Road Cycling

6ft 1 says you could be 82kg and be a normal BMI? **EDIT** Unless you mean 3kg over for a pro? But then, the ones that weigh 65kg are normally 5' 8 :)
 
Last edited:
Isn't BMI a bit of a red herring at times? You could be a muscle bound Adonis but because muscle weighs more/denser along with bone density etc - you could be classed as overweight

Someone like Anthony Joshua would be classed overweight yet you wouldn't say they're a fat git
 
Drollic said:
The pro tour weights, in particular the climbers, are borderline disgusting. I got to under 70kg last year (in bibs, jersey, socks, hr monitor) at 6ft 1 without calorie control and eating 'reasonably'. Ribs showing, generally feeling very skinny and you feel the cold so much more than your 'normal' weight. Your body actually starts to look almost teenager/child like. They take the meaning of skin and bones to a new level when they're on it. Even under 70kg I'd still probably be classed as 3kg over, maybe more.
Click to expand...

They're scary in the real world realms, but they do also have some of the best healthcare in the world looking after them to ensure they don't get as ill as they would if they were a normal human at that weight. Think Thomas says his race weight is 69kg, at 6'0, so 70kg at 6'1 is easily pro weight. At my lightest I was something like 66kg for 5'9 but certainly not the strongest I've been. @xdcx said something similar last year he realised he realised he could weight more than a wet lettuce and be a better rider because his body could put out more w/kg more often.
 
SoliD said:
They're scary in the real world realms, but they do also have some of the best healthcare in the world looking after them to ensure they don't get as ill as they would if they were a normal human at that weight. Think Thomas says his race weight is 69kg, at 6'0, so 70kg at 6'1 is easily pro weight. At my lightest I was something like 66kg for 5'9 but certainly not the strongest I've been. @xdcx said something similar last year he realised he realised he could weight more than a wet lettuce and be a better rider because his body could put out more w/kg more often.
Click to expand...

Just remember it's looking after them for the purposes of the highest level of competition in the world as opposed to for the individual and their mental health, and even then it goes wrong. The low weight and the power is the science though, it's in part what separates them. The more I ride the more I question what even makes a better rider. The one who can hit good numbers for a one off 20 minute test (so much variation in that alone - what gradient if any, conditions, warmup and what kind, was it tapered or done with some fatigue etc), the one who can repeatedly hit high numbers day after day after day, the one who can climb, who's fast on the flats, who can do ultra endurance for a week, month or a year. It's all called cycling but the breakdown of it all is like the difference between walking, jogging, running and sprinting and everything in between for varying amounts of time. As an example re w/kg - if I was to change my training to include one-two extra sets of specific intervals of varying blocks above 400w a time for an hour in total each session, lower my hours at Z2 and then control my diet slightly more and test my 20 minute ftp without the zwift warmup in cool conditions to then inflate my numbers, am I now a better rider or have I just targeted a specific goal? Would I be able to ride the same distances at the same pace with the same amount of stops on a regular basis with the slightly lower hours?
 
Drollic said:
Just remember it's looking after them for the purposes of the highest level of competition in the world as opposed to for the individual and their mental health, and even then it goes wrong.
Click to expand...

Absolutely but then also its a high pressure job with the means to earn 250k for even the most average of rider, that sort of pay elsewhere has the same or more stress and mental impacts too, not that I'm casting it aside what has happened to some riders is awful, but the same can be said of many people struggling day to day with their health and wellbeing in "normal" jobs.

That's the great thing about cycling. So many riders can be best on their day in certain scenarios and certain race types.
 
SoliD said:
Absolutely but then also its a high pressure job with the means to earn 250k for even the most average of rider, that sort of pay elsewhere has the same or more stress and mental impacts too, not that I'm casting it aside what has happened to some riders is awful, but the same can be said of many people struggling day to day with their health and wellbeing in "normal" jobs.

That's the great thing about cycling. So many riders can be best on their day in certain scenarios and certain race types.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree when it comes to other jobs, but there's nothing average about melting yourself week in and week out. There's also no average rider earning 250k. Average next to the world's very best, yes, but your talking about handfuls of people. Sorry, but you can't call them average and it mean anything unless you've been there or done more. It's like saying a footballer in the championship is average when you play football yourself for a local village team.
 
Yeah, I think he means 'average in the peleton' is still one of the best riders in the entire world... I guess the football analogy is you pick a World VI and then say 'even the most average player in that team is earning £5m a year...'

Drollic said:
am I now a better rider or have I just targeted a specific goal?
Click to expand...

First point, of course if you do a flawed test and even then don't do it properly, I would argue you've not really tested your FTP. I do like how Wahoo do it all. Their 4DP test is brutal, but I think it gives a better picture of what type of rider you are (testing 5s, 1m, 5m and 20m) and even their FTP test is much harder as you do the ramp and then rest for a few minutes, then 20 minutes in... Z4(?) and they claim to do some analysis to give your final FTP. But yes, FTP alone seems an odd way to measure a riders ability. It's like every person that runs is judged on their 5k time, even the 100m sprinters. You have a valid point on 'can you do 4 hours a day, day after day' and I don't think there's any test that can measure this, so I guess we make do with what we have and FTP is a reasonable measure I suppose.
 
BMI works for probably about 95% of the population. The popular idea that BMI is useless is just something that people use to tell themselves that they aren't overweight.

BMI is an oversimplification of weight but its accurate enough in most cases and when it isn't, you can tell immediately and visually that it is of no use.

BMI is used primarily when talking about people with weight issues. Anyone who isn't reasonably accurately represented by BMI is unlikely to be ignorant of their health.

On the topic of pro-cyclists being healthy thats just not really true. Its not true in the same way that being a pro weightlifter or body builder isn't healthy. You can manage the health implications of your body type buts its fundamentally bad for you. This is even more true when it comes to women.

Pro riders have huge issues with eating disorders and their bodies are permanently under fuelled. The difference is that the gains from being light are more than the gains from being a bit healthier.
 
I definitely have some timber to shift as the NHS BMI calculator suggests loosing 4Kg which isn't much but the truth is I enjoy eating unhealthy things too often.

If it comes off from me riding my bike, fantastic but I don't really care.

I'll just throw loads of money at saving a few grams instead :p
 
Liefrich said:
It always makes me laugh that seemingly the 5% doesn't apply to the posters on a computer forum :D
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you have that the right way round? :P From your comment you're saying you would expect the 5% to apply to them? (and BMI is not a good indicator?) From the inference that it's a computer forum (leaving aside the fact it's in a fitness related thread) you might think you meant they would be fattties and the 5% would not be them? :)

Personally, I would expect it to be more like 50/50 in this thread maybe? I know for sure BMI is no use to me, for example. (That's not to say you wouldn't come in 'safe' against a BMI check, just to say it's not a good way to assess weight, given most people in here are reasonably serious cyclists?)
 
VeNT said:
BMI is not a good metric for ANYTHING.
Click to expand...

Whilst I'm definitely one of those people saying it's not good for a lot of people, I wouldn't say everyone should ignore it. It's like saying everyone should ignore their weight. That's all it is really, isn't it? Weight with some context of your height. You of course need more context and as I said above, for us in this thread, I think it is pretty useless, but I would imagine for a lot of people that don't exercise and generally live fairly sedentary lifestyles, if they're marked as obese they probably do need to do something about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom