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.

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

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

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 *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.

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?

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….

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 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.

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 – 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!

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:

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

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.