[Closed] Do, ahem, 'larger' riders have more 'potential'? 🙂

weight down or power up, both work

Good Idea in theory,

But I've yet to find a fit but slightly lardy rider who can keep up with a proper 60kg whippet, esp on the climbs

They have more "potential" as they are starting further back on the fitness scale.

But you can be lardy and fit surely? And you can be a 60kg whippet and unfit as well... I'm talking about two folk of equal fitness, so starting from the same point on the 'fitness scale'

Ohh there a bonus to being a fatty then?

Due to my potential, I am much betterer than yow! 😉

So being a fat wah is actually an advantage in potential la-la land? So if I slob out and eat more and get fat I'll have more potential. And teh fatter I get, the more potential I'll have. People will point at me as I cycle past with my gut resting on the top tube and comment - 'oooh, look how much potential he has...'

Is potential just another word for lard? 😉

I don't think size is related to fitness, the larger guys that I ride with do well on the flats and draggy climbs, but they do lose out on the steeper stuff, they roll faster on the descents as well, they do make great wind blocks...wouldn't say they were more or less fit than the little guys, just different strengths.

Anyway, weren't you supposed to lose about 50 stone in a fortnight or something?

Bradley Wiggins supposedly did so well the Tour before last because he lost weight but managed to maintain his power. From what I can gather this took a lot of work and eating a strict diet or very high protein when recovering and next to nothing when he'd not ridden. He looked ill and the following year (last year) it didnt work...

I'm a big lad or reasonable fitness. With no wind nor hills I can have most people on the flat for 4 mins - I guess cos my weight for those 4 minutes does not become a factor. My master plan was to lose weight but maintain my massive strength - didnt work out for this season. I just get so damn hungry....

You can be lardy and fit, for sure. I've had my single figure body fat arse kicked a number of times by people carry extra weight, no shame there.

How do you define equal fitness? If we use Watts/KG, then its a question of can the skinny guy add muscle quicker than the bigger guy loose weight. I'd still state that the bigger guy will have further to travel to reach his max fitness level.

I was so hungry last night I ate some cake decorations I found at the back of the cupboard - I am not joking.

I love racing and overtaking skinny blokes in races. I really really really really love it. I know they think 'fatty - I'll ignore him' and then I have em (some of them.. ). It's almost worth being a fatty just to shout 'Rider on your right' to some skinny bloke in lyrca as I whistle past em.

As a .......... shall we say, more powerfully built rider (16.5 st) that is fairly fit, I can keep up with the whippets and take them on the on the rolling trails and am happy leading fast road rides but long dragged out hills do tend take there toll. I don't think it's that I can't ride harder up the long hills, I just like to keep a little in reserve. The whippet like friends still seem spin up just that bit faster. I do tend to be stronger than them at the end of a longer ride than them as I tend to favor endurance over out and out speed. Doing PPDS next week with the whippets so should be interesting to see how they are feeling by the end.

ask bradley wiggins, seemed to work for him (not the same ammount of chest ham tho)

There's a source of confusion from your use of the word 'fitness' as it's a pretty nebulous concept and can apply to lots of things in lots of ways.

All other things being equal though, if two people generate the same amount of power, the one who can lose the most weight should find it easier to go faster, provided he/she can maintain the same power output.

I actually put some weight on a few years ago doing circuit training but found the extra muscle was helping me generate more power.

Well a fat rider at the top of a hill cetainly has more "potential" than a skinny one

I remember reading a really interesting article in one of the MTB mags a while ago, might have been JoB or Brant, but maybe not, about how few people actually want to acheive their potential.

Quite a lot of people race to see how well they can do, but most allow themselves the comfort of a range of excuses about why they didn't do as well as the guys in front of them. "Those guys in front, they're pretty serious, I could probably beat them if I did more training/ lost some weight/ gave up the booze/ etc. etc."

It's quite rare to find (recreational) mountainbikers who are brave enough to do as much as they can, shed themselves of the the safety net of self-justifying excuses and leave themselves with only one reason for not winning: "They're better than me."

That was the general thrust. Certainly thought provoking!

if you are overweight and can already keep up with proper whippet racers then you have potential indeed.

But in the OPs case it's not just weight that matters, aerobic capacity, stamina, muscle efficiency etc etc skinny guy could improve in all the other areas too.

richmtb - Member
Well a fat rider at the top of a hill cetainly has more "potential" than a skinny one

Very good!

I'm working on a similar theory but with smoking being the disadvantage. When I quit I presume I'll be flying up the hills (after a few months of coughing).

😀

If being fat and fit was an advantage then we should expect to see them on the podium. We don't. QED.

Ay, you don't, but how many of those folk on the podiums were carrying a bit of lard when the first started out eh?

Pawsy, QED maybe, but that wasn't the question:

Definition of POTENTIAL
1: existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality

Not "being the best to start with."

I ride with a lot of slightly overweight riders, some of them have disgusting turns of speed and power. Although one of the people who used to frequent our rides was a lightweight but tall time trialler. Even when we were cranking as hard as possible he had atleast 10-20% more to go.

Is potential not down to your genes?

I've got 20 kg of potential around my waist,then.

I'm 6'2 and was 91kg,not exactly chubby but I am quite 'muscular' for want of a better term.I've been racing the 100k crc's on my ss for the last few years and coming in the top 25ish so I'm fairly fit/quick.But I've always eaten whatever I wanted and not taken any notice of my weight.Thanks to circustance I hav'nt had the finances to spend too much (nae anything) on food and have lost a not inconsiderable amount of weight.The gain in speed (especially climbing) is quite frankly astonishing.If I can carry on with the weight loss ,even when i can afford something other than pot noodle and get down to say 80kg I'm gonna be a rocketship....a hungry rocketship but you eventually get used to waking up starving and feeling slightly dizzy all the time.

Trained with a heavy waist load and going up hill was tough.

20kg lost later and the hill is no different from going flat in a harder gear.

It will make a big difference without the extra lard if you want more performance.

Will it make it more fun? probably no.

I'm 172cm and currently pushing 92kg, so you're slim Rorschach 😉

You need to look at the fast and slow muscle structure to see why the potential argument is wrong.

Look at sprinter - huge fast muscles. Endurance marathon type thin muscles. Muscles are formed by exercise. You want large muscles? High weights low reps. Want thin endurance muscles? High reps low weights.

pretty nebulous concept

Plain english society to the forum, please.

no fatties in the peleton - that says it all really!

If your fat and fast your only faster than your slightly fat mates 😛

Apart from Michael 'Lard Ass' Rasmussen
[img] [/img]