on the body is balanced by muscle growth/decline.Conversely if you lose weight, you also lose muscle mass.
Now that is a fabulous wives tales...
put the 12 stone cyclist on a bike that's 8 stone heavier than the 20 stone cyclist
Or just put the 12 stone cyclist on a nice light bike of his choice knowing that he wont break it. Then put the 20 stoner on a strong (to support his weight) but utimately heavy bike and race them uphill. I bet the guy who weighs 12 stone wins.
I have to say though in 15yrs of road racing I've never seen a road bike with one on or felt the need to have one myself.
Actually the one on Schlek's bikes was one of [url= http://www.wiggle.co.uk/p/cycle/7/K-Edge_Chain_Catcher/5360044389/ ]these[/url].
As I said though, in 15yrs including some time riding as an elite, I've never actually seen one on a bike - maybe the "pros" parkers mention as all using them are the real pros on the continent and you pick on up in your induction pack 😉
The weight thing is a red herring here though as all the top bikes come in under weight and carry a little ballast to get up to the uci minimum, so the 10g just comes off the ballast and the bike weights the same.
In other words, if you put on a bit of fat, you don't have to get on your bike to compensate for it, you build more muscle to carry it around just by walking around, since it's always with you.
Yep, that's why fat people have the most toned bodies of all, and as a general rule can run and cycle just as fast as thin people and never get out of breath ...
I think anybody who really thinks that human body has a constant fat-to-muscle ratio needs to log of the Internet now and meet some real people 🙂
Don't over think it. Just have fun riding.
In other words, if you put on a bit of fat, you don't have to get on your bike to compensate for it, you build more muscle to carry it around just by walking around, since it's always with you.
I feel so stupid I have been excercising to achieve this goal. I never realised that the best way to improve my muscles was to become a fat b@stard and carry the weight with me thanks for the advice.
Wonders why I dont see any fat cyclists at the Olympicas or on the Tour but hey a guy on the Internet said it so it is clearly true.
Or just put the 12 stone cyclist on a nice light bike of his choice knowing that he wont break it. Then put the 20 stoner on a strong (to support his weight) but utimately heavy bike and race them uphill. I bet the guy who weighs 12 stone wins.
Yeah but that's a different experiment to prove a different point, is it not?
The original point was that weight on the bike and weight on the body are different things, especially for MTBers.
Er - bit off topic but what advert is everyone else getting on the right of this thread? I know for an absolute fact I've never needed any of what I'm being offered!
I discovered this weekend that my SS HT is a fair bit heaver than I'd imagined, by 2 or 3 pounds at least. Quite surprising the difference between 'perceived weight' and 'actual weight'. I'm pretty chuffed, because it means my 'performance' is just a teeny bit better than I thought, considering the considerable extra weight I'm lugging around. TBH, the bike doesn't feel 'heavy', although I know it would be a little bit more sprightly with lighter wheels. I pondered what would be involved in taking that extra 2-3 pounds off, and have concluded that it would cost me in the region of £800. And mean getting rid of loads of decent parts which are doing a perfectly good job anyway. Would it make my riding any more enjoyable? I doubt it. In the meantime, hoiking the 2kg+ wheels around means I'm getting fitter. And better. Give me a sub-20lb machine, and I'll burn you all!
Some people silly pills and some people take silly pills AND argumentative pills.
Light = Fast BUT fast does not always = Fun.
Yep, that's why fat people have the most toned bodies of all, and as a general rule can run and cycle just as fast as thin people and never get out of breath ...
not toned, because toned is due to muscle being able to be seen through the skin, if there's fat between them the size of the muscle isn't going to make a difference.
e.g. if you want a six pack the best way is to lose fat, not gain muscle.
I think anybody who really thinks that human body has a constant fat-to-muscle ratio needs to log of the Internet now and meet some real people
I never said there was a constant ratio between them, but that doesn't mean there isn't at least *[i]some[/i]* relationship.
i.e. power to weight ratio usually goes down with obesity, but absolute power (i.e. irregardless of weight) goes up.
Therefore if you neck a KFC bargain bucket and gain 100g of fat, you might also gain an amount of muscle needed to power an extra 20g of you along. You still shouldn't have done it, because you're still *[i]effectively[/i]* an extra 80g heavier, but losing 100g off your bike more than compensates for it.
If fat people never grew more muscle as they got fatter then you'd never see any fat people as they'd never make it out of bed without collapsing.
The other obvious argument against "you'd be better off losing 100g off your body than off your bike" is that you could, of course, do both.
If fat people never grew more muscle as they got fatter then you'd never see any fat people as they'd never make it out of bed without collapsing.
True, but the muscle power required for a fat person to get out of bed is not the same as the muscle power required for a 10 mile TT.
Take an obese person, give 'em liposuction and stick em on a bike and they would still be horrendously unfit. Sure, they'd be able to find the remote control and trot along to KFC ok, possibly do a few low repetition excercises at high intensity, but they would be terrible at anything cardiovascular or with a moderate rep rate such as running, cycling, rowing etc.
There is a more complex issue here bonj with body type and metabolism. I think that people who gain muscle easily are also prone to gain fat. I think this could be down to their metabolism and their consequent eating habits. There are many blokes out there who are fat, but really strong, and in fewer cases also fast up hills.
I have hardly ever (if ever) seen such a bloke on the start line of an Elite race tho. Anyone know any big elite racers?
[i]In the meantime, hoiking the 2kg+ wheels around means I'm getting fitter. And better. Give me a sub-20lb machine, and I'll burn you all! [/i]
Apart from obliviously, the bloke who's fitter than you and already rides a 20lb bike....
You can ride a heavy bike slowly, or a lighter bike faster and get the same workout. In other words, you push yourself as hard as you are willing to push yourself - the weight of your bike is not a factor.
I never said there was a constant ratio between them, but that doesn't mean there isn't at least *some* relationship.
i.e. power to weight ratio usually goes down with obesity, but absolute power (i.e. irregardless of weight) goes up.Therefore if you neck a KFC bargain bucket and gain 100g of fat, you might also gain an amount of muscle needed to power an extra 20g of you along. You still shouldn't have done it, because you're still *effectively* an extra 80g heavier, but losing 100g off your bike more than compensates for it.
If fat people never grew more muscle as they got fatter then you'd never see any fat people as they'd never make it out of bed without collapsing.
The other obvious argument against "you'd be better off losing 100g off your body than off your bike" is that you could, of course, do both.
Or not. You don't just spontaneously grow muscle. Following what you say would mean that people riding light bike have less muscle than people riding heavy bike because you need to have less muscle to haul the bike up.
It takes a lot of weight gain and a lot of time to get the muscle to carry extra weight by just walking around. On the other hand if you loose 500g or a couple of kilo out of your body your muscle are not going to shrink overnight.
I think as some people have said you really need to get out of the interweb...
I think as some people have said you really need to get out of the interweb...
I think you should be nice and stop endlessly picking on people.
You can ride a heavy bike slowly, or a lighter bike faster and get the same workout.
On the flat?
Apart from obliviously, the bloke who's fitter than you and already rides a 20lb bike....
Oh yeah, forgot about him.
I'll just bung a stick in his spokes.
Please can this thread be deleted now. 😐
Retards f***king a doorknob springs to mind.
Retards f***king a doorknob springs to mind.
+1
And dare I say it, based on what's said on this page, I agree with Juan 😉
Take an obese person, give 'em liposuction and stick em on a bike
Do you mean take an obese non-cycling person, stick em on a bike, or do you mean take an obese [i]cyclist[/i], who is cardiovascularly fit despite being obese, and give them liposuction, and see how fast on a bike they are?
The latter is more relevant and I think they would be faster than the person who was the weight after liposuction originally.
Or not. You don't just spontaneously grow muscle. Following what you say would mean that people riding light bike have less muscle than people riding heavy bike because you need to have less muscle to haul the bike up.
to some extent, but the effect of that only takes place while you are riding your bike, which is probably a fairly small percentage of the time.
are-we-getting-a-bit-to-precious-about-weight
Judging from this thread, I would say yes we are.
No, this thread is whether or not it's important. No-one's actually weightweenieing on here.
Weight within reason is nowhere near as important as the marketing guff would have you believe.
Old Bike: Spesh S-Works FSR 120 approx 26lbs
New Bike: Blur LT approx 28lbs
The Blur is faster going up (better shock) and a lot faster going down, better geometry and stiffer
richmtb - MemberThe Blur [s]is[/s] [b]feels[/b] faster going up (better shock) and a lot faster going down, better geometry and stiffer
Fixed that for ya! No need to thank me!
Judging from the people who seem to know or exaggerate the svelteness of their bikes - I would say people are over obsessed with their bike weights.
There is no required weight for a bike and rider and it's not an exact science - why do people think it is?
In other words, if you put on a bit of fat, you don't have to get on your bike to compensate for it, you build more muscle to carry it around just by walking around, since it's always with you.
Bollocks
if you want a six pack the best way is to lose fat, not gain muscle.
Bollocks
power to weight ratio usually goes down with obesity, but absolute power (i.e. irregardless of weight) goes up.
Bollocks.
Please stop now.
Perhaps it should say:
[size=6]Are we getting a bit to precious about bike weight as we are a nation of fatties ;)[/size]
Backhander - yes to two of your bo77ocks (!) but the fat/six pack thing - ou need a bf %age of less than 12 to have a "proper" six pack - look at skinny chavs with six packs - sod all muscle, but also not much fat. Strengthening your abs is useful but doesn't make your six pack better - I know of martial artists with a bit too much fat so no six pack but incredibly strong abs.
I know roughly (very roughly) what my bikes weigh and always try and get a lighter part when I break stuff or wear it out but there's a limit. I've ridden a 17lb Klein HT and it was horrible.
But I agree - fat riders worrying too much about bike weight is a bit silly.
If you think that all you need for a good six pack is a lack of fat, you are mistaken. a six pack requires muscle AND a lack of fat. I didn't say strength. Training mucles in a certain way make them increase in size. Do you think that if you took the flab away from a lazy idle obese person that there would be a proper six pack underneath?
I don't agree, becuase no matter how fat you are a lighter bike could well handle better. You know from cars that a lighter car doesn't just accelerate better - it stops, corners and handles better too.
Yes but on a pushbike it also raises the CofG of the rider+bike.
Backhander - yes I do. Have maintained a six pack since I was a teen - through strength and cardio exercise but I have also seen people carrying naff all other muscle with six packs. Ab muscles are very small - training them makes very little difference to their size unlike major muscle groups.
Mol - a bike weights a fraction of what a rider does. A driver weighs a fraction of what a car does. Totally different dynamics going on.
weight saved off the bike is "free" weight
And gets 'free-er' the richer you are
Have a fight with a really big fat fatknacker to find out how strong they are!
The bigger they are the harder they fall is a complete myth, its more like the harder they hit back. Its true what was said earlier, carrying all that extra mass about does make them physically stronger, though in *some folk it can be at expense of cardio fitness.
*I know a massive lad who's a roofer who can haul slate and roofing sheet up ladders all day long and hammers the Manc to Blackpool charity ride..incredibly fit despite his size, and i can only wonder how uncatchable he would be if he lost some of the daddispads...
Errrrmmm - having fought many lardy people in kickboxing sparring and tournaments, I'd say the above is utter bo77ocks and a justification for being fat. The best fighters I know are all lightweight and very quick.
Fat people are slow and get knackered very quickly - many think because they are "big" they are hard - most of the time they aren't.
Fat boy gets you on the floor and its game over unless you've been trained in wrestling..
fat boy manages to bear hug you your F****d
If fat boy knows how to punch, and has had some training previous to getting fat, your also in trouble.. your defence would lie in wearing him/ her down..
Underestimating your opponent loses you fights, mat!
On an aside, a boxing mate of mine couldnt get many fights (at the time no opponents of the same weight ) at his natural fighting weight, 16st if i recall, so dropped weight to the next class (14 st?), ive never seen him loose a fight so comprehensively before... excuse if i have the weights wroong, this was 20 year ago and dont follow / cant remembr owt about boxing any more!
So that's why I've never lost (out of many) a single one on one street fight then is it (ahem - I have VERY much lost me against 6 and me against 4 as the hospital trips will testify)?
Fat boy will NOT get a half decent scrapper on the floor and he will NOT land a punch because you can see it from a mile off.
6 years karate, 7 years kickboxing including teaching and good placings in national comps is useful. Being fat isn't.
having fought many lardy people in kickboxing sparring and tournaments
I know how tournaments work and also that you'll have only fought people at your weight which is only about 11 stone right? So were your opponents a good few inches shorter also? you're about 5'9"? reach helps.
Even sparring, you'll only have fought heavier blokes who are less skilled.
Law of the jungle states that a good big 'un will always beat a good little 'un. Well done on the tournaments BTW but these sports don't translate literally onto the streets. I'd guess you've been a bit lucky there.
Backhander - I've had many, many street fights from crazy Uni days and beyond. Also worked a few doors over the years.
It's the smaller, wiry but confident people that make me nervous, not the shouty, oversized thug wannabees.
How the hell do you know my weight and height though?!
Innit, think about the mechanics of a punch..not an untrained punch, but someone who knows how... starts from the legs upwards, back, shoulder, that's an awful lot of mass and energy, especially with a heavy man..
If that connects, even if it doesn't knock you on your ass, its gonna rob a helluva lot of energy out of your own fight
Agreed on the mouthy thugs, Mat, those who know how to fight know they dont need to shout the odds...
U31 - yes if it connects it will hurt but if you LET it connect, you really shouldn't be attempting to get involved.
It [i]will[/i] be slower and easier to spot than a quick punch from a well trained non fatty.
Also about taking hits though - you can train forever in a dojo but never know how to take a wallop.
Amen to that brother!
Mat I think you've posted it about 5 times!!! I reckon I could also find your %body fat and BMI!
Fair play I've never seen a doorman your size. WTF did you go to uni?
As a general rule, the one with the least amount of alcohol in him usually wins the fight. Still disagree that all you need for a six pack is an absence of fat. I take it you don't bother ab training then?
Who cares who could fight who 😯 [running away] - really would be good to get back on topic? Yes? No? .............
The best bouncer who i know(who also happens to be the afore mentioned boxer mate of mine's uncle) was a boxer, boxing coach, olympic standard wrestler, who used to train the local cops to wrestle....
If it kicked off in a club he'd just stand back and let the protagonists and young "Lump" bouncers fight to exhaustion.. then walk over and casually handcuff the prone bodies and restrain till the cops arrived! Very very seldom did i see him trade blows. Legend.
Reet, back on topic, chaps!!!
Back - lots of ab training as I know the value of a strong stomach but I still don't think it's the key part of six pack revealage. Went to Swansea Uni - English + surfer + student = aggro! TBH I got quite a buzz from it, sad as it may seem.
U31 - sounds good! I know a complete hippy who was a PTI instructor in the Marines for years. He genuinely flattened five aggro blokes once when a mate of his was whacked for no reason. Little wiry guy with long hair and about as scary looking as a vole.
Anyway back in topic - errmm - what was the topic?
Although not a PTI, I was an Army Commando for a good few years.
A lot of my old mates are now at Hereford and Poole. No, I don't know the colour of the boathouse at Hereford but I do at Poole!
They're not particularly small guys.
Back - only did selection for the Marines (POC and AIB) at Lympestone. Passed, was offered met my now wife (who wasn't keen), didn't go for it.
From my small number of days there, I spotted all sizes of Marine from pretty small to proper monsters. Most of the officers were pretty average sized.
A very odd experience - a student (at the time) being called "sir" and getting the full silver service treatment then getting utterly beasted on the various physical tests!
Ah, Lympestone. I did some instructing (as DS) down there a few years ago. Great place. GET YOUR ****ING HEELS TOGETHER WHEN YOU TALK TO ME!!! hahaha
BH - all a bit of a blur but it's a cracking location. And yes, my heels are locked together...!
I often surf with a Marine helicopter pilot. Top bloke and a nutter in big waves.
Right, back on topic.
Mol - a bike weights a fraction of what a rider does
True, but it's not that important. You, as the rider have to manhandle the bike around things and through things. In a car, the tyres and engine are doing the work - on a bike it's just you. You have to really work with what little traction your tyres give.
You've posted on here before that your riding isn't as good as your other sports, maybe that's the issue? Have you ever compared and contrasted similar bikes of different weights? And I don't mean some ultra compromised 17lb weenie machine...
Mol - yes I have. My wife's 17" Rockhopper that weighs about 28lbs and my 17" Stumpjumper which weighs 22-23lbs (not weighed it properly). Both are HT XC orientated machines; so plenty of opportunity to compare.
I doubt a lardy rider would be any quicker on the Stumpy than the Rockhopper. A fit rider will notice the difference and be more rapid.
As for riding - I'm used to being good at stuff and with MTBing, I've won an offroad tri (admittedly Sprint distance and fairly local) partly thanks to the MTB section - so while not at the level of surfing or running, it's still not bad. Can struggle riding with a mate of mine but he's an Elite rider and often podiums at big events. Another won a fairly big local race too. Luckily I thrash them both running...;-)
Does your stumpy feel nicer to ride than the rockhopper? I assume you've ridden both.
I don't think the lardiness of the rider is an issue. The competence is.
After all I've been schooled in both riding (up and down) and climbing by some right fat sacks of lard that the typical STW snobs wouldn't think could climb the stairs without wheezing.
There is a strong correlation between lardiness and unfitness, but there is NOT a causal link. Everyone knows a fat but fit person.
I don't know any fit fat people.
The Stumpy feels sharper and reacts quicker than the RH partly due to it's racier geometry but also better components. The weight makes a difference for sure but I think a lardy rider would need the added strength of the RH to avoid busting stuff.
Given that your bike has to be strong enough for its task, handle well, and be set up well - light is better.
Simples.
Re fit fat blokes, I was in a climbing wall in Manchester trying to climb up and over an archway, and back down the other side. A fair few holds although no super jugs, and it was very physical since you had to switch your feet around whilst being upside down hanging from the ceiling. I tried many times and got closer and closer. This proper short fat blobby guy with super jugs of his own came up and said 'oh it's not that hard' and did it in the most superb fluid graceful action. Tremendous, since rock climbing must be one of the sports where being proper lardy puts you at the biggest disadvantage.
Surf-Mat - MemberThe Stumpy feels sharper and reacts quicker than the RH partly due to it's racier geometry but also better components.
Do you know this or have you just accepted "magazine wisdom"?
The weight makes a difference for sure but I think a lardy rider would need the added strength of the RH to avoid busting stuff.
The RH is unlikely to be any stronger, the SJ will be as it is using better tubing. Heavier does not necessarily mean stronger.
richmtb - MemberThe Blur is feels faster going up (better shock) and a lot faster going down, better geometry and stiffer
Fixed that for ya! No need to thank me!
Cynic-al, are you saying now matter how much better a bike pedals, a lighter bike will always be faster up hill?
+1 on both of those points.
Al - what a stupid thing to write. I don't read MTB mags - haven't done for years. The difference in the bikes is subtle but definitely there - the Stumoy feels more like a road bike at times - twitchier but faster reacting. Gear shifts are snappier, brakes are better and it feels more efficient. Or was that just a sly attempt at a put down yet again?
I'm pretty sure Toras are stronger than Fox 90RLs, pretty sure alu bars are stronger than carbon ones, etc, etc. The RH feels "safer" jumping than the Stumpy.
Mol - he clearly had technique then. He's be quicker if he wasn't fat though.
I thought Stumpjumpers were mountain bikes? How on earth could you compare the two?
pretty sure alu bars are stronger than carbon ones
Not true.
Mol - he clearly had technique then. He's be quicker if he wasn't fat though
What he had was an incredible amount of strength. Which he might not have had if he'd been congenitally skinny. I think that the tendency to be brutally strong TENDS to come with a tendency to gain weight in fat - in active people. Not comparing athletes with couch potatoes here, but active people with other active people.
I'm more powerful than most other folk I know who have used power meters, and I have more muscle mass - but more fat too.
I thought Stumpjumpers were mountain bikes? How on earth could you compare the two?
And so is a Rockhopper. What are you getting at?
Mol - fair enough - most "Worlds Strongest Man" winners are packing a bit of fat (apart from the loony Polish guy) but I bet they can't run very far.
I'd rather be strong and toned though any day. High power to weight ratio comes in handy all the time.
Ok, we've solved the problem of weight-weeniesm now, but which is better, a hardtail or a full sus?
The simple point that you were comparing you SJ to a road bike. You didn't compare your RH to a road bike did you?
Sure Mat, but it takes all sorts 🙂
WSM is interesting actually, because the blokes do vary quite a bit, and the events they have to do reflect that.
I'd also rather be strong and toned. I have the potential to be a great cyclist, but it's quite hard for me to lose the lard.
The simple point that you were comparing you SJ to a road bike. You didn't compare your RH to a road bike did you?
No I wasn't! I was comparing a Stumpy to a Rockhopper - both hardtail mountain bikes with 27 gears and disk brakes. Pretty darn similar really. My Stumpy is super agile [b]a bit like[/b] a road bike (we also have an Allez) but that's as far as the comparison goes.
Mol - the body builder style guys always used to get wooped by the lardier guys but with the arrival of that Polish guy, there seems to be a few more similar types with veins popping out, fake perma tan and a keeness to full body wax.
That claim about the tendency of active fat people to be stronger than their slimmer active counter-parts is pure pub science.
Actually the 2 most sucessfull WSMs were both muscle men; Jón Páll Sigmarsson and Mariusz Pudzianowski. Bill Kazmair and Jouko Ahola were also not what I'd class as fat.
Backhander - both recentish winners though. I'd say it used to be won by lardier blokes more often than not - Maruisz P (what a name!) really seemed to change it all. Freaky physique.
Maybe, but that was before people learned the science, which is that fat has no strength. In days gone by, big blokes were just big blokes who had a bit of fat and a lot of muscle and of course were the stromgest around becaise of their muscle. We know that fat is useless and this has been proven year on year since the 80s. I doubt we'll see any more fatties win the WSM.
That claim about the tendency of active fat people to be stronger than their slimmer active counter-parts is pure pub science.
It's not science at all. It's a casual observation. But I bet there's some value in it.
Backhander - interesting and agree with all that.
Back on topic (ish) - I think some people rest of the "crutch" of bike lightness because it's easier to throw a few hundred quid at a bike to lighten it than concentrate on getting fitter and less lardy.
Odd thing to say. It's not a "crutch" at all. It's not like we are all chasing some kind of performance goal and need to make a certain time to validate ourselves, is it?
Light bikes feel nice.
Being skinny helps you ride fast.
The two things are unrelated. The idea that people lighten their bikes because they think it'll make they riding gods is a total fallacy.