|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Clydesdale Riding<-- What's that???
Snyperx thoughtfully penned:
I am just getting back into riding after a long hiatous and was wonder what kind fo riding is Clydesdale Riding??? I have been shopping for some new Rims and I saw a few that were suited for this kind fo riding. Anyone care to explain? Thanks. Snyperx www.ridephat.com might help |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Clydesdale Riding<-- What's that???
"Snyperx" wrote in message news:VSnOa.1575$N7.606@sccrnsc03... I am just getting back into riding after a long hiatous and was wonder what kind fo riding is Clydesdale Riding??? I have been shopping for some new Rims and I saw a few that were suited for this kind fo riding. Anyone care to explain? Thanks. Snyperx If you weigh in at 200 pounds or more, you are affectionately referred to as being a 'Clydesdale' (And if by some chance you don't know what a Clydesdale is, it is a very large solid breed of horse). Consequently it helps if, amongst other things, your rims are built strong enough to handle 200 pounds swinging around on top of it. Many of the 'lightweight' components and frames that you find on bikes these days will have a very short lifespan if you weigh a bit more than 200 pounds. -- Westie -He who can be a Clydesdale one day, a thoroughbred the next- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Clydesdale Riding<-- What's that???
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:42:18 +1200, "Westie"
wrote: If you weigh in at 200 pounds or more, you are affectionately referred to as being a 'Clydesdale' (And if by some chance you don't know what a Clydesdale is, it is a very large solid breed of horse). Consequently it helps if, amongst other things, your rims are built strong enough to handle 200 pounds swinging around on top of it. Many of the 'lightweight' components and frames that you find on bikes these days will have a very short lifespan if you weigh a bit more than 200 pounds. It also helps if you can ride. G A Clydesdale is a 200+ pound person who can hold his own on the trail or road. A 200+ pound person who can't ride well is simply a "fat guy on a bike". Barry (6'1" 230) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Clydesdale Riding<-- What's that???
"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." wrote: [snip] It also helps if you can ride. G A Clydesdale is a 200+ pound person who can hold his own on the trail Sounds a bit risky to me however much you weigh. Good trick though :-) Phil (225 lb 6'1) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Clydesdale Riding<-- What's that???
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Clydesdale Riding<-- What's that???
"Technician" wrote in message
. .. Sure, for somebody that is 5', 200 lbs would be on the fat side. but for 6'3", 200 lbs is on the underweight side. -- ~Travis He's done it again. -- Craig (6'2" and 175 lbs) Brossman, Durango Colorado (remove .nospam. if replying) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Clydesdale Riding<-- What's that???
"Technician" wrote in message ... Sure, for somebody that is 5', 200 lbs would be on the fat side. but for 6'3", 200 lbs is on the underweight side. -- ~Travis He's done it again. He should check out: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/bmi_tbl.htm Let's see: 6'3", 200# yields a BMI of 25, just over the line into "overweight". To be "underweight" at that height would be 148 lbs or less. Cheers, -Andrew "needs to drop a few himself" Thorne |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Clydesdale Riding<-- What's that???
On 08 Jul 2003 16:58:43 GMT, Andrew Thorne
wrote: "Technician" wrote in message . .. Sure, for somebody that is 5', 200 lbs would be on the fat side. but for 6'3", 200 lbs is on the underweight side. -- ~Travis He's done it again. He should check out: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/bmi_tbl.htm Let's see: 6'3", 200# yields a BMI of 25, just over the line into "overweight". To be "underweight" at that height would be 148 lbs or less. Cheers, -Andrew "needs to drop a few himself" Thorne But BMI is BS. It's based on a mythical person. I've ALWAYS been overweight as per BMI. The lowest I've weighed since high school is about 165, which is about 25 and overweight as per BMI. Buy my thighs are 22+ inches in circumference, my chest about 50 inches in circumference, and my arms about 13.5 inches (unflexed) in circumference. I was a bodybuilder when I was younger, and I'm still built even though I don't lift weights now due to injuries. BMI doesn't take muscle mass into account. How could you be a male at 6'3" and be 148 pounds? That's freaking obscenely thin! They need to put some data for normal, more muscular people in here. -- Bob M in CT Remove 'x.' to reply |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Clydesdale Riding<-- What's that???
ospam (Andrew Thorne) spake thusly on or about Tue,
8 Jul 2003 16:58:43 UTC - Let's see: 6'3", 200# yields a BMI of 25, just over the line into "overweight". - To be "underweight" at that height would be 148 lbs or less. - - bmi is mostly a crap measure based on couch potatos; it does not take lean body mass into account. as long as you do not apply bmi to active athletic folks it might be worth something. -- I hurt before the ride so fibro gives me a head start on the rest of the pack. silver lining? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Frame Material for a Clydesdale | Brian Nelson | General | 3 | November 6th 03 09:23 PM |
Wheels for a clydesdale | Lowell Nelson | General | 11 | August 4th 03 02:10 PM |