Why do so many cyclists look like skinny wee junkies?
- Thread starter fair weather cyclist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- look
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
matticus
Guru
Don't forget chimney sweeps. (unsung heroes / key workers)
Milzy
Guru
It’s a fact.
biking_fox
Guru
- Location
- Manchester
They're not underweight. Maybe just around at the lower cutoff. ALL their weight is in the legs which you don't look at.
AT his peak ChrisF was only a kg or so lighter than I was at the time for similar heights. He looked incredibly thin, because it was all dense muscle in his legs. I look normally proportioned because I have fat (and a bit of muscle) all over from living outside of cycling. Strangely enough I can't ride that far or that fast or climb mountains particularly well.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Some of us weigh 260lbs and can still climb better than most riders.
In my judgement as someone who is very tall, heavy and broad, its the aero penalty thats the real kicker.
Hacienda71
Mancunian in self imposed exile in leafy Cheshire
- Location
- Wilmslow, Cheshire
If you ride regularly you are going to have better cycling cardio fitness than most weekend warriors.
I'm 6'3. I don't weigh 260 lbs more like 180, bet I could beat you up a 5 mile 5% climb by a substantial amount.
Nothing quite as demoralising as seeing a small skinny whippet putting the hammer down in a lumpy road race. I have been in a few. TT's I used to be top end of the results, hill climbs decidedly mid to lower half of the results. At 13+ stone I was not a light rider. Crits and flat road races I had quite a few top tens and a couple of podiums. Good power at the end of a race, I used to hit 1700 Watts after 30 to 60 miles. On the flat weight is not massively important on a climb over 3 or 4% weight is a massive factor all other things being equal. Watts per kg is king on the climbs.
Low Gear Guy
Veteran
- Location
- Surrey
I would look much worse than that if I had ridden 200km across the mountains.
bladesman73
Über Member
Aww I bet he's proper bothered about being on your ignore list. If you're on here just to be a tool please stick me on that list as well. 🖕wow great contribution. worthy of being put on my ignore list
Last edited:
Moon bunny
Judging your grammar.
- Location
- Basking in my own brilliance.
That’s going into the rules for cyclo-boxing, all competitors must wear more than one layer of clothing below the waist, or words to that effect.
I invented it, I write the rules.
You’re right. And how do I know this? It’s my job.
Anthony.R.Brown
Active Member
I'm relatively new to cycling so I'm not sure if this topic has already been covered on this forum or anywhere else. Anyways, I just caught up with the MTB race at the Olympics and when I saw Tom Pidcock after the finish line, my only thought was "how can this guy be 21?"
He looked at least twice as old. All frail, weak and emaciated. I felt sorry for the guy, really. I was like "someone fed him a bacon roll, for fu**s sake".
Same goes for a lot of other cyclists: Chris Froome looks like some sort of nuclear disaster survivor, Lachlan Morton wouldn't look out of place under a bridge with other less fortunate and underfed people.
Is this what peak performance in cycling look like?
It feels so good to be a young looking mediocre cyclist
The biggest joke! is when you get the gym muscle bound guys turn up at a TT or road race etc. and think they can ride a bike ?
and we all laugh at how much they paid for the latest & best bike available,more than likely the wrong size etc. This is a similar situation on building sites when you get the same types turn up and think they can keep up with the old guys
that have been laying bricks most of their life,and after a day or two they head back to the gym where life is much easier
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Maybe you can - we shall hever know, so you can only speculate - but climbing and endurance are my strong points.If you ride regularly you are going to have better cycling cardio fitness than most weekend warriors.
I'm 6'3. I don't weigh 260 lbs more like 180, bet I could beat you up a 5 mile 5% climb by a substantial amount.
TT's I used to be top end of the results, hill climbs decidedly mid to lower half of the results. At 13+ stone I was not a light rider. Crits and flat road races I had quite a few top tens and a couple of podiums. Good power at the end of a race, I used to hit 1700 Watts after 30 to 60 miles. On the flat weight is not massively important on a climb over 3 or 4% weight is a massive factor all other things being equal. Watts per kg is king on the climbs.
Climbing in particular, having a powerlifters legs and a cylcists lungs make me astonishingly good uphill beyond all reason. Also having a lifters arms (18.5"), shoulders and grip gives a steadier and stronger platform against which my legs can push forwards. There are, of course better climbers than me, but you know what...I've yet to meet many of any age, fitness, or skill level.
Its sustained speed on the level where I suffer, and thats the aero penalty, not the mass. 8 or 9/10ths effort for me is a lot harder to maintain than it will be for a whippet like you because im built like a giant air brake. The maths are simple enough, if you know the size and speed you can calculate the aerodynamic load, and the energy required to overcome that is a lot more than the energy required to keep the mass alone moving.
Last edited:
Milzy
Guru
This is the worst thread I’ve ever seen on here. I don’t know if the O.P should have some kind of award or a months ban.
Trying to figure out which is worse.
- Status
