# How important is weight loss?



## osteomark (Jun 15, 2011)

What will you see more improvement in racing times, by loosing lots of weight or getting a carbon frame bike? Example: I was #204 3 months ago and now #184. My times are improving by 4 min in a 22mi distance. I'm 5'8". My "perfect" weight is supposedly 164#. Now through cycling, if I did get to that weight should I see an even faster speed because of the #20 more weight loss? I'm sure I'd be getting more leg muscle strength. Now what if I went to #138 which is what they say a Tour de France racers weight is ( double your height in inches and make it pounds). I'm not a pro racer but a scientific person, and wondering is there a point where the weight loss won't matter and you just have to move up to the carbon frames to get more speed and faster times.
My bike is a 1985 Nishiki Prestigue with 7 speed freewheel with 42t/52t chain rings.
Sorry so long but interested in the weight loss vs new technology.
Thanks.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Speed and weight*



osteomark said:


> What will you see more improvement in racing times, by loosing lots of weight or getting a carbon frame bike? Example: I was #204 3 months ago and now #184. My times are improving by 4 min in a 22mi distance. I'm 5'8". My "perfect" weight is supposedly 164#. Now through cycling, if I did get to that weight should I see an even faster speed because of the #20 more weight loss? I'm sure I'd be getting more leg muscle strength. Now what if I went to #138 which is what they say a Tour de France racers weight is ( double your height in inches and make it pounds). I'm not a pro racer but a scientific person, and wondering is there a point where the weight loss won't matter and you just have to move up to the carbon frames to get more speed and faster times.
> My bike is a 1985 Nishiki Prestigue with 7 speed freewheel with 42t/52t chain rings.
> Sorry so long but interested in the weight loss vs new technology.
> Thanks.


On the flats, it's pretty much about power rather than weight. You're gaining power through your training. If you're climbing, then it's about power : weight ratio, so saving weight is much more important there. I don't know where you got the 164 lb @ 5'8" - that is a Body Mass Index of 25 and anything over that and you're considered overweight. 

A new bike would be somewhat faster because of better components (particularly wheels) and lighter weight, but what you can lose off your body is MUCH more significant. The most you could hope for from a "faster" bike would be maybe 0.4 mph at 20 mph.


----------



## osteomark (Jun 15, 2011)

Sorry 158#. For men 5' is #110 and #6 per inch. BMI is a crazy thing. If I were #158, I'd been emaciated per my wife


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

osteomark said:


> Sorry 158#. For men 5' is #110 and #6 per inch. BMI is a crazy thing. If I were #158, I'd been emaciated per my wife


I don't know where you're getting those numbers (a "serious" amateur racer of a normal build would probably find those weights to be pretty high, or maybe only acceptable for guys who think of themselves as crit racers; it would put me about 10 pounds over my regular weight and about 15 pounds over what I think of as ideal racing weight, and I don't have a "climber's build"), but I think they're beside the point w/r/t your question. Unless you've been training consistently for at least a couple of years, you almost certainly have substantial potential to improve your fitness. Dropping a few pounds (from yourself or your bike) will help a bit, all else being equal, and other equipment improvements may also help very slightly, but if you're only moderately trained, you could have (just to throw out a number) room to improve your sustainable power by 25%, and that's going to dwarf minor weight loss or a new bike.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Undecided said:


> I don't know where you're getting those numbers


Ideal body weight calculation.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Kerry Irons said:


> On the flats, it's pretty much about power rather than weight. You're gaining power through your training. If you're climbing, then it's about power : weight ratio, so saving weight is much more important there. I don't know where you got the 164 lb @ 5'8" - that is a Body Mass Index of 25 and anything over that and you're considered overweight.
> 
> A new bike would be somewhat faster because of better components (particularly wheels) and lighter weight, but what you can lose off your body is MUCH more significant. The most you could hope for from a "faster" bike would be maybe 0.4 mph at 20 mph.


^^^What he said.^^^


When I dropped 40lbs my climbing got faster. What's funny is; it didn't feel any faster until I started checking the 'leave time' and 'arrival time' (Commuting). An 11 mile commute with 5 miles of hills in the middle used to take 70mins now only takes me 40mins.

BTW, I still have 40lbs to go. It's amazing how one's cycling improves just by losing weight!


----------



## MattSoutherden (Jun 24, 2009)

I'd be willing to bet that Bertie could still have won the Giro on an 8kg steel bike. And would still have been hanging in the race on a 10kg bike.

So, bike issue out of the way. Unless you want to win a grand tour, the best thing you can do is eat healthily, keep lean, and train like hell. In most every race at every level, it's the legs that count. Do you thing that Fabian Cancellara would struggle to keep pace in the hilly Nowhereville Cat2 road race because he weighs close to 180? That's bigger than you at 164lbs.

Until you get _very_ lean and want to hang with Frandy on the Galibier, the 'weight loss = faster' metric is a bit of a red herring. "I'm losing weight and I'm getting faster, there mush be a direct correlation, right?". In most cases, no, you're getting faster because you're riding more, and you're losing weight 'cause you're riding more.


----------



## DMH2979 (May 24, 2011)

"'weight loss = faster' metric is a bit of a red herring"

I could not agree with this statement more. I believe everybody has their "ideal" weight. Not what some calculation spits out, but where you can train hard, recover, maintain good power, and not get sick. For me, that is a bit higher than others and I've learned the hard way that even if I am a few lbs below that weight, my race performance really suffers. I tend to do better in hard races with lots of climbing . . . and even with that, I got my cat1 upgrade when I was about 7 lbs heavier than I am now. I felt incredibly strong at that point and my recovery day to day and effort to effort was amazing! 

One year I did try to lose weight and I think I maybe finished a half dozen of races that year (p12). I learned my lesson and now just go on how my body "feels" rather than what the scale says.


----------



## osteomark (Jun 15, 2011)

Matt your right by training and eating right the weight will decrease and I'll get faster. 
The ideal body charts which every doctors office has shows the ideal weight for a man is at 5 feet they would weigh 110# and then add 6# per inch. So if 5'8" then#158. No man would ever look over weight with that height and weight. For a women it is 5' is #100 and 5# per inch.
I see people and their weights every day and #10 under ideal is unhealthy looking. No wonder everyone is in America is obese. I'm considered overweight and bordering obese @ #183 and no one would look at me and say "hmm" that guy is huge and better drop #20 or he's going to drop of a heart attack.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

osteomark said:


> Matt your right by training and eating right the weight will decrease and I'll get faster.
> The ideal body charts which every doctors office has shows the ideal weight for a man is at 5 feet they would weigh 110# and then add 6# per inch. So if 5'8" then#158. No man would ever look over weight with that height and weight. For a women it is 5' is #100 and 5# per inch.
> I see people and their weights every day and #10 under ideal is unhealthy looking. No wonder everyone is in America is obese. I'm considered overweight and bordering obese @ #183 and no one would look at me and say "hmm" that guy is huge and better drop #20 or he's going to drop of a heart attack.


Depends on reference. Compared to many westerners probably not. 
You are 4" shorter than me and 20lbs heavier. You might look a bit more "puffed up" next to me.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

IBW is just a calculation of averages, but it works on average. Different body styles will have different true IBWs, but that would require a lot of data compiling. Regardless, I'm significantly below IBW and I'm healthy. Most people who say it's wrong are trying to justify that they're all muscle and not fat. Sometimes this is the case, but it's usually denial.


----------



## Sonomasnap (Feb 10, 2010)

5'8" 184 LBS. Yes weight loss is important. You got lots of responses and just as a point of reference top pro climbers weight roughly 2 lbs per inch so to climb with the pros you should weigh under 140.

That is crazy for sure but to put it in perspective, I am 50, 5'10.5 bigger build and race at 173. Have been as low as 168 but felt I lost power at least in my crit and park races. 

Keep riding, eat better and eat less and do get a decent bike.


----------



## takl23 (Jul 22, 2007)

I highly reccomend the book Racing Weight. It talks about not just being light but acheiving your ideal weight. I'm a good example I think, I stand 6'0" and currently weight 220. I think my ideal weight is 180-184. I'm built like a football player, large shoulders, large neck (size 18 shirt since HS). 

My belief is that if I were to drop to the 160's my riding would suffer. 

Just some food for thought. But I can't suggest Racing Weight enough!


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

osteomark said:


> I'm not a pro racer but a scientific person, and wondering is there a point where the weight loss won't matter and you just have to move up to the carbon frames to get more speed and faster times.


Well, for one this is all theoretical for you. We all agree that your weight loss to date is great, and that you could stand losing some more. So just focus on that.

If you ever get close to your ideal cycling weight, then you start to deal with some trade-offs. The highest power-to-weight ratio is optimal only if you are talking about climbing; you sacrifice power on the flats to climb the best. Cancellara's weight varies, depending on whether he's focusing on the Grand Tours or on time-trial championships.

Regarding the bike, go to your local shop and take one for a test ride. You might be shocked at how light and snappy the new bikes feel, not to mention the convenience of integrated shifting, 10-speed cassette, etc. On the other hand, you might be wholly unimpressed and prefer the old steel one. But there's really only one way to find out.


----------



## Poncharelli (May 7, 2006)

Sonomasnap said:


> You got lots of responses and just as a point of reference top pro climbers weight roughly 2 lbs per inch so to climb with the pros you should weigh under 140.


I've always heard that 2 lb per inch rule. But for normal amatuer racing, Cat 1 to Cat 5, in my observations, skinny guys struggle. 

In general, seems like guys at a normal ratio of 5'10", 150-160 seem best at closing the deal. Very lean with great muscle. Light enough to stay with the leaders on the climbs, but with a ferocious sprint at the end, which is where the muscle really helps. 

In Mountain West MTB racing though, 2 lbs per inch seems to be the norm. Hell, we place in weight order (lightest guy first, heaviest guy last). The correlation is pretty damn strong.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

> The ideal body charts which every doctors office has shows the ideal weight for a man is at 5 feet they would weigh 110# and then add 6# per inch. So if 5'8" then#158. No man would ever look over weight with that height and weight.


I don't know what charts you're talking about. According to the standard BMI calculations, 5'0" and 110 lb. would be in the middle of the normal range (BMI 21.5). The corresponding weight for 5'8" would be about 142 pounds. 5'8" at 158 pounds would be at the high end of normal.

Ideal weight varies with individual body types, of course. But 183 pounds at 5'8" would usually be considered substantially overweight, and I think that's accurate.



> I'm considered overweight and bordering obese @ #183 and no one would look at me and say "hmm" that guy is huge and better drop #20 or he's going to drop of a heart attack.


No, they're probably not saying that, but that may be because there are so many genuinely huge people walking around. A lot of them might be thinking, "that guy would look a lot better and a lot healthier if he dropped 20 pounds." 

Anyway, focus on the positive. You've lost 20 pounds in 3 months, and you're fitter and stronger, too. If you keep riding you may lose another 25 in the next six months. Do that, and keep it off, and you'll feel better. Then reward yourself with that fancy new bike, not to make you go faster, but because you deserve it and will enjoy it.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

takl23 said:


> \
> My belief is that if I were to drop to the 160's my riding would suffer.


Unless you're following a good plan and using a power meter, sounds like more of an excuse/justification. Even if you lost power, is it 100% because of weight loss and not due to the multitude of things that can rob you of power or is just part of the cycle of fitness?


----------



## osteomark (Jun 15, 2011)

Good discussion folks.







. 


5'10" and 130# normal!!!! No way. Crazy.


----------



## z3phrn (Mar 19, 2011)

BMI and any general rule of thumb for optimal weight is pointless.

Bite the bullet, go do a DEXA, and figure out your body fat %. That should be the golden criteria that you should be weighing yourself against. 

Looking at weight is not an objective way to determine your health/fitness/anything; I've walked into that trap many, many times.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

osteomark said:


> Good discussion folks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


then pick 170. Still within the range of "normal". (which for me would be lots of love handles)


----------



## MattSoutherden (Jun 24, 2009)

BMI is a complete waste of time. You'll find plently of crack addicts under 'normal'. That means healthy - right? And all those NFL running backs and back-row forwards in rugby, they're so obese they'll drop down dead next week - even though they're totally ripped.


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

z3phrn said:


> BMI and any general rule of thumb for optimal weight is pointless.
> 
> Bite the bullet, go do a DEXA, and figure out your body fat %. That should be the golden criteria that you should be weighing yourself against.
> 
> Looking at weight is not an objective way to determine your health/fitness/anything; I've walked into that trap many, many times.


I bet I have had more DXAs than anyone who posts on RBR  

I just did another one today to see what the 5lbs I gained since taking a 'break' before rebuilding for CX was made of. 

I gained about 700 g of muscle and 800 g fat in the past 9 weeks. 

I am STILL overweight according to BMI at 194 and 5'11" but only 11.1% BF right now.

I tend to gain lean mass without trying and need to 'diet' to lose some more upper body mass that I don't need (remnants from my bodybuilding days).

As others have said. Its power that matters in the flats and power to weight in the hills. And even more important is using that power to your advantage when racing!


----------



## Gripped (Nov 27, 2002)

pretender said:


> Regarding the bike, go to your local shop and take one for a test ride. You might be shocked at how light and snappy the new bikes feel, not to mention the convenience of integrated shifting, 10-speed cassette, etc. On the other hand, you might be wholly unimpressed and prefer the old steel one. But there's really only one way to find out.


+1 on that. The weight of a new bike isn't going to do much compared to stripping off another 20 pounds or so. However, it is likely that a new bike will be more fun to ride. More fun means you want to ride it more.

A while back I went from an '88 Trek racing bike to a more modern racing bike and I was amazed at how much more I enjoyed the ride I also enjoyed a couple more cogs on the back and also the 39/53 as opposed to a 42/52 on the front. STI was also an improvement.

YMMV, ATMO, and such


----------



## leeDuvy (Aug 5, 2011)

Impressive.


----------



## NUTT (Apr 15, 2008)

spade2you said:


> Ideal body weight calculation.





osteomark said:


> Sorry 158#. For men 5' is #110 and #6 per inch. BMI is a crazy thing. If I were #158, I'd been emaciated per my wife


I'd really like to see the source on this. 

I'm 6' 2" and my target weight is 202. I know that when I get there I'm in really solid shape, but that was before I started cycling and had a bit more upper body muscle bulk. By the calculation above, my ideal body weight calc is 194. (14 * 6) + 110.

I'm trying to lose some weight (marriage 2 years ago, baby this summer) and need to understand what a good target is.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

NUTT said:


> I'd really like to see the source on this.


It's what they have been teaching everyone in healthcare for the last 20 some years. Where they came up with it, no clue, but I was forced to know it for the test. :idea:


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

BMI is an average for average people without much muscle tone or fat. Just average people who get a sort of reasonable amount of exercise. 

Go by body fat percentage.. it kinda makes more sense than total weight. Huge difference between 200lbs and 35% fat, and 210lbs and 10% at the same height.. even though BMI would say the 210lbs person is more overweight and unhealthy.


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

osteomark said:


> Now through cycling, if I did get to that weight should I see an even faster speed because of the #20 more weight loss?


Ive been on a lot of bikes, a lot of wheels and a lot of parts. None made a real big difference in speed (comparing real road bikes). I just lost 20lbs and its a big, big difference. Flats are easier, climbing is easier.


----------



## steelrpm (Apr 27, 2011)

sdeeer said:


> I bet I have had more DXAs than anyone who posts on RBR
> 
> I just did another one today to see what the 5lbs I gained since taking a 'break' before rebuilding for CX was made of.
> 
> ...



I'm in the same boat. Currently a hair below 200 at 5'10". At 9%BF I weigh about 178. My goal for next season is 185. 

Most of the mass that puts me over the BMI scale is in my legs - they're large at 18" calves and 25" thighs currently and they don't get much smaller than that. Finding properly fitting pants is impossible. I have to get everything altered.


----------



## takl23 (Jul 22, 2007)

BMI has been around so long it should be an exhibit in a museum. It doesn't work. I'm just under 6'0" but built like a running back, I'm considered obese by BMI standards but a lot of my weight is in the muscle of my thighs. 

Get a BF % test and see what results come in. A bike won't make you that much faster, it's always better to improve the engine


----------



## glorth2 (Oct 7, 2009)

Why is this a choice? Why can't you buy a new bike and use it to help you lose weight? Is liposuction the other option?


----------



## jpatkinson (Jun 10, 2007)

BMI is a tool for the "average build" person, not an athlete. I would focus on your body, not your bike, when it comes to power/weight ratio.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

Another advantage to being leaner is the ability to deal with the heat better. I happen to live in Phoenix, AZ where we have experienced some record heat lately. I'm 15lbs lighter this summer compared to last summer and seem to be performing better than ever. While I still feel hot I'm not nearly as bothered by it while on the bike as before. Even if you live in a cooler climate I think the ability to dissipate heat while climbing is way over looked and should be considered when finding ways to perform better.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

Why does BMI and all of those charts really matter? I am 6'3" and I am down to 197 lbs from 232 lbs. According to most of those charts, I am average but I feel overweight. I used to be 155 lbs when I was racing 10 years ago. When I reached 180 I was already feeling overweight and that is my sweet spot according to the charts I've seen. My take: It's on how you feel at those weights. I know that people told me I looked better at 232 than I did at 155 and people are telling me that I look even better at 197. I never heard that you need to lose weight, but I did hear that I was too skinny before. You CAN be fit at 5'8"/158 lbs regardless of what those charts say. Pro riders usually have an issue with bone density too. That could be one of the reasons why they are so light too. My riding buddy is 6'4 250 lbs, and he climbs like there's no tomorrow. He's destroyed more than his fair share of 140- 150 lb team riders climbing and sprinting. The problem is that everything is made to be lightweight so strength becomes an issue. Big guys like him destroy frames and components due to the watts they put out. His ideal weight is 220 because he said that he felt his best at that weight. Still that's considered overweight. It's not easy when you're in a sport that is geared toward smaller people. At 5'8.158, the OP is consider large for his height. So what? If he feels good at that weight and performs well, he's fine. If it wasn't, this discussion wouldn't exist. BTW, when I was 155, I would get sick and perform horribly in the saddle if I even lost 5 lbs. That's not healthy.


----------



## WA/SScrossracer (Oct 4, 2010)

according to the 110# plus 6#/in over 5FT I should be #182 @ 6ft, but I'm usually not more then #170 and feel best @ 165 or a little less- had a body fat test @ 163# and was @ 5%. I was about #155 in High school- I'm 34 now, pretty sure less then #160 wouldn't be very healthy or sustainable I have more muscle then in HS also, upper body and legs. At #165-#170 I don't feel skinny, but most regular people think I'm very lean and skinny, and compared to most #180-200 people @ 6ft I probably am a bit skinnier with a little less upper body mass.


----------



## response3 (Jul 19, 2011)

woodys737 said:


> Another advantage to being leaner is the ability to deal with the heat better. I happen to live in Phoenix, AZ where we have experienced some record heat lately. I'm 15lbs lighter this summer compared to last summer and seem to be performing better than ever. While I still feel hot I'm not nearly as bothered by it while on the bike as before. Even if you live in a cooler climate I think the ability to dissipate heat while climbing is way over looked and should be considered when finding ways to perform better.


So true. That's one of the reasons racecar (nascar aside) drivers and fighter pilots have to be fit as it is 100+ degrees in the cockpit for hours. Nevermind enduring repeated and sustained high G forces.


----------



## tjeepdrv (Sep 15, 2008)

The top NASCAR drivers are in the gym or on a bike for several hours a week too. 

Here's an interview with Bobby Labonte. A Ride with Bobby Labonte | Bicycling Magazine


----------



## response3 (Jul 19, 2011)

For the most part, those guys are in decent fitness. One of my family members raced formula cars in Europe and then NASCAR back home. In the lighter formula 3 cars, he had to train pretty hard in order to maintain 155lbs at 5'11" in order to be competitive. NASCAR, not so much. Mostly he and a few other guys rode mtn bikes and drove go karts a few times a week.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

The lighter I got the faster I got, never got too light. I was my fittest when I weighed in the high 140s at 5'10". I didn't have a power meter so I can't say for sure if my power suffered but I seemed faster and got my best results.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

terbennett said:


> Why does BMI and all of those charts really matter?


BMI is a cheap, easily applied metric that for the general population does a pretty good job of predicting body composition related health risk (mainly cardiovascular disease and diabetes).

It was never intended to tell anyone anything about athletes.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

takl23 said:


> BMI has been around so long it should be an exhibit in a museum. It doesn't work. )


It does work. You're just not the population for whom it is intended to be used.


----------



## NUTT (Apr 15, 2008)

NUTT said:


> I'd really like to see the source on this.
> 
> I'm 6' 2" and my target weight is 202. I know that when I get there I'm in really solid shape, but that was before I started cycling and had a bit more upper body muscle bulk. By the calculation above, my ideal body weight calc is 194. (14 * 6) + 110.
> 
> I'm trying to lose some weight (marriage 2 years ago, baby this summer) and need to understand what a good target is.


As a follow up to this, I'm reading "Racing Weight" by Matt Fitzgerald. I'm only through the first few chapters and I'm going to start keeping a daily food journal - which is something that I f'ing hate doing. 

218 this morning... down from a high of 240 back in April when my wife was 7 months pregnant.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Dwayne Barry said:


> It does work. You're just not the population for whom it is intended to be used.


It may not work perfectly every time, but I'll also agree that it works. I happen to be in a small population that it doesn't work because I'm so lightly built, but most people try to say it doesn't work because they're in denial.  Yes, if you're built like a power lifter, it doesn't work.


----------



## dcorn (Sep 1, 2011)

The way I figure, weight doesn't mean much to me anymore. Of course I'd like to be lighter so I didn't have to work as hard going up hills and stuff  but I really doubt I'm going to be a lot lighter than I am now. I'm 5'11" and weigh in around 190 at the moment, but I'll get close to 180 if I ride a lot. My upper body has suffered quite a bit since I started riding, so I'm sure once I hit the gym again, my weight is only going to go up, if anywhere. 

My issue is my lower body and legs are just big. Played soccer and rode bikes (not road bikes) pretty much all my life. When I got into road cycling, I had to slightly work on my endurance, but my leg power was already there. I lost quite a bit of fat initially, but my weight only went down maybe 5 lbs or so from normal. If my upper body gets a bit bigger, I really don't have much weight to lose anywhere. Since muscle weighs more, seems like I'd gain more weight in muscle than I'd lose in fat. 


As far as bike weight goes, I think that's more for bragging rights, and how much money you have to spend


----------



## Poncharelli (May 7, 2006)

dcorn said:


> My issue is my lower body and legs are just big. Played soccer


Give it time. I used to play A/Open tournament level racquetball in my early 30s at 190 pounds. 

12 years later, I've been down as low as 158. (5' 10") Dedicated cycling really changes the body. 

People are shocked when I tell them I used to be a solid 190-200. And my wife hates that my ass and biceps have disappeared.


----------



## F45 (Nov 25, 2010)

6'0" at 152lbs fully hydrated. Of course it varies from 144-153 depending on what I'm doing at the time. I was at 145 for years until I got tired of not having much upper body strength for day to day living. 155 seems about perfect.


----------

