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

[Profpointy]

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]

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]

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]

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

What heavy light point?

 

[Profpointy]

What heavy light point?

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

 

[subaqua]

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]

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

Did YOU really say that?

 

[MikeG]

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

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]

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]

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

 

[MikeG]

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]

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]

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

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]

......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.

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

Do you really think that is necessary?

 

[Hip Priest]

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.