# Average Weight of a Cat 5 racer



## tbrown524 (Dec 9, 2006)

I'm trying to diet down before racing seasons starts and was wondering if at 190lbs(mostly muscle) if I would be at a total disadvantage in criteriums. I'm currently at 220lbs 5'11 with 25% bodyfat... I'm trying to lower my body fat by March or earlier if possible with minimal loss of leg muscles(strength)


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

tbrown524 said:


> I'm trying to diet down before racing seasons starts and was wondering if at 190lbs(mostly muscle) if I would be at a total disadvantage in criteriums. I'm currently at 220lbs 5'11 with 25% bodyfat... I'm trying to lower my body fat by March or earlier if possible with minimal loss of leg muscles(strength)


At 190 and racing crits you should be fine as long as your fitness is there. Most crits come down to sprint finishes and don't have any sustained climbs. They may have some short steep climbs thrown in for fun, but those generally are not as detrimental as the longer climbs you might see in a road race.

Now if you want to do some road races, 190 might put you at a detriment on a climbing course, but even then, most CAT5 races come down to sprint finishes and you can use your weight to catch the little guys on the way down the hill. I know I get dropped a lot on the longer climbs by smaller riders, but can generally make up most or all the lost distance on the descents and can sometimes pass the smaller riders on the descents.

The big thing...make sure the fitness is there. If it's not, it won't matter what you weigh.


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

And to quantify what Wookie writes:


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Just an FYI, the data behind those numbers hasn't been released, yet. I want to guess that the numbers were interpolated (extracted, even?) between various riders. Thus, a "very good" cat2 was never tested, but rather the numbers were interpolated between a good cat3 and a domestic pro, etc, etc.

Also, it is generally known that the location in which you live plays a big part on your success in each category. You won't win cat4 races with anything less than a FTP of 4.0 during superweek, just like you would probably dominate most out of season cat4 races with a FTP of 3.5 and a good sprint in the midwest. Take those numbers to Cali and you might be lucky to hang on to a cat4 race.


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

iliveonnitro said:


> Just an FYI, the data behind those numbers hasn't been released, yet. I want to guess that the numbers were interpolated (extracted, even?) between various riders. Thus, a "very good" cat2 was never tested, but rather the numbers were interpolated between a good cat3 and a domestic pro, etc, etc.
> 
> Also, it is generally known that the location in which you live plays a big part on your success in each category. You won't win cat4 races with anything less than a FTP of 4.0 during superweek, just like you would probably dominate most out of season cat4 races with a FTP of 3.5 and a good sprint in the midwest. Take those numbers to Cali and you might be lucky to hang on to a cat4 race.


They're a guide, nothing more. As I recall reading on the wattage list, only the world class numbers were used to create the chart and then some form of statistical voodoo (non math guy, sorry) was applied to work backwards. The chart was not created with the intent that it define categories, rather the USCF cats were imposed over the top of it later.

All those caveats aside, it's a decent guide in my neck of the woods, the NCNCA (NorCal / Nevada). With a 4W/k ftp you'll do just fine in all but the "climbiest" of NCNCA races.


----------



## tbrown524 (Dec 9, 2006)

I'm in Southern Cali so most of the crits are pretty much flat... I'm going to avoid road races this year... I like climbing but not at the speeds of some of those mad men!!


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

iliveonnitro said:


> Just an FYI, the data behind those numbers hasn't been released, yet. I want to guess that the numbers were interpolated (extracted, even?) between various riders. Thus, a "very good" cat2 was never tested, but rather the numbers were interpolated between a good cat3 and a domestic pro, etc, etc.


Don't guess, read the article explaining how the table was constructed. http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/profile.asp


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

asgelle said:


> Don't guess, read the article explaining how the table was constructed. http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/profile.asp


Or if you're too lazy.

_



I therefore used a third approach, which was to "anchor" the upper and lower ends of each range based on the known performance abilities of world champion athletes and untrained persons, respectively. The advantage of this approach is that it enhances the validity of comparisons across event durations, e.g., a "world class" power output should be equivalent regardless of whether the duration over which it is measured is 5 s or 1 h. The resultant values for intermediate performances were then cross-checked against available data to assure that this approach resulted in valid guidelines.

Click to expand...

_Thanks, A.


----------



## Squint (Jan 22, 2004)

iliveonnitro said:


> Also, it is generally known that the location in which you live plays a big part on your success in each category. You won't win cat4 races with anything less than a FTP of 4.0 during superweek, just like you would probably dominate most out of season cat4 races with a FTP of 3.5 and a good sprint in the midwest. Take those numbers to Cali and you might be lucky to hang on to a cat4 race.


On the other hand, some people will do better in different regions. Being relatively light and not having much of a sprint, I actually did a lot better in races after moving from the midwest to CO.

Out here you would do OK with an FTP of 4.0 W/kg...at 8500' elevation.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

FWIW I've raced flat crits in TX while weighing about 190, had no problem. Was able to cause gaps in the cat 5s then found out I could cat up based on past years racing and was able to do the same in the 4s. Only problem I had was the 35+ state champs crit had a decent elevation on the finish run, I eventually came out the back of that one.

But... like prev posters said, it's meaningless because my legs are not your legs. Generally I tell noobs that if you can hang (sit in) with the hammerheads on your local club rides for 45 min or so, you'll do fine in cat 5 crits.

Now, you have a few months at least... work on that power.

Creak.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

tbrown524 said:


> I'm trying to diet down before racing seasons starts and was wondering if at 190lbs(mostly muscle) if I would be at a total disadvantage in criteriums. I'm currently at 220lbs 5'11 with 25% bodyfat... I'm trying to lower my body fat by March or earlier if possible with minimal loss of leg muscles(strength)


You should try to lose more. You rate as 'obese' on a BMI calculator. By your own calculations, you're carrying around >50 lbs of fat. That's a lot of extra weight to accelerate out of every corner in crit. You'd be much more competitive at about 175.

You could also afford to lose some muscle. If you lower your body fat percentage significantly, your body will find efficiencies and you'll need less muscle. 

For the record: at 6'3", I'm not even competitive in Cat 3 crits until I drop below 185lbs.


----------



## tbrown524 (Dec 9, 2006)

I do agree that I'll need to drop more weight in order to be competetive however the BMI(crap) doesn't work for anyone that lifts weights... 

Years of being a wannebe bodybuilder has come back to haunt me..


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

BMI doesn't factor in muscle or frame size.

They higher you go up in categories, the more the riders look the same...5'6"-5'9", 130-150lbs, same body type. There's always exceptions, but not much.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

iliveonnitro said:


> BMI doesn't factor in muscle or frame size.
> 
> They higher you go up in categories, the more the riders look the same...5'6"-5'9", 130-150lbs, same body type. There's always exceptions, but not much.


BMI for 5'9" at 150 = 22.1
BMI for 5'6" at 130 = 21

The original poster's BMI is 30.7 with a goal of 26.5. He's way too heavy. Plus, a 25% body fat is way over the top for an endurance athlete. Before he starts worrying about power output and lactate threshold, he needs to drop below 15% body fat.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your generalization about riders fitting one mold. If you look at the pro peloton, the tallest and shortest riders are more than a foot apart in height. There are plenty of Trees and plenty of Vees (old Eddy B-ism). Short guys and tall guys have won Paris-Roubaix, likewise for the grand tours. I can however say without a doubt, no one with a BMI of 26.5 has ever come close to winning either.


----------



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

tbrown - you are almost exactlty where i started. I am 5'11 and 2 yrs ago weighed 210. I was a big weightlifter, but also carried too much fat. last year I raced at 185, but don;t know BF%. now I am 196 with 12% BF. I was tested 3 weeks ago when I got my LT and vo2max done. I worked with my coach and paid for a nutritional/BMR analysis. my goal is to race this year at 188-89 after losing 7-8lbs of fat, putting me at 9% BF. losing 8lbs of pure fat is hard and will take awhile, but as of today I am 192, so I am trending down. power/weight ration is everything. at your size you will need to put out very, very high sustained power. I carry too much upper body muscle, but in flat jersey races it does not matter. now my other goal this summer is to beat my last year time of 1:12 up alpe 'd'huez. I want to break 1hr. I think I can do it, but with my body typei it is very, very tough.


----------



## tbrown524 (Dec 9, 2006)

bauerb said:


> tbrown - you are almost exactlty where i started. I am 5'11 and 2 yrs ago weighed 210. I was a big weightlifter, but also carried too much fat. last year I raced at 185, but don;t know BF%. now I am 196 with 12% BF. I was tested 3 weeks ago when I got my LT and vo2max done. I worked with my coach and paid for a nutritional/BMR analysis. my goal is to race this year at 188-89 after losing 7-8lbs of fat, putting me at 9% BF. losing 8lbs of pure fat is hard and will take awhile, but as of today I am 192, so I am trending down. power/weight ration is everything. at your size you will need to put out very, very high sustained power. I carry too much upper body muscle, but in flat jersey races it does not matter. now my other goal this summer is to beat my last year time of 1:12 up alpe 'd'huez. I want to break 1hr. I think I can do it, but with my body typei it is very, very tough.



Thanks, Glad to see someone that was in the same boat as I am. I also carry a lot of upper body muscle.. My legs are pretty strong(squat wise) however I need to work on putting that to use on the bike. 

Of course I'm going to try to shoot for me weight loss however I want to do it at a slow process as to not lose much muscle. 

Currently I ride with Cat 3/4 racers and pretty able to keep up( just feel like I"m the walking dead afterwards) so hopefully that'll help..

Thanks for the replys...


----------



## Applesauce (Aug 4, 2007)

What's the average weight of anybody? (Without getting all epistemological, too, note the difference between _anybody_ and _anyone_.) I haven't raced since, like, June, nor have I had any desire to, and I weigh 150 lbs. with my jeans and Adidas. And I'm 6'3". And until a week ago, due to travel and a car crash, I hadn't ridden a bike at all in two months.

But seriously, if I were racing a lot of crits, I'd want to be heavier. Have you ever seen a real - that is, dedicated - trackie race a crit? People bounce off of him. The best crit racer I know is 5'6" and about 220. What's his BMI? I don't know. But at 160 or so rpm, he produces 2200 watts.


----------



## scmtnboy (Aug 22, 2006)

I am 6 ft tall and 4 years ago when I lifted I weighed 210. I started training seriously in May of 2005. I weigh around 163 now. I did 10 Cat 5 races last year. Only 2 finished in bunch sprints both were crits. If you have the fitness at 190 lbs you should be fine. Keep in mind you will be carrying a lot of extra weight (Upper Body) that is going to do very little for you. Just keep riding and get out there and race and have fun. That will be the best way to find out what you need to work on.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

shawndoggy said:


> And to quantify what Wookie writes:


I wonder what that chart would look like in a different universe, where every pro racer was clean.


----------



## keppler (May 25, 2007)

I'm in the same boat as well; several years of weight training and bodyweight at 200lbs. I did get to 185 by the end of the summer but my upper body has more muscle than most of the guys I rode with. They all had killer legs though...it'll take me a few years to have shape and power like that. I may be able to get to 180 for spring between winter spinning, weight training and a more serious diet.

It's true though, fitness level is key. During Crit classes guy's weighing more than me were giving me trouble because they have years of riding experience, I only had 1 month. If all goes well I'll be riding with a racing club in the spring, I have no idea what these guys ride like, but I'm giving it my best shot (and training really hard over the winter).


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

*The answer no one has given...*

Perhaps you don't want to hear it, but, dude:

It's Cat 5 racing.

It's no big deal, and if you remember that, you will be fine. There might be a Cat 5 in your race that will be a 2 come summer. There might be one who has been a cat 5 for 7 years.

Whatever you weigh, whether you meet, exceed, or fall short of your weight loss plan, just get out there and race. Then you will find out how you measure up, what you need to work on, and you can go from there.

That's it.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

Argentius said:


> Perhaps you don't want to hear it, but, dude:
> 
> It's Cat 5 racing.
> 
> ...


absolutely every word of this is true.
IME, Cat 5 racing, despite its reputation, usually is relatively tentative and tame. A couple of animals will break out somewhere in the race, maybe in the last K, maybe sooner, but for the most part it's a nice way to start racing. Pretty supportive. Go for it. 
As for the weight, I have been in races where I see a guy carrying a bit of beef, and I confess to thinking, that guy is not long for this race, and waddayaknow, there he is at the end. You never know.


----------



## velogirl (Oct 14, 2005)

actually, a little extra weight in CAT5 might be a positive thing -- it would be harder for the little 130-pound guys to knock him down! 

my advice, race your 10 races, upgrade to CAT4 and then lose the extra poundage.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

velogirl said:


> actually, a little extra weight in CAT5 might be a positive thing -- it would be harder for the little 130-pound guys to knock him down!
> 
> my advice, race your 10 races, upgrade to CAT4 and then lose the extra poundage.


that's true --- bigger guys take up more real estate, and sometimes it's all about the real estate.


----------



## multirider (Nov 5, 2007)

tbrown524 said:


> Thanks, Glad to see someone that was in the same boat as I am. I also carry a lot of upper body muscle.. My legs are pretty strong(squat wise) however I need to work on putting that to use on the bike.
> 
> Of course I'm going to try to shoot for me weight loss however I want to do it at a slow process as to not lose much muscle.
> 
> ...


As with others, I'm just trying to be helpful so please take this in that vein . . . riding is riding; riding ain't racing. Keeping up on a ride means very little with respect to being competitive in a race. My point: don't get your hopes up for a good Cat 5 finish based on riding with 3/4s. Racing brings out the best and worst in people and stuff happens.

But to reinforce the point somebody else made, the objective is to have fun. It is very unlikely you'll be turning pro and making your living at bike racing, so keep it all in perspective. Train hard, get healthier weight-wise, sign up for a race, and hammer. If you have any competitive juices flowing in your arteries, it will be GREAT regardless of your finish. Ahhhh, I love racing!


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

ElvisMerckx said:


> BMI for 5'9" at 150 = 22.1
> BMI for 5'6" at 130 = 21
> 
> The original poster's BMI is 30.7 with a goal of 26.5. He's way too heavy. Plus, a 25% body fat is way over the top for an endurance athlete. Before he starts worrying about power output and lactate threshold, he needs to drop below 15% body fat.
> ...


You're too stuck on this BMI thing. It's nearly irrelevant for anyone who isn't a couch potato, and even for them, too. I'm ~5'7, 145lbs race weight and 8% bodyfat. That puts me at 22.7 on the BMI scale...I must be fat, right?

Riders DO fit a mold, just like all elite athletes in their respected sports. I said there were exceptions. Go to your local pros race and look at them. A _majority_ will fit a similar body type.

How many >=6'2 riders won a grand tour? How many <=5'4 riders won a grand tour? I'd like you to name them all. Classics (Paris-Roubaix) are very different than grand tours, mind you.

PS, Jan Ulrich won a Giro time trial while on T-Mobile. The picture of him looking like the pillsbury dough boy is all over the internet....REALLY high BMI in that one.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

iliveonnitro said:


> You're too stuck on this BMI thing.


No, I think you're stuck on it. I use it as a metric along with about 5 other metrics to calculate relative fitness. It works fairly well for road cycling. And, it worked very well in addressing the original poster's question.



iliveonnitro said:


> How many >=6'2 riders won a grand tour? ... I'd like you to name them all.


Greater than 6'2" is a tough one -- but you postulated a much shorter bio-standard. I know this is pre-Lance data, but, off the top of my head I can name two who stood at 6'2". There was Miguel Indurain -- a 'decent' grand tour rider. Joop Zoetemelk is another. 

Furthermore, the average TdF rider in 2007 was 5' 10". That sort of kills your 5'9" stereotype.


----------



## wfrogge (Mar 5, 2007)

Ignore that chart... Its worthless.


Point being I watched a pro Tri guy (dudes top ranked Tri racer BTW) get smoked by a CAT 5 field this summer during a crit. At the gun he took off and got a pretty good gap on the pack. With 5 mins to go he got swept up and finished mid pack. If you have more power than the other races but burn all your matches doing stupid crap it levels the playing field.

Far as racing its all about having fun. Long as you enjoy it and keep working hard the weight will come off by itself.


----------



## wfrogge (Mar 5, 2007)

kbiker3111 said:


> I wonder what that chart would look like in a different universe, where every pro racer was clean.



Hell how about if all the CAT 3s and up were clean.... You would be suprised how many amatuers are doping. Last year was the first time that the ADA tested elite nationals. From what I understand when they announced this at the starting line it go so quiet you could hear a pin drop... lol


----------



## tbrown524 (Dec 9, 2006)

Thanks for the post everyone... Just wanted to say that I wasn't planning on road racing or even one day becomming pro.. I've been to quite a few crits and liked what I saw and figured I could train to get out there and hopefully move up to Cat 4 one day... Being in my mid 30's, married with a full time job... Just want to get my blood pumping on the weekends...


----------



## wfrogge (Mar 5, 2007)

iliveonnitro said:


> PS, Jan Ulrich won a Giro time trial while on T-Mobile. The picture of him looking like the pillsbury dough boy is all over the internet....REALLY high BMI in that one.




Jan was jacked up on so much T thats what made him big. Find a picture of him from 97 and compare it to 2003.


----------



## wfrogge (Mar 5, 2007)

tbrown524 said:


> Thanks for the post everyone... Just wanted to say that I wasn't planning on road racing or even one day becomming pro.. I've been to quite a few crits and liked what I saw and figured I could train to get out there and hopefully move up to Cat 4 one day... Being in my mid 30's, married with a full time job... Just want to get my blood pumping on the weekends...



Thats what its all about man!


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

velogirl said:


> actually, a little extra weight in CAT5 might be a positive thing -- it would be harder for the little 130-pound guys to knock him down!
> 
> my advice, race your 10 races, upgrade to CAT4 and then lose the extra poundage.


Great point!

A few years ago, one of my best friends who was a very competitive triathlete (5' 11" - 190 lbs vs me 6' - 160 lbs back then) started to participate in the road races. He and I were in a road race in Charlottesville (Master 40+) in March.
It was cold, rainy, windy and the pace was absolutely brutal through the rolling hills of Charlottesville. Flying down on one of the hills, I heard the loud/nasty metal scrapping noise. I looked back briefly (we were doing 45 mph - 50 mph), I saw my buddy flying through the air like a superman.

I pulled over to assess the damage and it wasn't pretty. Several racers were down along with several broken bike/parts spread out all over the road. My buddy was sitting down holding his right shoulder.
Looking at his bike (broken top tube) I thought he had broken his right clavicle.
The medic arrived and told him that he most likely broke his clavicle and took him to the local hospital for a X-ray. The x-Ray was negative. He escaped it with a bruised shoulder.
Even the doctors were surprised he didn't break his c.
I think him having little bit of extra meat on his upper body probably saved his shoulder and his season as many of the other racers who crashed weren't so lucky.


----------



## wfrogge (Mar 5, 2007)

Extra meat on the bones = extra force when you hit the ground. Your friend was just lucky thats all.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

"It's nearly irrelevant for anyone who isn't a couch potato, and even for them, too."

I don't know about that, pretty much every study I read shows increased risk of metabolic syndrome and other negative health consequences as BMI category increases from normal, to overweight, to the various obese categories. BMI for most people is a good measure of "fatness" and that is where the risk probably lies. Fitness and fatness appear to be largely independent risk factors, so it is not accurate to say it is only good for couch potatoes. A fat marathoner is still going to carry the risk of the fatness even if they are not getting the risk of being sedentary.

"I'm ~5'7, 145lbs race weight and 8% bodyfat. That puts me at 22.7 on the BMI scale...I must be fat, right?"

No, that puts you almost dead in the middle of the normal range (20-25), >25 is overweight, >30 obese.

The one group that BMI probably isn't very good for predicting risk is folks who are abnormally muscled for their height, which are mostly young men. So I wouldn't sweat it if I were in that category.


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

wfrogge said:


> Extra meat on the bones = extra force when you hit the ground. Your friend was just lucky thats all.


That maybe the case except his extra meat (muscle) was on his shoulder from swimming and lifting weight not on his waist. I guess we would never know what might've happened if was was a skinny road racer.
Most of the prototype road racers (with skinny upper body) would most likely sustain more damage if they hit the tarmac doing 45 mph to 50 mph.

I don't disagree with (extra weight = higher impact), having said that skinny upper body won't protect your bones too much if you hit the tarmac (although it will make you climb faster).


----------



## velogirl (Oct 14, 2005)

In many crashes I've witnessed (including my own crash when I was hit by a car), the injuries to those with more muscle mass has been less than those with less muscle mass. Not only does the muscle support and protect the bones, but the fact that someone participates in resistance training and other weight-bearing exercise helps create less bone-density loss (ie they have stronger bones).

extra weight = higher impact? I would agree with this only if someone is being launched off the bike and into the air for a long distance. If someone just falls off the bike, body weight would have a minimal effect on the amount of force with which someone hits the ground.

BMI is not a good metric for athletes -- any sports governing board or certifying body will tell you that. A cyclist will likely have significantly more muscle mass than a couch-dweller. This increased muscle mass will also increase body weight. Hell, ask any woman who starts cycling what happens when she tries to fit her quads into jeans!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

velogirl said:


> BMI is not a good metric for athletes -- any sports governing board or certifying body will tell you that.


Another easy measure one could use if they wanted to check whether they are perhaps deluding themselves that a high BMI is the result of muscle rather than fat is to do an abdominal circumference measure. I don't know values off the top of my head, I'm sure they can be found via Goggle, but most of what I read indicates it is a comparable measure to BMI for predicting risk.


----------



## kmac (Feb 13, 2007)

tbrown524 said:


> Thanks for the post everyone... Just wanted to say that I wasn't planning on road racing or even one day becomming pro.. I've been to quite a few crits and liked what I saw and figured I could train to get out there and hopefully move up to Cat 4 one day... Being in my mid 30's, married with a full time job... Just want to get my blood pumping on the weekends...



TBrown, I'm right there with you brother! Mid 30s (probably have to start saying late 30s now actually!) married, two kids, full time job. Started riding seriously a couple of years ago, and found I really liked it. Lost 30 pounds from 240 down to 210. I'm 5'11". Figured I'd try racing. Have done a couple now, and really have enjoyed it. I know I'd be able to compete better at 190 than the 210, and that is the goal eventually. But my goal for this season is to ride as much as I can, race in the races that I can make it to, have fun, and hopefully not get hurt. 

Even if I know I'd be faster at 190, I know I'm healthier than I was at 240. I read somewhere that when you feel like you're heavier/less fit than all the cyclists around you, go to the mall and compare yourself to the "average" person. It'll make you feel better!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

kmac said:


> I read somewhere that when you feel like you're heavier/less fit than all the cyclists around you, go to the mall and compare yourself to the "average" person. It'll make you feel better!


You're probably also in better shape (risk-wise) than even the normal weight ones who do not excercise, which is going to be a large majority of them.


----------



## GTScott (Dec 6, 2007)

ElvisMerckx said:


> No, I think you're stuck on it. I use it as a metric along with about 5 other metrics to calculate relative fitness. It works fairly well for road cycling. And, it worked very well in addressing the original poster's question.


After seeing this BMI stuff, I looked into mine. I was a 21.7 at 5'8 and 142 lbs. What are the other metrics that you look at? I am always interested in picking up a new statistic.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

GTScott said:


> After seeing this BMI stuff, I looked into mine. I was a 21.7 at 5'8 and 142 lbs. What are the other metrics that you look at? I am always interested in picking up a new statistic.


BMI gets bashed a lot because it offends fat people. For those who think they're "overweight," BMI labels them "obese." In a fat friendly culture like ours, it has become fashionable to discredit BMI because a few athletes (football players, sumo wrestlers, body builders, et al) break the equation. Turns out it's a decent metric for assessing what one's weight goals should be as a distance swimmer, runner, or cyclist.

As someone picks up more cycling experience, other more important metrics will start to consume your thoughts: VO2 Max, lactate threshold, power/weight, protein/carbohydrate/fat intake-to-output, etc. One can develop OCD if he's not careful.


----------



## wfrogge (Mar 5, 2007)

You could have a BMI of 20 and be overweight... You could have a BMI of 28 and have low body fat.. The scale is wack

Being overweight dosent increase your odds of dying compared to being in the "normal" range" *death related to being overweight*.. Now being obese (BMI 35+) different story


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

*to answer it another way*

sucessful pro racers cover a range of sizes, from Marco Pantani's 5' 5" and 123 pounds, to Magnus Backstedt's 6' 3" and 205 pounds. Get in shape and have fun. If you get as strong as you can you'll be fast enough to have fun, if racing turns out to be fun for you.


----------



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

this is great. lots of 5'11 190-200lb guys like me. I raced last year as a 5, I upgraded to 4. my goal for the spring is to score all my cat 3 points. if all you ever want to be is a 5, weight, and power to weight rations are not something you need to worry about, I want to be a competitive 3, and also race 35+. i am married with kids and full time corporate job. that said, I am very focused on my BF% and my watts/kg.(not to mention LT and v02max), I am naturally quite competitive, and one thing I can do easily within my lifestyle is managed my weight. however I have got to say that losing the last 6lbs to get from 12 to 9% BF is damn hard. the weight is coming off so slowly.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

bauerb said:


> this is great. lots of 5'11 190-200lb guys like me. I raced last year as a 5, I upgraded to 4. my goal for the spring is to score all my cat 3 points. if all you ever want to be is a 5, weight, and power to weight rations are not something you need to worry about, I want to be a competitive 3, and also race 35+. i am married with kids and full time corporate job. that said, I am very focused on my BF% and my watts/kg.(not to mention LT and v02max), I am naturally quite competitive, and one thing I can do easily within my lifestyle is managed my weight. however I have got to say that losing the last 6lbs to get from 12 to 9% BF is damn hard. the weight is coming off so slowly.


you can get to 3 without looking at any of those numbers. worry about getting fast, and maybe just avoid that second piece of pie. you'll be fine.

2 is a different story. I can hang with the 2's on the flats, but I'm a little beefy to go uphill right with them on anything but a power climb when they're hammering (5'8", 160 lbs). 

for 3's and 4's, the issue in crits, btw, is skill in the turns (and knowing how to hide), not BMI.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

wfrogge said:


> You could have a BMI of 20 and be overweight... You could have a BMI of 28 and have low body fat.. The scale is wack
> 
> Being overweight dosent increase your odds of dying compared to being in the "normal" range" *death related to being overweight*.. Now being obese (BMI 35+) different story


Obese is >30 and then is sometimes broken down further (e.g. Obese I-II-III in units of 5 or just morbidly obese >40). Again every study I read shows pretty much the same thing, the higher your BMI the more likely you're to suffer from CV disease, diabetes, etc.

I think the study you're quoting, which got a lot of press because it somewhat bucked the trend, was looking at All Cause Mortality and showed that overweight folks did slightly better than normal weight. Although I believe it's been criticized for failing to control for disease status and some diseases like cancer, alzheimer's, etc. are associated with weight loss may have "artificially" moved people into the normal weight category at time of death when they wouldn't have been there when they contracted the disease.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Obese is >30 and then is sometimes broken down further (e.g. Obese I-II-III in units of 5 or just morbidly obese >40). Again every study I read shows pretty much the same thing, the higher your BMI the more likely you're to suffer from CV disease, diabetes, etc.
> 
> I think the study you're quoting, which got a lot of press because it somewhat bucked the trend, was looking at All Cause Mortality and showed that overweight folks did slightly better than normal weight. Although I believe it's been criticized for failing to control for disease status and some diseases like cancer, alzheimer's, etc. are associated with weight loss may have "artificially" moved people into the normal weight category at time of death when they wouldn't have been there when they contracted the disease.



Look like I'm going to die a long, painful, but forgetful death. I've got a BMI of 31.5!!!!! :blush2: 

Even though I was able to complete a sub 5 hour century with 7000 feet of climbing this year.

BMI is pretty much a useless way of measuring anything than a meaningless number.


----------



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

i don't care about BMI and never have. however you can't talk me out of carring about LT vo2max, and watts/kg.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Wookiebiker said:


> BMI is pretty much a useless way of measuring anything than a meaningless number.


No what it is is a free, easy way to estimate fatness as alternatives like DEXA or hydrostatic weighing are not free or easy to perform. Study after study show that the fatter (often determined by BMI, but other means as well) you are the more likely you are to get certain diseases.

If you have some reason to believe your BMI is not due to fatness well then obviously you would effectively have a lower risk for the fat-associated diseases.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> No what it is is a free, easy way to estimate fatness as alternatives like DEXA or hydrostatic weighing are not free or easy to perform. Study after study show that the fatter (often determined by BMI, but other means as well) you are the more likely you are to get certain diseases.
> 
> If you have some reason to believe your BMI is not due to fatness well then obviously you would effectively have a lower risk for the fat-associated diseases.


BMI is useless for anything other than making somebody feel good or bad about themselves, however it is free and easy to use (I'll agree with you on that one).

I've seen people that would be considered fat (at least by thin people) that were so much more fit than the thin person it wasn't even funny. BMI doesn't tell anything other than what you measure out to be.....NOTHING MORE!

It can't tell you what your actual fitness levels are, which is going to have a much larger impact on your health and fat-associated diseases than the BMI ever will.

It also does not take into account larger frames. It only really works on one specific body type, which we all know just by going to a mall....we as humans don't all have.

My self for instance. When I was in college we did BMI's for one of my health classes. I came out as morbidly obease.....Yet I had a 52" chest, 35" waist, 32" thighs, 19" biceps and 12% bodyfat.....Yea, I was morbidly obease....LOL

Even now....The BMI considers me to be Obese, yet I'm far from it. 

The reason...I have a very heavy frame. Most people underestimate my weight by 30-35 pounds because I'm a stout, muscular build (even though I don't lift). As I said in the post above I was able to ride a sub 5 hour century with 7000 feet of climbing last summer....My cardio system is just fine....yet a doctor just looking at my BMI would tell me to get off my butt and start working out and lose some weight or I'm going to suffer all kinds of fat related diseases in the near future (I'm 37 after all).

BMI is free for a reason....it's worthless. Just like everything else in life, you get what you pay for and the BMI test is no different.


----------



## Zwane (Jun 30, 2006)

cpark said:


> That maybe the case except his extra meat (muscle) was on his shoulder from swimming and lifting weight not on his waist. I guess we would never know what might've happened if was was a skinny road racer.
> Most of the prototype road racers (with skinny upper body) would most likely sustain more damage if they hit the tarmac doing 45 mph to 50 mph.
> 
> I don't disagree with (extra weight = higher impact), having said that skinny upper body won't protect your bones too much if you hit the tarmac (although it will make you climb faster).


The paramedic said the same thing to me whilst removing glass and road grit from my shoulder arm after slamming into a car fender/windshield. I'm 6'0 183lbs with muscle padding on the upper body from my basketball days.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

"I've seen people that would be considered fat (at least by thin people) that were so much more fit than the thin person it wasn't even funny. BMI doesn't tell anything other than what you measure out to be.....NOTHING MORE!"

Let me try one last time. BMI says nothing per se about fitness, futhermore the risk associated with lack of fitness and high BMI appear to be independent. "Fat but fit" is a well recognized concept.

"It can't tell you what your actual fitness levels are, which is going to have a much larger impact on your health and fat-associated diseases than the BMI ever will."

Depends on how fit and how fat you're. Most of what I've seen shows that for overweight or modestly obese folks who are relatively fit that the fitness offsets the risk from being fat or even lowers it below normal. IOW, fit/fat is probably just as healthy if not more so than sedentary/normal weight as long as you're not too fat and have a high-level of fitness.

"It also does not take into account larger frames. It only really works on one specific body type, which we all know just by going to a mall....we as humans don't all have."

That's true it doesn't account for frame, but nonetheless study after study clearly demonstrate that people with higher BMI's are more at risk for CV disease, diabetes and certain kinds of cancers. I never seen any effort in those study's to screen out either "big boned" people or muscular people. So it appears to be valid for enough people that it works for the population as a whole.

"Even now....The BMI considers me to be Obese, yet I'm far from it."

O.K. so you're one of the exceptions, how many people are like you in the population?

"My cardio system is just fine....yet a doctor just looking at my BMI would tell me to get off my butt and start working out and lose some weight or I'm going to suffer all kinds of fat related diseases in the near future (I'm 37 after all)."

Not if your doctor knows what he's doing and talked to you about your exercise habits. BMI is not meant to be, nor is it an indicator of fitness. For most people it is an indicator of fatness. Again, presumably your doctor could look at you and make a reasonable assessment of your frame/muscle mass and take that into account when considering BMI. Not to mention all the various other measures of your health he would possess.

"BMI is free for a reason....it's worthless."

The reason that it is so popular is that for the vast majority of the population it is a good predictor of fatness, and has been shown to predict risk and track well with health status. The proof is in the pudding as they say. If it was worthless it wouldn't predict anything, when people lower their BMI their health status wouldn't improve, etc., but it does, so it will continue to be used.


----------



## safetyaverse (Oct 18, 2007)

Any kind of stat can be manipulated, BMI included, however as a quick indicator it is a good tool.
A high BMI can indicate risk, even if the subject is pure muscle. Being big can put a lot of stress on the heart and CV system, whether the weight is muscle or fat, and can lead to a 'floppy heart'.


----------

