Home Forums Bike Forum Are we getting a bit to precious about weight?

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 169 total)
  • Are we getting a bit to precious about weight?
  • juan
    Free Member

    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…

    davidtaylforth
    Free Member

    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.

    bonj
    Free Member

    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.

    http://www.parker-international.co.uk/432/Deda-Dog-Fang.html?referrer=froogle&utm_source=google&utm_medium=froogle&utm_campaign=pid432

    convert
    Full Member

    Actually the one on Schlek's bikes was one of 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.

    tf
    Free Member

    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 🙂

    Antonyfw
    Free Member

    Don't over think it. Just have fun riding.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    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.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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.

    IvanDobski
    Free Member

    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!

    Elfinsafety
    Free Member

    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!

    RHSno2
    Free Member

    Some people silly pills and some people take silly pills AND argumentative pills.

    Light = Fast BUT fast does not always = Fun.

    bonj
    Free Member

    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 *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.

    poppa
    Free Member

    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.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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?

    nickc
    Full Member

    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!

    Apart from obliviously, the bloke who's fitter than you and already rides a 20lb bike….

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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.

    juan
    Free Member

    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…

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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.

    poppa
    Free Member

    You can ride a heavy bike slowly, or a lighter bike faster and get the same workout.

    On the flat?

    Elfinsafety
    Free Member

    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.

    grumm
    Free Member

    Please can this thread be deleted now. 😐

    scottishbadger
    Free Member

    Retards f***king a doorknob springs to mind.

    njee20
    Free Member

    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 😉

    bonj
    Free Member

    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 cyclist, 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.

    bonj
    Free Member

    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.

    stumpy01
    Full Member

    are-we-getting-a-bit-to-precious-about-weight

    Judging from this thread, I would say yes we are.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    No, this thread is whether or not it's important. No-one's actually weightweenieing on here.

    richmtb
    Full Member

    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

    cynic-al
    Free Member

    richmtb – Member

    The 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!

    mudsux
    Free Member

    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?

    backhander
    Free Member

    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.

    foxyrider
    Free Member

    Perhaps it should say:

    Are we getting a bit to precious about bike weight as we are a nation of fatties 😉

    Surf-Mat
    Free Member

    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.

    backhander
    Free Member

    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?

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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.

    ooOOoo
    Free Member

    Yes but on a pushbike it also raises the CofG of the rider+bike.

    Surf-Mat
    Free Member

    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.

    ooOOoo
    Free Member

    weight saved off the bike is "free" weight

    And gets 'free-er' the richer you are

    U31
    Free Member

    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…

    Surf-Mat
    Free Member

    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.

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 169 total)

The topic ‘Are we getting a bit to precious about weight?’ is closed to new replies.