure their average speed.
> 
> ...



6 stone in the panniers is not the same as an extra 6 stone of muscle on the rider.
Of course, how much of the extra 6st is muscle and how much is lard, is a different question.

(for the avoidance of doubt I'm reasonably thin)


----------



## marzjennings (7 Jun 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Take a cyclist of weight x kg.
> 
> Measure their average speed.
> 
> ...



Depends. Are we talking a cyclist racing at max effort or a cyclist riding at more leisurely speeds?


----------



## KneesUp (7 Jun 2014)

Profpointy said:


> 6 stone in the panniers is not the same as an extra 6 stone of muscle on the rider.
> Of course, how much of the extra 6st is muscle and how much is lard, is a different question.
> 
> (for the avoidance of doubt I'm reasonably thin)


Well wear a 'fat suit' then - the point is that carrying more weight requires more effort, and the amount of effort a person can put out has a limit. 300 watts will move a smaller weight faster than it will move a larger weight. That's physics.

Of course you could probably find someone malnourished who is 6 stone lighter than Froome, who will of course be faster. But there is a reason racing cyclist look more like Stan Laurel than Oliver Hardy.


----------



## Profpointy (7 Jun 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Well wear a 'fat suit' then - the point is that carrying more weight requires more effort, and the amount of effort a person can put out has a limit. 300 watts will move a smaller weight faster than it will move a larger weight. That's physics.
> 
> .



A bigger (that is to say stronger) chap should be able to put out more watts - that's also physics surely.
I did distinguish between muscle and lard


----------



## KneesUp (7 Jun 2014)

Profpointy said:


> A bigger (that is to say stronger) chap should be able to put out more watts - that's also physics surely.
> I did distinguish between muscle and lard



'Bigger' is not the same as 'stronger'

I expect the legs of Bradley Wiggins are quite strong. But they still look like drinking straws.


----------



## Soltydog (7 Jun 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Well wear a 'fat suit' then - the point is that carrying more weight requires more effort, and the amount of effort a person can put out has a limit. 300 watts will move a smaller weight faster than it will move a larger weight. That's physics.
> 
> Of course you could probably find someone malnourished who is 6 stone lighter than Froome, who will of course be faster. But there is a reason racing cyclist look more like Stan Laurel than Oliver Hardy.



Thats ok if all the extra weight is 'lard' but the chances are that those of us carrying a little extra, also have a little extra power as we are used to lugging the weight around all the time  I'm 6'5" & just under 18st now, about 3 years ago I was about 16st, but not noticeably faster, as the difference wasnt 2 stones of 'lard' but a mix of lard & muscle


----------



## Profpointy (7 Jun 2014)

KneesUp said:


> 'Bigger' is not the same as 'stronger'
> 
> I expect the legs of Bradley Wiggins are quite strong. But they still look like drinking straws.



Power to weight is what matters. Are you seriously saying bigger blokes (those who aren't fatties) don't develop more power?
I accept that it's the racing snakes that climb the hills, but the bigger guys win on flat and TT's I gather.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Jun 2014)

short twitch and fast twitch and something in the middle, and CV fitness comes into it. And one's abilitly to sustain discomfort...
Does being slow mean you're overweight on a bike?

Does being slow make you overweight?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Jun 2014)

Profpointy said:


> Power to weight is what matters. Are you seriously saying bigger blokes (those who aren't fatties) don't develop more power?
> I accept that it's the racing snakes that climb the hills, but the bigger guys win on flat and TT's I gather.


Gentleman's agreement?


----------



## KneesUp (7 Jun 2014)

Soltydog said:


> Thats ok if all the extra weight is 'lard' but the chances are that those of us carrying a little extra, also have a little extra power as we are used to lugging the weight around all the time  I'm 6'5" & just under 18st now, about 3 years ago I was about 16st, but not noticeably faster, as the difference wasnt 2 stones of 'lard' but a mix of lard & muscle



Well I'm off to Ladbrokes to put £20 on Jean Claude van Damme for the Tour de France.

but then on the other hand


----------



## Soltydog (7 Jun 2014)

http://www.wenzelcoaching.com/blog/cycling-body-weight-chart/ shows 'ideal' weights for cyclists but according to the stats Chris Hoy at 6'1" & 203lbs was about 20lbs too heavy even as a sprinter. Imagine how fast he could have been if he's shed those 20lbs


----------



## Profpointy (7 Jun 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Well I'm off to Ladbrokes to put £20 on Jean Claude van Damme for the Tour de France.
> 
> but then on the other hand



but even the great Scottish engineer would say it's power to weight


----------



## KneesUp (7 Jun 2014)

Soltydog said:


> http://www.wenzelcoaching.com/blog/cycling-body-weight-chart/ shows 'ideal' weights for cyclists but according to the stats Chris Hoy at 6'1" & 203lbs was about 20lbs too heavy even as a sprinter. Imagine how fast he could have been if he's shed those 20lbs



Quite - he might have won something on the road if he was lighter.


----------



## screenman (7 Jun 2014)

I think the Mods have not put a good title to this topic.


----------



## PK99 (7 Jun 2014)

Profpointy said:


> Power to weight is what matters. Are you seriously saying bigger blokes (those who aren't fatties) don't develop more power?
> I accept that it's the racing snakes that climb the hills, *but the bigger guys win on flat and TT's* I gather.



are you sure?

Cavendish 5ft9 11 stone
Wiggins 5ft11 12 stone


----------



## uclown2002 (7 Jun 2014)

PK99 said:


> are you sure?
> 
> Cavendish 5ft9 11 stone
> Wiggins 5ft11 12 stone



Wiggins is only 69kg according to sky website, so that's 152lbs


----------



## screenman (7 Jun 2014)

Tony Martin 11 stone 8 nothing lardy there, think how quick he could be if he ate all the cakes.


----------



## MattMM (7 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> You are such a rebel. Think how much faster, fitter, healthier, etc. you'd be if you weren't obese! You became obese to annoy thinner normal people. This is an unorthodox reason I've not heard before for being fat.
> 
> I can average 20-22mph and I am not obese. Think what more you could achieve if you lost some lbs.



Uh huh. BMI obesity measurement falls down as it doesn't take into account fat or muscle mass. Ergo, a lot of sprinters or pro rugby players would be classified as obese but be very fit guys. I'm a similar build to the "obese" poster. According to the last 2 occupational medicals I had, I was described a "very fit guy" with a resting pulse of 50. I've hit 44mph peak and can average up to 17mph in hilly terrain in Scotland, if I was fortunate enough to live in Cambridge/The Fens, it'd be higher.

The Obese argument is way too knee-jerk and generalistic.


----------



## JasonHolder (7 Jun 2014)

subaqua said:


> I havent said what I can achieve when not commuting . but am happy enough being medically obese ( same as most of Wales rugby team , and TBH most proffesional teams) I think the Resting heart rate , and how quick mine returns to resting after pushing it hard as well as a sensible blood pressure and sensible cholesterol level are better indicators of fitness and health rather than ap.


Blood pressure and cholesterol levels are better indicators of fitness?? WTF are you on? Fitness means performance, and blood pressure/cholesterol are meaningless other than if you are measuring them you are fat and underperforming compared to a thin normal weight person. End of.

that is the most profoundly stupid brain spasm anyone has ever put on the Interweb.


----------



## PK99 (7 Jun 2014)

JasonHolder said:


> Blood pressure and cholesterol levels are better indicators of fitness?? WTF are you on? Fitness means performance, and blood pressure/cholesterol are meaningless other than if you are measuring them you are fat and underperforming compared to a thin normal weight person. End of.
> 
> that is the most profoundly stupid brain spasm anyone has ever put on the Interweb.



he was referring to fitness and health not just fitness


----------



## Andy Jeffery (7 Jun 2014)

All I know is that I was 17.8 stone when I started a few months back. I started cycling to get fit and lose weight which is working and have gone from an average of 12.5 mph to 15.4 mph on the same ride so I guess it does matter. But who cares I have found that I love this sport so does speed really matter?


----------



## jefmcg (7 Jun 2014)

JasonHolder said:


> Blood pressure and cholesterol levels are better indicators of fitness?? WTF are you on? Fitness means performance.


No, it does not. For example look at Tom Simpson: his performance was excellent, until he died suddenly. was he fit?

Physical fitness generally means suitability for a task. That can mean lots of things, and it certainly encompasses having physical measurements that are indicative of a long life.

And in biology, survival of the fittest is survival of those most suited to the environment. If the environment is hunting caribou, speed is a factor. If it's a herbivore in the canopy, less so.


----------



## Kiwiavenger (7 Jun 2014)

On an 80 Miler the other day I was with a 5'8" 35 year old triathlete who mush weigh 11 stone who was riding a triple, and a 6 foot 50 year old again about 12 stone on a carbon jobbie who's training for lejog. I'm a 6'2", 15 stone ex rugby player riding an entry level allez with 2300 gearing

Lots of hills, lots of fast roads, who would you think got up them the easiest?

I soon learnt that I had to sit behind the triathlete just to keep a speed with him otherwise I was off into the distance (more than once) and descended a lot quicker on my entry level allez. My legs where also very fresh at the end and without a dodgy knee I'd have pushed for a ton without them. They where spent when we finished


----------



## Kiwiavenger (7 Jun 2014)

One thing I forgot to mention is the triathlete is doing a half iron man this coming weekend so would regard himself as fit.


----------



## screenman (7 Jun 2014)

Kiwiavenger said:


> One thing I forgot to mention is the triathlete is doing a half iron man this coming weekend so would regard himself as fit.


Sorry but those two posts mean nothing, apart from the fact you are a fit guy, compared with the other two maybe.

A high percentage of body fat is seldom good for anybody.


----------



## jefmcg (7 Jun 2014)

Actually, there's a good example in the US press at the moment, Taylor Townsend. She was asked to not compete in the US Junior open 2012 by the US tennis authorities, because they thought she was too fat when she was the world'd number one junior.


----------



## mickle (7 Jun 2014)

An old friend of mine - who weighed upwards of 30st and who'd been picked on all of his life for being a fatty - used to do one of those foreign sponsored bike rides once a year (I don't know if he still does). He stepped off the bus on the eve of one in Arizona to the sniggers of a group of blokes who found his size hilarious. He set off in the morning - from the back and at his own pace and picked them off one by one within the first couple of hours. After the evening meal one of them approached him to apologise profoundly for their earlier behaviour. Deep inside all that lard was/is an amazingly strong (and surprisingly healthy according to his GP) man. On the few times I went out with him I ended up sucking his wheel - if he didn't drop me. Like a train he was. He proved that you can't judge a book by its cover - but it's kind of a shame that he had to 'prove something' to get their respect.

In an age when we've positively reconstructed society's attitudes to homophobia, racism and misogyny it's somehow still ok to take the p!ss out of fatties.


----------



## ayceejay (7 Jun 2014)

* Does being overweight mean you're slow on a bike?*
Now this is a question to deconstruct for sure and the opinions offered up here seem to show how many ways we could take a stab at it.
I can tell ya that worrying about how you compare with others can slow you well the way down even if you are training for the 'limpics.
I have two dogs, one is far from slow at feeding time and often eats his food quickly so that he can get to the others bowl so what do we do? We favour the slow eater. So who is manipulating this situation and proving to be the fittest for the task at hand?
So - does being slow on your bike mean you're overweight well maybe.


----------



## ColinJ (8 Jun 2014)

PK99 said:


> Wiggins 5ft11 12 stone





uclown2002 said:


> Wiggins is only 69kg according to sky website, so that's 152lbs


And he is 1.90 m tall, and that's 6' 3"!


----------



## jack smith (8 Jun 2014)

uclown2002 said:


> That is seriously impressive; perhaps you would like to join our challenge:- http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/100-miles-in-5-hours-challenge.154680/


Ill take a look cheers!


----------



## nickyboy (8 Jun 2014)

Let's consider the science a bit more carefully here.

If you have two guys with the same cardiovascular capacity (VO2), one weighs 70kg and the other weighs 100kg. They have the same fat % ie the extra 30kg is muscle & fat in the same proportion

Now who goes faster on a flat course?

It's the 70kg guy. The number of watts they can maintain is dependent on their VO2, not on their muscle mass. The 70kg guy has a smaller frontal area so he encounters less wind resistance. It's this that allows him to go faster than the bigger guy.
Up hills this difference is much greater

The question then is does a 100kg guy have a higher VO2 than a 70kg guy if they train in the same way? Answer is yes. His cardio system is physically bigger than the smaller guy. But it isn't 100/70 bigger. It's less than that. So on flat courses the big guy may be able to compete; his extra watts counters his extra frontal area. But going up a hill he's on a hiding to nothing. His extra watts won't counter his extra mass, so the 70kg whippet wins every time


----------



## jack smith (8 Jun 2014)

Not neccarily you can get some right scrawny dweebs but they cant neccacerily push a big gear or really put the power down just cause they are light , on the downhills bigger guys ususally tend to pull away too, on the flats around where i live the bigger guys seem to always overtake the smaller ones, its totally about your body type and your body fat percentage, ive been classed as dangerously obese before and that was when i was at my fittest training for the para's weight really dosent matter on fitness as much as you would think.
people think oh look theres a fatty i bet he/she is slow but remember they are going a hell of alot faster than the ones sat at the buffet. (Unless its all you can eat amd theres a limited amount of food)


----------



## Profpointy (8 Jun 2014)

nickyboy said:


> Let's consider the science a bit more carefully here.
> 
> If you have two guys with the same cardiovascular capacity (VO2), one weighs 70kg and the other weighs 100kg. They have the same fat % ie the extra 30kg is muscle & fat in the same proportion
> 
> ...



Although your conclusion is quite possibly right - your explanation above is very much begging the question: all you've actually said is small people have better power to weight, because small people have better power to weight.

Power is essentially the same as V02 isn't it, so you've really said x=x


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (8 Jun 2014)

I'm a little lost!  

If I weigh 100kg and bench press 100kg 10 times and my friend, who weighs 50kg, can only bench press 50kg 9 times, does that mean my VO2 is better than his?

Where's the direct correlation between VO2 and the power to push a bigger gear, for example, rather than bench press a heavy weight?


----------



## screenman (8 Jun 2014)

Is carrying excess fat around the waist good for you?


----------



## redcard (8 Jun 2014)

screenman said:


> Is carrying excess fat around the waist good for you?



Moving the goalposts?


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (8 Jun 2014)

redcard said:


> Moving the goalposts?



So you'd fit between them.


----------



## screenman (8 Jun 2014)

redcard said:


> Moving the goalposts?



No, if we got right back to the OP that was my point.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (8 Jun 2014)

Joshua Plumtree said:


> I'm a little lost!
> 
> If I weigh 100kg and bench press 100kg 10 times and my friend, who weighs 50kg, can only bench press 50kg 9 times, does that mean my VO2 is better than his?
> 
> Where's the direct correlation between VO2 and the power to push a bigger gear, for example, rather than bench press a heavy weight?


No it makes you stronger. VO2 has nothing to do with strength


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (8 Jun 2014)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> No it makes you stronger. VO2 has nothing to do with strength



That's what I thought!


----------



## Rob3rt (8 Jun 2014)

Joshua Plumtree said:


> I'm a little lost!
> 
> If I weigh 100kg and bench press 100kg 10 times and my friend, who weighs 50kg, can only bench press 50kg 9 times, does that mean my VO2 is better than his?
> 
> *Where's the direct correlation between VO2 and the power to push a bigger gear, for example, rather than bench press a heavy weight?*



Power =/= strength.

People who can push big gears can't necessarily lift heavy weights.

Someone with a high VO2 max will be able to push a bigger gear for longer (i.e. put out more power) than someone with a lower VO2 max, all else equal.


----------



## Rob3rt (8 Jun 2014)

Profpointy said:


> Although your conclusion is quite possibly right - your explanation above is very much begging the question: all you've actually said is small people have better power to weight, because small people have better power to weight.
> 
> *Power is essentially the same as V02 isn't it*, so you've really said x=x



No.


----------



## Rob3rt (8 Jun 2014)

To answer the OP, being overweight doesn't mean you will be slow, but it will almost certainly mean you are not as fast as you could be, were you not over weight, for various reasons!


----------



## Profpointy (8 Jun 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> No.



Ok, enlighten me - surely o2 burned must be directly proportional to food burned = power.
I guess there's a heat / work ratio, which determines useful power as a proportion of total power


----------



## Rob3rt (8 Jun 2014)

When people refer to VO2, in cycling them mean VO2 Max, i.e your maximal aerobic capacity. Or more usefully, power produced at VO2 max.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Jun 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> When people refer to VO2, in cycling them mean VO2 Max, i.e your maximal aerobic capacity.



OK, I get that, and what I assumed - so why isn't that same as (ie directly proportional to, so power in different units effectively) -have I missed something obvious?


----------



## Rob3rt (8 Jun 2014)

Profpointy said:


> OK, I get that, and what I assumed - so why isn't that same as (ie directly proportional to, so power in different units effectively) -have I missed something obvious?



2 people with the same absolute VO2 max will not necessarily be able to output the same power when operating at VO2 max.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Jun 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> 2 people with the same absolute VO2 max will not necessarily be able to output the same power when operating at VO2 max.



So where does the difference go?


----------



## Rob3rt (8 Jun 2014)

Profpointy said:


> So where does the difference go?



Well for a start not all oxygen is going toward pushing the pedals round... have a think where some of it is being used and why this might vary for 2 people, even if their absolute VO2 max is the same.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Jun 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> Well for a start not all oxygen is going toward pushing the pedals round... have a think where some of it is being used and why this might vary for 2 people, even if their absolute VO2 max is the same.



OK fair enough - but I still didn't get your heavy-light point.


----------



## Rob3rt (8 Jun 2014)

Profpointy said:


> OK fair enough - but I still didn't get your heavy-light point.



What heavy light point?


----------



## Profpointy (8 Jun 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> What heavy light point?



Ah, I think I've muddled up who I was disagreeing with


----------



## subaqua (9 Jun 2014)

JasonHolder said:


> Blood pressure and cholesterol levels are better indicators of fitness?? WTF are you on? Fitness means performance, and blood pressure/cholesterol are meaningless other than if you are measuring them you are fat and underperforming compared to a thin normal weight person. End of.
> 
> that is the most profoundly stupid brain spasm anyone has ever put on the Interweb.


I see you had one of your spasms when you posted. Thin Normal . oh dear did a large guy leave you on the hill ?

who is fitter and healthier ?

fat lardy in BMI terms with normal blood pressure ( bottom figure below 80) who has a good resting heart rate that recovers really quickly and a cholesterol level of 3.2 with most of that being "good Cholesterol" and can keep a good pace of 18mph over a distance of 50 miles

"thin Normal" in BMI termswith a blood pressure with the bottom figure above 85, heart rate that is rather high and doesn't return to resting quickly, had a cholesterol level of 7.1 most of which is the bad cholesterol but can keep a good pace of 22mph over 50 miles .

I know which my doctor would rather me be , and has told me which


----------



## MikeG (9 Jun 2014)

JasonHolder said:


> ..........that is the most profoundly stupid brain spasm anyone has ever put on the Interweb.



Did *YOU* really say that?


----------



## MikeG (9 Jun 2014)

subaqua said:


> I see you had one of your spasms when you posted. Thin Normal . oh dear did a large guy leave you on the hill ?
> 
> who is fitter and healthier ?
> 
> ...



Bit of a false dichotomy there. You conveniently left off the thin guy with the good cholesterol levels, blood pressure and resting heart beat. He obviously would be top of your doctor's list, (unless he was too thin).

There is good evidence that a waist/ height ratio is a better predictor of health outcomes than the rather poor BMI figure. Your waist (at the navel) should be under half your height.


----------



## Soltydog (9 Jun 2014)

MikeG said:


> There is good evidence that a waist/ height ratio is a better predictor of health outcomes than the rather poor BMI figure. Your waist (at the navel) should be under half your height.


My waist is 1.15m high & I'm 1.96m tall, does that mean I'm not healthy


----------



## Hip Priest (9 Jun 2014)

I'm on the cusp between overweight and obese, and I'm reasonably quick. As long as there are no hills!


----------



## MikeG (9 Jun 2014)

Soltydog said:


> My waist is 1.15m high & I'm 1.96m tall, does that mean I'm not healthy


No. It means that you are less likely to be healthy in future than you would be if your waist was under 98cm.


----------



## subaqua (9 Jun 2014)

MikeG said:


> Bit of a false dichotomy there. You conveniently left off the thin guy with the good cholesterol levels, blood pressure and resting heart beat. He obviously would be top of your doctor's list, (unless he was too thin).
> 
> There is good evidence that a waist/ height ratio is a better predictor of health outcomes than the rather poor BMI figure. Your waist (at the navel) should be under half your height.



from the office we have a good mix of size - we had health and fitness screening and what scared a lot of guys who were on the thinner end of the spectrum was that they had serious health issues that they thought they would be immune to as they were thin.

I just get fecked off with people obsessing with size when fitness levels have lots of other factors. TBH I ride because i like to , am happy the size i am but know i could lose a few kg. it isn't going to make a mahoosive difference in my riding but if those who are stick thin think they are the fittest because they are the thinnest then they are very very wrong. 

can see why some people think cycklists are arrogant tw@ts ( not you BTW )


----------



## Shut Up Legs (9 Jun 2014)

nickyboy said:


> Let's consider the science a bit more carefully here.
> 
> If you have two guys with the same cardiovascular capacity (VO2), one weighs 70kg and the other weighs 100kg. They have the same fat % ie the extra 30kg is muscle & fat in the same proportion
> 
> ...


I can relate to that. My weight has been well in the normal range for years now, but being very keen on riding up hills and mountains, I wish I weighed less than 80-85kg (I'm 6'3", by the way). I look with envy on those shorter cyclists weighing well below 80kg with their smaller, lighter bikes, flying up the mountains. For me, it's harder work, although of course the sense of accomplishment when I reach the top of a tall mountain is all the greater for it .


----------



## MikeG (9 Jun 2014)

subaqua said:


> ......I just get fecked off with people obsessing with size when *fitness* levels have lots of other factors........


 I wasn't talking about fitness at all, but health.


subaqua said:


> can see why some people think cycklists are arrogant tw@ts ( not you BTW )


Do you really think that is necessary?


----------



## Hip Priest (9 Jun 2014)

I think @MikeG has it right to be honest. 

Weight is not the only factor in health, but it's an important one.

I am overweight, but I have healthy cholesterol and BP, and a resting heart rate of 41. So I'm not unhealthy....but, I'd be even healthier if I lost 2-3 stone of excess weight. And I'd no doubt get quicker on the bike too.


----------



## PK99 (9 Jun 2014)

Hip Priest said:


> I'm on the cusp between overweight and obese, and I'm reasonably quick. As long as there are no hills!



BMI is about as useful a measure of health/fitness as is 220-age a useful measure of maximum heart rate.


----------



## slowmotion (9 Jun 2014)

My BMI is 23.1. My resting heart rate is 59 bpm and I take a whole stack of drugs.

I'm still utter cr@p.

Life isn't fair


----------



## TheJDog (10 Jun 2014)

I've lost 5 kilos of fat in the past month or so. I'm a similar speed on the flat (probably faster to get up to speed), and noticeably faster up hills. If you have fat to lose (I'm aiming for another 5 kg) you'll thank yourself for it on the climbs, but is it worth the hard work from a purely cycling perspective if you aren't a professional? You'll probably look and feel better having shed the excess, but it is hard work. Dark chocolate Tunnock's wafers are my nemesis.


----------



## martint235 (10 Jun 2014)

Not read the whole thread but for my tuppence, I'm currently 17 stone. My best cycling fitness level was around 2 years ago when I weighed 14.5 stone. I certainly notice the difference as I now struggle at the 100 mile mark. On the last FNRttC I managed to get to 110 miles before my level of performance dropped significantly but it then dropped like a rock and I struggled for the last 20 miles of the return from Whitstable.


----------



## Crankarm (10 Jun 2014)

Isn't it strange that people selectively forget how much or what they eat, but exaggerate their physical performance. Denial. You have to be pretty fit and healthy to average 18+mph as a cyclist.


----------



## Rob3rt (11 Jun 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Isn't it strange that people selectively forget how much or what they eat, but exaggerate their physical performance. Denial. You have to be pretty fit and healthy to average 18+mph as a cyclist.



Some people eat junk and lots of it and still manage to perform pretty well... maybe it's my gift!


----------



## ColinJ (11 Jun 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> Some people eat junk and lots of it and still manage to perform pretty well... maybe it's my gift!


That's the old "_My grandfather smoked 30 fags a day, drank 10 pints a night, ate loads of fried food, and lived to the age of 81_" argument!

The grandfather in question might well have lived to 95 if he'd looked after himself better! 

Perhaps you would _already_ be doing sub-50 minute 25s if you had junked the junk ...


----------



## Rob3rt (11 Jun 2014)

ColinJ said:


> That's the old "_My grandfather smoked 30 fags a day, drank 10 pints a night, ate loads of fried food, and lived to the age of 81_" argument!
> 
> The grandfather in question might well have lived to 95 if he'd looked after himself better!
> 
> Perhaps you would _already_ be doing sub-50 minute 25s if you had junked the junk ...



That wasn't my point, my point was, that there is no need to under state what you eat and exaggerate what you can do on the bike (no point in me exaggerating what I can do anyway, since anyone can look me up on the CTT website and find my race results and I'd soon be found out) to please some internet forumers and that one shouldn't just assume people are doing that either.


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (11 Jun 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> Some people eat junk and lots of it and still manage to perform pretty well... maybe it's my gift!


 
As I remember, Steve Cram had a tendency to eat lots of junk food when he was young. Think I'm right in saying the media called him the Marathon man, back when Snickers were called Marathons!? 

Fine when he was young, but he found it hard maintain the heights he reached as a young man as he became older.

Seb Coe, on the other hand, who has taken a more 'scientific' approach to nutrition, seemed to hang around forever!


----------



## Scotchlovingcylist (12 Jun 2014)

I commute on my 29er, I usually average 11 miles is 40 - 45 minutes and often do 50 - 60 miles on weekends with a friend. I consider im relatively quick considering im 17 stone, I do eat healthily, just too much 
my blood pressure, blood glucose etc are all healthy and my general fitness is good, I rarely feel drained or get ill. Being overweight doesn't necessarily mean you are unfit or unwell.
I have work colleagues who boast they can eat what they want without gaining weight however they often complain they are tired or have colds, personally I'd rather have a bit of a gut.
Of course I could just buy a road bike 
(Sorry for being a little off topic)


----------



## screenman (12 Jun 2014)

Having to high a fat content in your body is bad for you, anyone saying or thinking it is not is in denial.


----------



## Scotchlovingcylist (12 Jun 2014)

screenman said:


> Having to high a fat content in your body is bad for you, anyone saying or thinking it is not is in denial.


Agreed, however isn't being thin with an unhealthy diet "bad for you"?Overweight with a healthy diet and regular exercise, therfore gaining a certain degree of fitness is surely healthier?


----------



## screenman (12 Jun 2014)

speedfreak said:


> Agreed, however isn't being thin with an unhealthy diet "bad for you"?Overweight with a healthy diet and regular exercise, therfore gaining a certain degree of fitness is surely healthier?



Maybe you should make that another topic.


----------



## Scotchlovingcylist (13 Jun 2014)

screenman said:


> Maybe you should make that another topic.



I think it's valid here, judging the other posts in this thread. If you don't wish to elaborate your reasoning to me though that is fine.


----------



## MattMM (15 Jun 2014)

victor said:


> I can relate to that. My weight has been well in the normal range for years now, but being very keen on riding up hills and mountains, I wish I weighed less than 80-85kg (I'm 6'3", by the way). I look with envy on those shorter cyclists weighing well below 80kg with their smaller, lighter bikes, flying up the mountains. For me, it's harder work, although of course the sense of accomplishment when I reach the top of a tall mountain is all the greater for it .



Well Bradley Wiggins and Miguel Indurain are both 6' 2" / 3" and weigh / weighed at their prime around 80KG. Do not get too despondent mate.

Me, I'm 6' 3" but about 20% over this, bothered? Nah. Any roadie that drops me on a hill, I can catch or match on the flat / downhill afterwards and have done so on a few occasions.


----------



## theclaud (15 Jun 2014)

ColinJ said:


> That's the old "_My grandfather smoked 30 fags a day, drank 10 pints a night, ate loads of fried food, and lived to the age of 81_" argument!
> 
> The grandfather in question might well have lived to 95 if he'd looked after himself better!
> 
> Perhaps you would _already_ be doing sub-50 minute 25s if you had junked the junk ...



Yebbut there's a difference between health and performance. Lots of foods that are good for performance in one context or another are arguably junk.


----------



## ColinJ (15 Jun 2014)

theclaud said:


> Yebbut there's a difference between health and performance. Lots of foods that are good for performance in one context or another are arguably junk.


Indeed - On long, hilly rides, I often eat cake, chocolate, biscuits etc., yet I average ...





... about 9 mph!


----------



## User6179 (15 Jun 2014)

Power to weight ratio is what counts so fatties are at a disadvantage.


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Jun 2014)

Eddy said:


> *Power to weight ratio is what counts* so fatties are at a disadvantage.



Uphill maybe.


----------



## HLaB (16 Jun 2014)

Its probably been said but being that bit bigger on some terrains is an advantage, the individual copes with the wind better and can have more energy reserves. I've known a few 'bigger' folk who are just powerhouses :-)


----------



## Rob3rt (16 Jun 2014)

On the flat, Power:CdA would have a larger impact than Power:Weight in most cases.


----------



## MikeG (16 Jun 2014)

HLaB said:


> Its probably been said..........



Yep. Indeed. Six pages, every conceivable argument has been made, and not one single person has changed their mind.


----------



## Soltydog (16 Jun 2014)

MikeG said:


> Yep. Indeed. Six pages, every conceivable argument has been made, and not one single person has changed their mind.


Yep. No one is saying being overweight is good for you, but some are saying if you are overweight you are slow, unfit & in denial about how much you eat


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Jun 2014)

subaqua said:


> can see why some people think cycklists are arrogant tw@ts ( not you BTW )


some people think cyclists are arrogant tw@ts because some arrogant tw@ts ride bikes.

and wasn't the rugby awful?


----------



## subaqua (16 Jun 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> some people think cyclists are arrogant tw@ts because some arrogant tw@ts ride bikes.
> 
> and wasn't the rugby awful?


Yes to both, matches and points made above. 

I really got to get back on the bike too. Another few days on pubic transport and it's taggart time!!!!


----------



## brand (17 Jun 2014)

Does being overweight mean you're slow on a bike?

Yes, obviously they weigh more. Like carrying a rucksack full of wet sand you weigh more therefore you go slower.
Not sure why the typing has come out so large but to the paranoid its accidental


----------



## brand (17 Jun 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> My takewondo trainer was obese. Not an ounce of fat on him. I also wouldn't have fancied calling him obese.


That is an oxymoron, it is impossible to be obese and not have an ounce of fat on you. In fact even a marathon runner like Paula Radcliffe has body fat. Your statement is probably the most ludicrous I have ever read.


----------



## brand (17 Jun 2014)

subaqua said:


> by most medical standards I am obese at 18 stone and 6ft 3 . I can average 15 mph on my commute in town, I don't do running except short distance and in school over 25yrs ago I held the 100mtrs record as a "lardy" which really annoyed the racing whippetts. long distance running I hate with a passion.


Being fast over a short distance like 100 metres is not severely affected by weight. Most top sprinter are overweight albeit as product of greater muscle mass than the average person​


----------



## KneesUp (17 Jun 2014)

brand said:


> That is an oxymoron, it is impossible to be obese and not have an ounce of fat on you. In fact even a marathon runner like Paula Radcliffe has body fat. Your statement is probably the most ludicrous I have ever read.


It's perfectly possible to have a BMI that falls in the range described as 'obese' and yet have a very low body fat percentage, because the BMI scale assumes you're not built like a brick outhouse. The BMI measure is meaningless if you are more muscular than average, which I think was the point being made.

You should try some election manifestos if you think that is the most ludicrous thing you've ever read btw.


----------



## brand (17 Jun 2014)

*What are overweight and obesity?*
Overweight and obesity are defined as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that may impair health.


----------



## KneesUp (17 Jun 2014)

brand said:


> Being fast over a short distance like 100 metres is not severely affected by weight.​


That's not true - accelerating the greater mass is the hardest bit, and as sprints have a standing start. Sprinters carry very little weight that isn't 'productive' weight - i.e. muscle.


----------



## KneesUp (17 Jun 2014)

brand said:


> Most top sprinter are overweight ...





brand said:


> Overweight and obesity are defined as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that may impair health.



How do you hold both these statements to be true at the same time?


----------



## brand (17 Jun 2014)

KneesUp said:


> It's perfectly possible to have a BMI that falls in the range described as 'obese' and yet have a very low body fat percentage, because the BMI scale assumes you're not built like a brick outhouse. The BMI measure is meaningless if you are more muscular than average, which I think was the point being made.
> 
> You should try some election manifestos if you think that is the most ludicrous thing you've ever read btw.


Obesity = excessive fat accumulation.
Election manifestos = Ludicrous
Edit...most manifestos are Ludicrous!


----------



## brand (17 Jun 2014)

Overweight and obesity
Both not one without the other


----------



## brand (17 Jun 2014)

brand said:


> Being fast over a short distance like 100 metres is not severely affected by weight. Most top sprinter are overweight albeit as product of greater muscle mass than the average person​


↑


brand said:


> Being fast over a short distance like 100 metres is not severely affected by weight.





> That's not true - accelerating the greater mass is the hardest bit, and as sprints have a standing start. Sprinters carry very little weight that isn't 'productive' weight - i.e. muscle.


Very snidey knees up selectively quoting is just plain snidey. I clearly stated "Most top sprinter are overweight albeit as product of greater muscle mass than the average person"


----------



## compo (17 Jun 2014)

My weight yo-yo's up and down between 16 and 18 stones. I certainly feel the difference going uphill when my weight is higher, and my average speed, never that fast, falls even more. Funnily though my endurance doesn't alter and I am comfortable doing longish rides, up to 60/70 miles, either slowly as a fatty or less slowly when my weight comes down.


----------



## brand (18 Jun 2014)

compo said:


> My weight yo-yo's up and down between 16 and 18 stones. I certainly feel the difference going uphill when my weight is higher, and my average speed, never that fast, falls even more. Funnily though my endurance doesn't alter and I am comfortable doing longish rides, up to 60/70 miles, either slowly as a fatty or less slowly when my weight comes down.


At last someone who is saying something obvious. If you weighed 16 stone and put 2 stone of sand in your panniers you would obviously ride slower speed.


----------



## marzjennings (18 Jun 2014)

brand said:


> Knees up clearly quoted your change to my typo mistake. I would appreciate you not calling me stupid. I believe insulting members is against forum rules? Or does forum rules not apply to moderators?


So it was a typo or do you think a riders mass has little affect on acceleration?

[_Moderator edit: Remainder deleted as it was unnececessary_]


----------



## KneesUp (18 Jun 2014)

brand said:


> Knees up clearly quoted your change to my typo mistake. I would appreciate you not calling me stupid. I believe insulting members is against forum rules? Or does forum rules not apply to moderators?


No I didn't - I posted your original quote, which appeared to be what you wanted to say given the context.

What did you mean?


----------



## Markymark (18 Jun 2014)

brand said:


> That is an oxymoron, it is impossible to be obese and not have an ounce of fat on you. In fact even a marathon runner like Paula Radcliffe has body fat. Your statement is probably the most ludicrous I have ever read.


I am glad you think so. The talk is of BMI. He had no fat but he had a high body weight due to all the muscle - muscle weighing much more than fat. He was also quite short. Therefor his BMI was in the obese category which is how it is defined.

Please feel free to dispute any of that rather than ridiculing what you don't understand - it just makes you look silly.

Please read the link below and let me know if you are still confused.

http://bmi.emedtv.com/bmi/bmi-for-athletes.html
"The BMI (body mass index) score is valid for both men and women, but it does have some limits. One of these limits involves the accuracy of using BMI for athletes. Using BMI for athletes can overestimate their level of body fat because muscle is denser than fat and weighs more. Therefore, an athlete's body fat can be normal or even low, but the person may have a high BMI. This does not mean that they are unhealthy or overweight. In fact, a number of gold medal winning athletes at the Olympics would be considered obese based solely on their BMI."

EDIT - I think I have seen your confusion. Obesity is defined in the UK by BMI see here. BMI is a calculation from just height and weight. Nothing to do with fat. If you are very muscley, you will have a high BMI and little fat. You will therefore have a high BMI score which may even up you into the obese category.

Again, try looking things up before calling post ludicrous.


----------



## MikeG (18 Jun 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> ......He had no fat .........



Sorry, but that is ridiculous. Nobody has zero fat. Emaciated Biafran refugees and WW2 POW's had some fat.


----------



## Markymark (18 Jun 2014)

MikeG said:


> Sorry, but that is ridiculous. Nobody has zero fat. Emaciated Biafran refugees and WW2 POW's had some fat.


Fair point. Very little fat. Very well defined. Technically obese.


----------



## MikeG (18 Jun 2014)

Thanks. Which indeed is the only point that Brand was making. Perhaps you should revisit his post and reconsider whether you two actually have anything to argue about.


----------



## Markymark (18 Jun 2014)

MikeG said:


> Thanks. Which indeed is the only point that Brand was making. Perhaps you should revisit his post and reconsider whether you two actually have anything to argue about.


Nope. My original post was that my instructor was obese which was called ludicrous. He followed it up with his definition of obesity as being fat. 



brand said:


> *What are overweight and obesity?*
> Overweight and obesity are defined as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that may impair health.



This is incorrect. Obesity, in the uk at least, is defined by bmi, nothing to do with fat. My original statement holds true, his statement above us false. 

Maybe he's from another country that measures obesity differently, if the uk he's wrong.


----------



## KneesUp (18 Jun 2014)

brand said:


> ↑
> 
> 
> Very snidey knees up selectively quoting is just plain snidey. I clearly stated "Most top sprinter are overweight albeit as product of greater muscle mass than the average person"



I know you did, but in your other posts you seemed to disregard what the weight was made up of - your argument was that if you gave a rider a 2 stone bag of sand to ride with they'd be slower. However, if you gave them 2 stone of battery and dynamo motorised hub they'd be faster.

Your argument comes across as incoherent because you swap between 'it stands to reason you' be slower if you were heavier' and 'sprinters are overweight and they're really fast' without ever really making the case for either.

FWIW I agree that unproductive weight slows you down. There was a reason Rasmusen took the stickers off his bike. And I also agree than in some cases, putting on muscle will make you both heaver and faster. I'd also say (with no evidence) that for the 'average' person starting cycling having not done other sports,, losing some weight (i.e. losing more in fat than is put on in muscle) will make them faster to a certain point.

You need to make your points more clearly though. I stopped posting last night because I assumed you were drunk 

EDIT - changed dynamo hub to motorised hub - you knew what I meant


----------



## MikeG (18 Jun 2014)

Everyone knows that BMI is, at best, a blunt instrument, and there are much better measurements of whether an individual is carrying too much weight. The entire England rugby team would be classed as obese using BMI. So, if the measurement is stupid, stop using it in your arguments. At the very least, some of those arguing in this thread need to be more precise in their use of language.


----------



## Markymark (18 Jun 2014)

MikeG said:


> Everyone knows that BMI is, at best, a blunt instrument, and there are much better measurements of whether an individual is carrying too much weight. The entire England rugby team would be classed as obese using BMI. So, if the measurement is stupid, stop using it in your arguments. At the very least, some of those arguing in this thread need to be more precise in their use of language.


My exact point which was called ludicrous. Bmi is an indicator that is used in the uk. It is a bad indicator, hence my post re my instructor. 

My doctor used it. I told him I have a high muscle body but that wasn't recorded in the notes as to the uk medical profession it doesn't count. 

Apparently a better measurement is waist.


----------



## KneesUp (18 Jun 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Apparently a better measurement is waist.



That also sounds a crude measure, but works better for me at least - I weight pretty much the same as I did 20 years ago, but I am nowhere near as fit as I was then - as reflected in going from 28/30 jeans to 32/34. I've lost a chunk of muscle and gained a bigger chunk of fat of the same mass.

Obviously my BMI has not changed at all in that time.


----------



## brand (18 Jun 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I am glad you think so. The talk is of BMI. He had no fat but he had a high body weight due to all the muscle - muscle weighing much more than fat. He was also quite short. Therefor his BMI was in the obese category which is how it is defined.


​


0-markymark-0 said:


> Please feel free to dispute any of that rather than ridiculing what you don't understand - it just makes you look silly.
> 
> Please read the link below and let me know if you are still confused.
> 
> ...




*"What are overweight and obesity?*
Overweight and obesity are defined as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that may impair health".

The above is what I stated and it comes from the World Health Organisation site. Do you agree with that? if not your views are ludicrous. Sorry if that makes me sound like a "gob*****" but my views tend to be....sorry can't think of right words. I am a bit "slow at the moment as I have had a few epileptic " episodes " (the new politically correct way of describing fits) recently


----------



## Markymark (18 Jun 2014)

Ok, here in the uk it's defined solely by bmi which fat is not calculated.


----------



## KneesUp (18 Jun 2014)

brand said:


> *"What are overweight and obesity?*
> Overweight and obesity are defined as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that may impair health".
> 
> The above is what I stated and it comes from the World Health Organisation site. Do you agree with that? if not your views are ludicrous. Sorry if that makes me sound like a "gobshite" but my views tend to be....sorry can't think of right words. I am a bit "slow at the moment as I have had a few epileptic " episodes " (the new politically correct way of describing fits) rececently



but then you also said:



brand said:


> Most top sprinter are overweight albeit as product of greater muscle mass than the average person​



So you are now saying that it is ludicrous to disagree with the definition of being overweight or obese as having "abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that may impair health" whilst also saying that having greater muscle mass can also make you overweight. 

This is why you need to be more careful about what you type - perhaps trying to be a bit consistent would help?


----------



## KneesUp (18 Jun 2014)

Incidentally @brand, the WHO go on to say


The WHO definition [of 'overweight' and 'obese'] is:


a BMI greater than or equal to 25 is overweight
a BMI greater than or equal to 30 is obesity.
But then goes on to say that BMI isn't a great measure for reasons discussed. Which does make you wonder why they use it as their definition ...


----------



## jarlrmai (18 Jun 2014)

BMI is for populations and indication, there have been a few highly publicised stories of athletes being told they are overweight by uninformed health professionals but as an indicator for the general public it is a simple figure that anyone can work out that gives you an idea that you might be overweight, a lot of people see themselves as normal, because the average person they see looks the same, but they are actually overweight.

If you are so fit that you classify as overweight because you have high muscle mass, you KNOW all about (and probably don't hold back from telling as many people as you can in faux outrage)


----------



## brand (18 Jun 2014)

Sorry but some surgery do messure body fat. They use a hand held device held by the patient in both hands which sends a small electrical charge round your body. I think the longer it takes to go round the body the more lard you have. 2 surgeries I have used in the past used this devise the rest were incompetent .
Also it was recently reported by the UK medical profession that some children had the correct BMI but were obese. In other words very little muscle.


----------



## KneesUp (18 Jun 2014)

The electric fat calculators work on the principle that fat and muscle have a different resistance I think. I would imagine they assume a certain proportion of you is bone and internal organs, and then deduce your body fat percentage from the resistance it measures.

They are reasonably accurate, apparently, but the only real way of knowing is via an autopsy, which is a bit extreme for most purposes


----------



## brand (18 Jun 2014)

KneesUp said:


> They are reasonably accurate, apparently, but the only real way of knowing is via an autopsy, which is a bit extreme for most purposes


Think I will go with reasonably accurate!


----------



## jarlrmai (18 Jun 2014)

brand said:


> Sorry but some surgery do messure body fat. They use a hand held device held by the patient in both hands which sends a small electrical charge round your body. I think the longer it takes to go round the body the more lard you have. 2 surgeries I have used in the past used this devise the rest were incompetent .
> Also it was recently reported by the UK medical profession that some children had the correct BMI but were obese. In other words very little muscle.



It an INDICATION and for POPULATIONS, it's easy in person to see if someone fall outside for a proper reason it ie they look like pro Rugby player or they are a small kid with too much fat but short/light enough that the maths breaks down. Or that they have a strange body shape but are otherwise healthy

But if you have 1 million heights and weights you can get a good population average by working out BMIs or if you are an unsure individual and check it and you see an overweight figure you can go to a professional check it out. Any professional that goes purely on BMI in person should not be a professional.

If you want the most accurate in vivo calculation you need to go on a DEXA scanner configured for fat density.


----------



## brand (18 Jun 2014)

MikeG said:


> The entire England rugby team would be classed as obese using BMI


Uhm not sure if some professional Rugby front rows aren't a little porky?


----------



## jarlrmai (18 Jun 2014)

Bet they have hearts like diesel pumps to cope.

That's the main problem with being overweight its the extra load it puts on your CV system.


----------



## User6179 (18 Jun 2014)

jarlrmai said:


> Bet they have hearts like diesel pumps to cope.
> 
> That's the main problem with being overweight its the extra load it puts on your CV system.



That would suggest that it does not matter whether the extra weight is fat or muscle?


----------



## Kiwiavenger (18 Jun 2014)

http://www.strava.com/activities/154970187

just saying - 15 stone and "overweight" with a bit of a belly. i know i can go faster if i dropped the lard but its become a companion to me and i dont want to see it go!


----------



## MikeG (18 Jun 2014)

Kiwiavenger said:


> ........ know i can go faster if i dropped the lard.........



That's the whole thread summed up in less than a dozen words.  People accepting the evident truth of this could have saved 8 pages, and goodness knows how many extra entrants to the Ignore function. There's a world of difference between "slow" and "slower than otherwise" in the thread title.


----------



## marzjennings (18 Jun 2014)

MOD Edit - Quotes Deleted post

So, you've yet to answer the question, do you think a riders mass has little affect on acceleration?


----------



## MikeG (18 Jun 2014)

marzjennings said:


> ....... do you think a riders mass has little affect on acceleration?



For anyone who wants a little help with the answer, remember your basic physics........ F=MA, thus A = F/M (where F= Force, M = Mass, and A = Acceleration). Therefore, anyone claiming that acceleration is unaffected by mass would need to demonstrate that F (power in this instance) increases in direct proportion to Mass. Is a bloke who is say, twice as heavy as another automatically twice as strong? ie A = 2F/ 2M If not, you've lost the argument.


----------



## welsh dragon (18 Jun 2014)

MikeG said:


> For anyone who wants a little help with the answer, remember your basic physics........ F=MA, thus A = F/M (where F= Force, M = Mass, and A = Acceleration). Therefore, anyone claiming that acceleration is unaffected by mass would need to demonstrate that F (power in this instance) increases in direct proportion to Mass. Is a bloke who is say, twice as heavy as another automatically twice as strong? ie A = 2F/ 2M If not, you've lost the argument.



I was just about to say that, but you beat me to it


----------



## KneesUp (18 Jun 2014)

MikeG said:


> For anyone who wants a little help with the answer, remember your basic physics........ F=MA, thus A = F/M (where F= Force, M = Mass, and A = Acceleration). Therefore, anyone claiming that acceleration is unaffected by mass would need to demonstrate that F (power in this instance) increases in direct proportion to Mass. Is a bloke who is say, twice as heavy as another automatically twice as strong? ie A = 2F/ 2M If not, you've lost the argument.



It depends on the "bloke" I'd expect someone near to starvation would be more than twice the weight and more than twice as fast at a healthy weight.


----------



## MikeG (18 Jun 2014)

KneesUp said:


> It depends on the "bloke" I'd expect someone near to starvation would be more than twice the weight and more than twice as fast at a healthy weight.


You're changing the parameters, and changing the argument. I didn't say anything about speed whatsoever, and you reply by saying "twice as fast".


----------



## KneesUp (18 Jun 2014)

MikeG said:


> You're changing the parameters, and changing the argument. I didn't say anything about speed whatsoever, and you reply by saying "twice as fast".


You're correct. My point stands if you swap 'strong' for 'fast' though.

If you're not talking about speed you're off topic though


----------



## MikeG (18 Jun 2014)

KneesUp said:


> You're correct. My point stands if you swap 'strong' for 'fast' though.
> 
> If you're not talking about speed you're off topic though


I was answering a question about acceleration........rate of change of speed. 

As for your previous point.....you accept that you are talking_ reductio ad absurdum_? This is of course a valid use of logic, but in this case it says nothing about the general case we are discussing.


----------



## brand (18 Jun 2014)

I like you, you're funny.

So, you've yet to answer the question, do you think a riders mass has little affect on acceleration?



brand said:


> Being fast over a short distance like 100 metres is not severely affected by weight. Most top sprinter are overweight albeit as product of greater muscle mass than the average person​


I was replying to 100 metres sprint therefore running. Also stated not severely affected. 

PS I know I am funny


----------



## KneesUp (18 Jun 2014)

MikeG said:


> I was answering a question about acceleration........rate of change of speed.
> 
> As for your previous point.....you accept that you are talking_ reductio ad absurdum_? This is of course a valid use of logic, but in this case it says nothing about the general case we are discussing.


The whole thread is absurd - I refer you to my own post from 11 days ago - http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/does-being-overweight-mean-youre-slow-on-a-bike.157997/post-3121509


----------



## brand (18 Jun 2014)

MikeG said:


> I was answering a question about acceleration........rate of change of speed.
> 
> As for your previous point.....you accept that you are talking_ reductio ad absurdum_? This is of course a valid use of logic, but in this case it says nothing about the general case we are discussing.


You are being sesquipedalian. As Tex and his fellow countrymen would say "you are using $10 words where 50 cent words will do!"

[MOD Edit: Remainder removed]


----------



## brand (18 Jun 2014)

KneesUp said:


> The whole thread is absurd - I refer you to my own post from 11 days ago - http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/does-being-overweight-mean-youre-slow-on-a-bike.157997/post-3121509



Get a grip of yourself all threads go off topic!
It invariably makes it more interesting for everyone except for the original poste'e.
MikeG am I using the right word in the right context?​


----------



## MikeG (18 Jun 2014)

brand said:


> MikeG am I using the right word in the right context?



I have no idea. I haven't really got much of a clue as to what point you are trying to make, so can't help you with your word choice. As I said a while back, some people here need to be more selective with the words they use, because, for instance, discussing speed and acceleration are two different conversations.


----------



## Old Plodder (18 Jun 2014)

> does-being-overweight-mean-youre-slow-on-a-bike


The answer is 'no'. 
It is more to do with fitness. 
Whilst being heavier is a disadvantage going up hill, it is a distinct advantage going down. 
Also, once your mass is moving, it is working for you; sort of like a flywheel does for rotary propulsion.


----------



## MikeG (18 Jun 2014)

Old Plodder said:


> The answer is 'no'.
> It is more to do with fitness.
> Whilst being heavier is a disadvantage going up hill, it is a distinct advantage going down.
> Also, once your mass is moving, it is working for you; sort of like a flywheel does for rotary propulsion.


You wouldn't like to take the trouble to read the whole thread, would you? The answer isn't "no", nor is it "yes". The answer is it makes you slower, but not necessarily slow. 

Oh, and the maths of going up and then down hills makes any claim of one compensating for the other a load of nonsense. If it ordinarily takes 2 hours to climb a hill, and half an hour to go down (Mont Ventoux, if you like), and being overweight makes you 10% slower going up, and 10% faster going down...........well............work it out for yourself. You'd be 9 minutes behind your not-fat alter ego at the bottom.


----------



## uclown2002 (18 Jun 2014)

Old Plodder said:


> The answer is 'no'.
> It is more to do with fitness.
> Whilst being heavier is a disadvantage going up hill, it is a distinct advantage going down.
> Also, once your mass is moving, it is working for you; sort of like a flywheel does for rotary propulsion.


Are you likely to be fitter and therefore faster if you're not carrying excess lard?


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (18 Jun 2014)

uclown2002 said:


> Are you likely to be fitter and therefore faster if you're not carrying excess lard?



Gawd help us!


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (19 Jun 2014)

It's all about FBF (Fat but Fit)

I would be "morbidly" obese but I can still run a 10k faster than some skinny types (skinny does NOT equal fit). I can do long distance hill walks whilst the slender types drop out. Sure, I know that FBF isn't the ideal but having an overhang over the saddle doesn't always mean slow!


----------



## brand (19 Jun 2014)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> It's all about FBF (Fat but Fit)
> 
> I would be "morbidly" obese but I can still run a 10k faster than some skinny types (skinny does NOT equal fit). I can do long distance hill walks whilst the slender types drop out. Sure, I know that FBF isn't the ideal but having an overhang over the saddle doesn't always mean slow!


And if you weighed less you could run faster still. So therefore within your own capabilities you are unfit because you have an excess of unneeded fat.
Move to the countryside but not near a pub taking up excessive drinking. Cycle 12 miles to the pub get rat arsed and cycle 42 miles home. The Brand diet ...it works


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (19 Jun 2014)

brand said:


> And if you weighed less you could run faster still. So therefore within your own capabilities you are unfit because you have an excess of unneeded fat.
> Move to the countryside but not near a pub taking up excessive drinking. Cycle 12 miles to the pub get rat arsed and cycle 42 miles home. The Brand diet ...it works


I like it..

..and I know just the pub!


----------



## marzjennings (19 Jun 2014)

brand said:


> I was replying to 100 metres sprint therefore running. Also stated not severely affected.



But acceleration, or at least the ability to accelerate rapidly is severely affected by mass. Accelerating out of corners and sprint sections are two areas where the larger rider has to work a lot harder than their slimmer self or counterpart to keep up. Once caught up again and traveling at the same speed, produced power requirements are similar.


----------



## Shaun (19 Jun 2014)

I've removed a number of posts from the end of the thread and excluded one member from the discussion for a few days. Please stick to the thread subject and leave out the personal remarks.

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## brand (28 Jun 2014)

Shaun said:


> I've removed a number of posts from the end of the thread and excluded one member from the discussion for a few days. Please stick to the thread subject and leave out the personal remarks.
> 
> Thanks,
> Shaun


That was me...bad boy. It appears as usual that I have a different definition of humour to the majority of people.


----------



## brand (28 Jun 2014)

Old Plodder said:


> The answer is 'no'.
> It is more to do with fitness.
> Whilst being heavier is a disadvantage going up hill, it is a distinct advantage going down.
> Also, once your mass is moving, it is working for you; sort of like a flywheel does for rotary propulsion.


How about aerodynamic drag? No way does being fat help you go faster downhill. Show me some science that supports your view, ignoring the aerodynamic drag.


----------



## Old Plodder (28 Jun 2014)

Aerodynamic drag is negligible in comparison to a heavy mass being put into motion. (Which actually hits the floor first, a feather or a stone.)


----------



## User16625 (28 Jun 2014)

Generally no. Fat people are slow off the bike too.


----------



## brand (30 Jun 2014)

Occasionally I cycle on the flat part of Lincolnshire (the majority) it is excellent till you are going back cycling into the wind. It ruins a good ride. And it is made worse by the lack of hedgerows. I can be on the Wolds in gale and the protection you get from the hedge makes the gale a slightly windy day. Although the gaps in the hedge can be a bit dodgy! I use to cycle up into the mountains rather than cycle into the wind on Highway 1 in the US.


----------



## brand (30 Jun 2014)

JC4LAB said:


> Weight has its advantages..In holland where I did a tour of the Dutch bulbfields I hired a dutch bike .


What like my Dutch Travelmaster with Rohloff gears?
Sorry just bragging about my newly acquired bike.


----------

