Who You Calling Fat?

Werehatrack wrote:

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.

Just because someone is a good cyclist doesn't mean they're not
overweight.

Sheldon Brown wrote:
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****.

On the contrary, it is a good example of why anonymous posting could be
necessary. As someone associated with a well known bicycle shop it's
easy for you to criticize someone for criticizing Bicycling, but might
be a lot more difficult for you to criticize the magazine itself (or
some manufacturer, say, Shimano).

And regardless, the poster's point, although exaggerated, is still
valid, that an overweight editor at a fitness magazine does not set a
good example.

Where's the hatrack writes anonymously:

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.

This isn't about bicycling nor about muscular strength. Don't get so
defensive about your obesity. I think you won't find people of the
200lbs+ persuasion shown in today's clothing catalogs (aka LL Bean,
Lands End etc.) That's because most folks still recall how a healthy
body looks. For that matter take any of the TdF riders and they would
fit the job well.

Jobst Brandt

I fulminated:

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****.

A (presumably different) anonymous poster replied:

On the contrary, it is a good example of why anonymous posting could be
necessary. As someone associated with a well known bicycle shop it's
easy for you to criticize someone for criticizing Bicycling,

He or she was not criticizing Bicycling, but was criticizing a
particular human being who probably had never done him or her a bit of
harm, on the basis of that person's physical characteristics.

This is bigotry.

but might
be a lot more difficult for you to criticize the magazine itself (or
some manufacturer, say, Shimano).

Anyone who knows my postings knows I'm not shy about criticizing Shimano
when they do dumb things, like introducing proprietary chainring BCDs or
the idiotic "Power Modulators" they install in some of their brakes.

And regardless, the poster's point, although exaggerated, is still
valid, that an overweight editor at a fitness magazine does not set a
good example.

Bicycling is not a "fitness magazine", it's a _bicycling_ magazine. I
admit that it has way too much stuff about food and clothing though.

If the editor involved were at Men's Health, or Muscle and Fitness or
some similar magazine, that might be a legitimate point.

I guess Phil Ligget and Bob Roll are not suitable to do commentary on
the Tour de France, because they obviously couldn't hang with the pack...

....and I'm not competent to answer questions about bicycles because I
weigh 220.

Sheldon "Writers Write, Editors Edit" Brown
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| If you don't like yourself, you _can't_ like other people |
| --Robert A. Heinlein |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
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:

He or she was not criticizing Bicycling, but was criticizing a
particular human being who probably had never done him or her a bit of
harm, on the basis of that person's physical characteristics.

This is bigotry.

No, weight is a characteristic of fitness and it is reasonable to
expect a person employed to report firsthand on a fitness activity,
which bicycling is, to have a pretty high level of physical fitness.

Anyone who knows my postings knows I'm not shy about criticizing Shimano
when they do dumb things, like introducing proprietary chainring BCDs or
the idiotic "Power Modulators" they install in some of their brakes.

I think I know your postings and I think that your views of Shimano
equipment are in general not particularly critical, but that is just my
opinion. BTW, What are your views on the long term reliability of STI
shifters in comparison to Ergo?

And regardless, the poster's point, although exaggerated, is still
valid, that an overweight editor at a fitness magazine does not set a
good example.

Bicycling is not a "fitness magazine", it's a _bicycling_ magazine. I
admit that it has way too much stuff about food and clothing though.

I would have bet money that you would come back with this. It is a
magazine about a fitness activity, bicycling, and you can say it isn't
all you want, but it still is. It is in the cycling subclass of the
fitness class of magazines.

If the editor involved were at Men's Health, or Muscle and Fitness or
some similar magazine, that might be a legitimate point.

Those are magazines about fitness in a more general (the former) or
different (the latter) sense. These two magazines and Bicycling address
different aspects of fitness activities. I haven't read Bicycling in
years, but even if it only has in it glossy foldouts of handmade high
end steel artisan frames, it's still about a fitness activity. I would
only exclude it as a fitness magazine if it was _purely_ covering
cycling from the perspective of a spectator sport, or bicycles _purely_
as collectibles, or something like that.

I guess Phil Ligget and Bob Roll are not suitable to do commentary on
the Tour de France, because they obviously couldn't hang with the pack...

They don't claim to be professional bicycle racers or need to be to
report on competitive cycling; it is, however, absurd to suggest that
someone would report on cycling without being an experienced cyclist.
They couldn't possibly evaluate bicycling products, for example,
although I suppose they could hire fit cyclists to test stuff and then
interview them for their impressions which they would then write up
third person. Is that what they do there at Bicycling?

...and I'm not competent to answer questions about bicycles because I
weigh 220.

There are _some_ experience-related questions that you are not
competent to answer about bicycles if you are overweight, no matter how
much you know about anything else.

"Sheldon Brown" wrote in message
...

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

And I could give you one really good reason why I do attempt to post
anonomously: I frequent a couple of photo NGs, and there's a very nasty
troll over there who will call you at home at all hours of the night,
subscribe you to as many magazines he/she can, and do whatever he/she can to
antagonize you. I prefer to attempt to maintain privacy than to tolerate a
jerk like that.

BTW, I was in your shop the other day when you arrived. The hat is as nice
in person as on the web.

:-)


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

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.


Tell it to Magnus Backstedt.
http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/cy/profiles/324.html 198lbs, all of
it in first place at Paris-Roubaix.

Bicycling has more to worry about than the weight of its
editor -- like the fact that it is an irrelevant, glossy
advertising circular. I cancelled my subscription two years ago,
and it just keeps coming -- all those self-congratulatory stories
of accomplishing a 35 mile ride, fashion tips and technical
misinformation. It is so inane that it makes People Magazine
look like Scientific American. It is totally appropriate that
the editor is out of shape, because he is certainly out of
touch. -- Jay Beattie.

wrote:
Sheldon Brown wrote:

He or she was not criticizing Bicycling, but was criticizing a
particular human being who probably had never done him or her a bit
of harm, on the basis of that person's physical characteristics.

This is bigotry.

No, weight is a characteristic of fitness and it is reasonable to
expect a person employed to report firsthand on a fitness activity,
which bicycling is, to have a pretty high level of physical fitness.

And yet in this same thread you wrote: "Just because someone is a good
cyclist doesn't mean they're not
overweight." CONTRADICTION!

Bicycling is not a "fitness magazine", it's a _bicycling_ magazine.
I admit that it has way too much stuff about food and clothing
though.

I would have bet money that you would come back with this. It is a
magazine about a fitness activity, bicycling, and you can say it isn't
all you want, but it still is. It is in the cycling subclass of the
fitness class of magazines.

Again, according to /you/: "Just because someone is a good cyclist doesn't
mean they're not
overweight."

I think you're arguing just to argue... BS

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.


Bicycling is not a magazine about bicycle racing. It is mostly about
equipment, and from what I've seen, there are lots of overweight people
buying bicycle equipment and riding bikes. Assuming that many/most
overweight people would like to lose some weight, I can think of few
better activities to help with that goal. I didn't read the article, so
I don't know if the editor in question is overweight, but if so, he
might have a better understanding of a (significant) part of his
readership.

Carrying extra weight may not be the optimum health-wise, but there
seems to be growing recognition of the "fit fat" -- those who are very
healthy and fit despite extra pounds. I've had a lot of first-hand
experience riding with people who are really fast despite being a little
chubby -- even on climbs.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:25:22 -0500, Peder wrote:

So that's why everyone's putting larger, less cramped seating in their
planes...they just can't carry a full load anymore at 200 pounds per seat!

That and the fact that 200 pounds obviously requires a bit bigger seat
than 188.

Jasper