Who You Calling Fat?

The September issue of Bicycling arrived yesterday, and it contains a
lengthy article titled "Hey, Big Fella" about large riders. One sidebar
[bottom of page 51] has the above Subject title, and describes the Body
Mass Index [BMI] calculation [see an online BMI calculator at the URL
below].

The magazine editor, Stephen Madden, has a brief column [page 16] titled
"He Ain't Heavy (He's Our Editor)" about the irony of his weight at 185
pounds, which is what I weighed as a skinny teenager riding a Sears
three-speed over forty years ago.

http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/av.htm

--
"Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much
to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes,
it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)

"LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m" wrote in
message news:kDzFe.23567$bp.5984@fed1read03...
The September issue of Bicycling arrived yesterday, and it contains a
lengthy article titled "Hey, Big Fella" about large riders. One sidebar
[bottom of page 51] has the above Subject title, and describes the Body
Mass Index [BMI] calculation [see an online BMI calculator at the URL
below].

The magazine editor, Stephen Madden, has a brief column [page 16] titled
"He Ain't Heavy (He's Our Editor)" about the irony of his weight at 185
pounds, which is what I weighed as a skinny teenager riding a Sears
three-speed over forty years ago.

http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/av.htm

--
"Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much
to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes,
it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)

This calculator can't be accurate for the active bike rider who generally
has much larger thighs and calves as well as somewhat more muscular arms.

LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m wrote:
The September issue of Bicycling arrived yesterday, and it contains a
lengthy article titled "Hey, Big Fella" about large riders. One sidebar
[bottom of page 51] has the above Subject title, and describes the Body
Mass Index [BMI] calculation [see an online BMI calculator at the URL
below].

The magazine editor, Stephen Madden, has a brief column [page 16] titled
"He Ain't Heavy (He's Our Editor)" about the irony of his weight at 185
pounds, which is what I weighed as a skinny teenager riding a Sears
three-speed over forty years ago.

http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/av.htm



That is a great comfort to a lot of us whose target weight is 185. =]

LioNiNoiL writes:

The September issue of Bicycling arrived yesterday, and it contains
a lengthy article titled "Hey, Big Fella" about large riders. One
sidebar [bottom of page 51] has the above Subject title, and
describes the Body Mass Index [BMI] calculation [see an online BMI
calculator at the URL below].

What can you expect from that magazine. I suppose they believe
Hemingway wrote "For Who the Bell Tolls" and don't know about "Whom
Are You Calling Fat?"

The magazine editor, Stephen Madden, has a brief column [page 16] titled
"He Ain't Heavy (He's Our Editor)" about the irony of his weight at 185
pounds, which is what I weighed as a skinny teenager riding a Sears
three-speed over forty years ago.

That seems to be the paradigm of the day. As long as I can find a
more overweight person, I'm thin. Don't take solace in that heavy is
the norm these days.

http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/av.htm

The 50th percentile is not a standard of health.

Jobst Brandt

185 is a reasonable weight for a cyclist.... if you're 6' 9" tall. It's
tolerable if you're over six foot tall. But for the editor-of-the-month
at Bicycling it's pitiful. A huge selection of free bikes to test ride,
and he's that fat? Sad. No wonder the magazine's a waste of trees.

Might interest you to know - Transport Canada dubs the "average male" (for
the purposes of aviation weight and balance - eg: calculating safe payload)
as 200lbs.

Only a year ago, that average weight was 188 "ish" (I don't remember the
exact number they used to use since they changed it)

While I don't have a link handy to back this up (please, post one if you do)
I read something a few years back: an organization that studies ergonomics
noted the average width of a movie theatre seat had increased by "x"
(something like an inch or two) over the past decade.

North America is getting fat.

I'm 6'0". I don't think 185lbs is particularly large for a "balanced" body.
I wonder how well these 6'0" 150lb TdF riders would in a sport where upper
body strength played a bigger factor?

Chris - 6'0" 255lbs last month... 245lbs this month... shooting for 185lbs
by Christmas.



wrote in message
oups.com...
185 is a reasonable weight for a cyclist.... if you're 6' 9" tall. It's
tolerable if you're over six foot tall. But for the editor-of-the-month
at Bicycling it's pitiful. A huge selection of free bikes to test ride,
and he's that fat? Sad. No wonder the magazine's a waste of trees.

An anonymous self-righteous jerk wrote:

185 is a reasonable weight for a cyclist.... if you're 6' 9" tall. It's
tolerable if you're over six foot tall. But for the editor-of-the-month
at Bicycling it's pitiful. A huge selection of free bikes to test ride,
and he's that fat? Sad. No wonder the magazine's a waste of trees.

This is a great example of why anonymous posting is chicken****.

Sheldon "Not Hiding Behind An Alias" Brown
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid |
| than to open it and remove all doubt. --Mark Twain |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

"Sheldon Brown" wrote in message
...
An anonymous self-righteous jerk wrote:

185 is a reasonable weight for a cyclist.... if you're 6' 9" tall. It's
tolerable if you're over six foot tall. But for the editor-of-the-month
at Bicycling it's pitiful. A huge selection of free bikes to test ride,
and he's that fat? Sad. No wonder the magazine's a waste of trees.

This is a great example of why anonymous posting is chicken****.

Sheldon "Not Hiding Behind An Alias" Brown


That's not all you couldn't hide behind.

lol,

Ed Chait

On 27 Jul 2005 09:11:04 -0700, wrote:

185 is a reasonable weight for a cyclist.... if you're 6' 9" tall. It's
tolerable if you're over six foot tall. But for the editor-of-the-month
at Bicycling it's pitiful. A huge selection of free bikes to test ride,
and he's that fat? Sad. No wonder the magazine's a waste of trees.

Given the number of 260+ riders who have demonstrated that they can
outrun and out-accelerate half of the pack in group rides around here,
I find the assertion ludicrous. What's reasonable for a casual rider
may be uncompetitive in racing, but regardless of whether you're
trying to be a racer, what's right for you is just about guaranteed to
be wrong for a lot of the rest of the world. Different folks,
different "normals". Trying to pigeonhole everybody with one set of
criteria is just plain dumb.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

"Werehatrack" wrote in message
...
On 27 Jul 2005 09:11:04 -0700, wrote:

185 is a reasonable weight for a cyclist.... if you're 6' 9" tall. It's
tolerable if you're over six foot tall. But for the editor-of-the-month
at Bicycling it's pitiful. A huge selection of free bikes to test ride,
and he's that fat? Sad. No wonder the magazine's a waste of trees.

Given the number of 260+ riders who have demonstrated that they can
outrun and out-accelerate half of the pack in group rides around here,
I find the assertion ludicrous.

Do you live in Florida, or south Texas, or some other place that's pancake
flat? I can't imagine someone weighing 260 outriding thinner cyclists in
the hills where I ride.

Cycling efficiency is mostly about power to weight ratio, and the big guys
will almost always be at a disadvantage (especially in the hills).

GG

What's reasonable for a casual rider
may be uncompetitive in racing, but regardless of whether you're
trying to be a racer, what's right for you is just about guaranteed to
be wrong for a lot of the rest of the world. Different folks,
different "normals". Trying to pigeonhole everybody with one set of
criteria is just plain dumb.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.