's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

So much for cycling as a scrawny guy's sport.(5 posts)

So much for cycling as a scrawny guy's sport.cory
Feb 19, 2003 5:28 PM
Did you catch the results of the poll? 25 percent of us between 180-200, 21 percent between 165-180 and 18 percent over 200 pounds? How come all the people I have to climb with are little ferret-bodies?
re: So much for cycling as a scrawny guy's sport.nn23
Feb 19, 2003 6:07 PM
Those who took the poll were obviously not riding :)
Because all the skinny guys are out riding nowPaulCL
Feb 20, 2003 6:40 AM
Instead of typing posts on this forum.

Count me into the 25% group. 'nough said.
you need to include musculature and height as wellColnagoFE
Feb 20, 2003 8:25 AM
At 6'2" and 195 with some upper body musculature I'm not fat (working on losing another 10 from my gut though to be at my ideal weight), but if I was 5' and no muscle at the same weight that would be a different story. BMI is a joke. It assumes that at the same height we all have the same musculature and puts me at a fairly overweight number.
According to insurance tables, I'm overweightPaulCL
Feb 21, 2003 7:50 AM
I'm 6'1" and 190lbs. You're right: this doesn't take into account musculature. I wear a size 43 suitcoat with 34" waist pants. I regularly work out on weights - upper and lower body. I'm not fat but on many measurements, I'm at least 20 pounds overweight !! My BMI is into the "fatty" range too. Stupid, useless number.

Maybe I should stop the bench pressing, stop the flies, go on a crash diet, get real skinny so I can fly up those hills. I guess as a cyclist, my ability to do bench press reps of my weight isn't much of an advantage.

OK, OK....I want to lose 10 lbs around my middle too.