Does being overweight mean you're slow on a bike?

[KneesUp]

Being fast over a short distance like 100 metres is not severely affected by weight.​

That's not true - accelerating the greater mass is the hardest bit, and as sprints have a standing start. Sprinters carry very little weight that isn't 'productive' weight - i.e. muscle.

 

[KneesUp]

Most top sprinter are overweight ...

Overweight and obesity are defined as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that may impair health.

How do you hold both these statements to be true at the same time?

 

[brand]

It's perfectly possible to have a BMI that falls in the range described as 'obese' and yet have a very low body fat percentage, because the BMI scale assumes you're not built like a brick outhouse. The BMI measure is meaningless if you are more muscular than average, which I think was the point being made.

You should try some election manifestos if you think that is the most ludicrous thing you've ever read btw.

Obesity = excessive fat accumulation.
Election manifestos = Ludicrous
Edit...most manifestos are Ludicrous!

 

[brand]

Overweight and obesity
Both not one without the other

 

[brand]

Being fast over a short distance like 100 metres is not severely affected by weight. Most top sprinter are overweight albeit as product of greater muscle mass than the average person​

↑

Being fast over a short distance like 100 metres is not severely affected by weight.

That's not true - accelerating the greater mass is the hardest bit, and as sprints have a standing start. Sprinters carry very little weight that isn't 'productive' weight - i.e. muscle.

Very snidey knees up selectively quoting is just plain snidey. I clearly stated "Most top sprinter are overweight albeit as product of greater muscle mass than the average person"

 

[compo]

My weight yo-yo's up and down between 16 and 18 stones. I certainly feel the difference going uphill when my weight is higher, and my average speed, never that fast, falls even more. Funnily though my endurance doesn't alter and I am comfortable doing longish rides, up to 60/70 miles, either slowly as a fatty or less slowly when my weight comes down.

 

[brand]

My weight yo-yo's up and down between 16 and 18 stones. I certainly feel the difference going uphill when my weight is higher, and my average speed, never that fast, falls even more. Funnily though my endurance doesn't alter and I am comfortable doing longish rides, up to 60/70 miles, either slowly as a fatty or less slowly when my weight comes down.

At last someone who is saying something obvious. If you weighed 16 stone and put 2 stone of sand in your panniers you would obviously ride slower speed.

 

[marzjennings]

Knees up clearly quoted your change to my typo mistake. I would appreciate you not calling me stupid. I believe insulting members is against forum rules? Or does forum rules not apply to moderators?

So it was a typo or do you think a riders mass has little affect on acceleration?

[Moderator edit: Remainder deleted as it was unnececessary]

 

[KneesUp]

Knees up clearly quoted your change to my typo mistake. I would appreciate you not calling me stupid. I believe insulting members is against forum rules? Or does forum rules not apply to moderators?

No I didn't - I posted your original quote, which appeared to be what you wanted to say given the context.

What did you mean?

 

[Markymark]

That is an oxymoron, it is impossible to be obese and not have an ounce of fat on you. In fact even a marathon runner like Paula Radcliffe has body fat. Your statement is probably the most ludicrous I have ever read.

I am glad you think so. The talk is of BMI. He had no fat but he had a high body weight due to all the muscle - muscle weighing much more than fat. He was also quite short. Therefor his BMI was in the obese category which is how it is defined.

Please feel free to dispute any of that rather than ridiculing what you don't understand - it just makes you look silly.

Please read the link below and let me know if you are still confused.

http://bmi.emedtv.com/bmi/bmi-for-athletes.html
"The BMI (body mass index) score is valid for both men and women, but it does have some limits. One of these limits involves the accuracy of using BMI for athletes. Using BMI for athletes can overestimate their level of body fat because muscle is denser than fat and weighs more. Therefore, an athlete's body fat can be normal or even low, but the person may have a high BMI. This does not mean that they are unhealthy or overweight. In fact, a number of gold medal winning athletes at the Olympics would be considered obese based solely on their BMI."

EDIT - I think I have seen your confusion. Obesity is defined in the UK by BMI see here. BMI is a calculation from just height and weight. Nothing to do with fat. If you are very muscley, you will have a high BMI and little fat. You will therefore have a high BMI score which may even up you into the obese category.

Again, try looking things up before calling post ludicrous.

 

[MikeG]

......He had no fat .........

Sorry, but that is ridiculous. Nobody has zero fat. Emaciated Biafran refugees and WW2 POW's had some fat.

 

[Markymark]

Sorry, but that is ridiculous. Nobody has zero fat. Emaciated Biafran refugees and WW2 POW's had some fat.

Fair point. Very little fat. Very well defined. Technically obese.

 

[MikeG]

Thanks. Which indeed is the only point that Brand was making. Perhaps you should revisit his post and reconsider whether you two actually have anything to argue about.

 

[Markymark]

Thanks. Which indeed is the only point that Brand was making. Perhaps you should revisit his post and reconsider whether you two actually have anything to argue about.

Nope. My original post was that my instructor was obese which was called ludicrous. He followed it up with his definition of obesity as being fat.

What are overweight and obesity?
Overweight and obesity are defined as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that may impair health.

This is incorrect. Obesity, in the uk at least, is defined by bmi, nothing to do with fat. My original statement holds true, his statement above us false.

Maybe he's from another country that measures obesity differently, if the uk he's wrong.

 

[KneesUp]

↑


Very snidey knees up selectively quoting is just plain snidey. I clearly stated "Most top sprinter are overweight albeit as product of greater muscle mass than the average person"

I know you did, but in your other posts you seemed to disregard what the weight was made up of - your argument was that if you gave a rider a 2 stone bag of sand to ride with they'd be slower. However, if you gave them 2 stone of battery and dynamo motorised hub they'd be faster.

Your argument comes across as incoherent because you swap between 'it stands to reason you' be slower if you were heavier' and 'sprinters are overweight and they're really fast' without ever really making the case for either.

FWIW I agree that unproductive weight slows you down. There was a reason Rasmusen took the stickers off his bike. And I also agree than in some cases, putting on muscle will make you both heaver and faster. I'd also say (with no evidence) that for the 'average' person starting cycling having not done other sports,, losing some weight (i.e. losing more in fat than is put on in muscle) will make them faster to a certain point.

You need to make your points more clearly though. I stopped posting last night because I assumed you were drunk

EDIT - changed dynamo hub to motorised hub - you knew what I meant