52x36 vs 50x34
08-30-19, 01:07 PM
#77
Senior Member
Yeah, I've no idea what the ideal would be, they just report on what is. I routinely see folks on bikes that are $10K+ and could stand to lose 30 or more pounds. My bikes are nowhere near that price point, but I'd be doing amazing if I dropped 20. Though in defense of my relative fatness, two doctors have basically said my current weight is a "non issue," despite a BMI of 26.7. I think they're concerned much more with what's going on in the blood.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29482851
For example, my BMI is squarely in the normal range. BMI is a formula of weight compared to height.
But when I started cycling my WHR was 0.94. This is measuring the circumference of widest part of your waist without sucking in, so let it all hang out, and divide it by the circumference at the widest part of your hips. To be classified as "normal" it needs to be 0.90 or lower. In the 3 months I've been cycling, my WHR is down to 0.915 (lost about 3/4" off the waistline), but I weigh exactly the same due to I'm going to guess adding muscles in my legs. So my BMI would be the same but WHR is improving.
08-30-19, 02:59 PM
#78
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 8,473
Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1743 Post(s)
Liked 1,279 Times
in
739 Posts
09-02-19, 12:55 PM
#79
Senior Member
I come from a 53x39 on a 1988 LeMond that I had updated with Chorus components, to a new Ti bike that came with a compact crank, I really disliked the compact crank. It seems when shifting the 53x39 when the terrain warranted it, was just fine. With the 50x34 I would almost always have to shift the rear too. Just recently I changed out the whole crank, going from a 172.5 to 175 at the same time going from 50x34 to 52x36. Couldn't be happier. We have lots of mountains here in Albuquerque, so I use 'them all'.
A note on crank length. The LeMond had 175's also. I read up a lot of 'advise' on crank length and found three different calculators that for me suggested anywhere from 165 to 180's. Go figure. I do think with the 172.5 I had no knee pain, and with the 175's a slight amount. NOTE: I am concerned about it and watching it.
09-02-19, 01:03 PM
#80
Senior Member
But waist-hip ratio has replaced BMI as a better indicator of health and as a predictor of the likelihood of cardiac event. . . . But when I started cycling my WHR was 0.94. This is measuring the circumference of widest part of your waist without sucking in, so let it all hang out, and divide it by the circumference at the widest part of your hips. To be classified as "normal" it needs to be 0.90 or lower. In the 3 months I've been cycling, my WHR is down to 0.915 (lost about 3/4" off the waistline), but I weigh exactly the same due to I'm going to guess adding muscles in my legs. So my BMI would be the same but WHR is improving.
Last edited by phillman5; 09-02-19 at 01:06 PM.
09-02-19, 03:45 PM
#81
Senior Member
Hmm, interesting, never heard of WHR. Is that your 'waist' or the largest part of your belly? Now after a several year hiatus from cycling and adding up to 40 lbs and a 1.0 WHR, its been keeping the pants up, they keep sliding right off my butt as I work around the yard, definitely have to wear a tight belt.
It can be a depressing number, when I first started tracking WHR and cycling I wore size 32 jeans...but my waist was 35.5, which when taken as a ratio to my hips which measure 38, made my WHR .934. So while I was in the "normal" BMI range, WHR said I was in the overweight range. In just six weeks I've managed to take my waist down to 34.5 (I likely could have made bigger gains but I do love food) but only recently have I lost a couple of pounds. The first 0.5" that I lost, I was the same weight (presumably because I was converting fat to muscle). So you can already see the problem with BMI. I lost a half-inch off my waist but my BMI number wouldn't have changed at all.
0.9 WHR would be 34.2...but looking down at my current 34.5 waist...I wouldn't be happy with that. I'm going to aim for 33.
09-03-19, 07:38 AM
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: VA
Posts: 1,437
Bikes: SuperSix Evo | Revolt
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 733 Post(s)
Liked 815 Times
in
414 Posts
My road bike is 52/36 (11-28 out back), my gravel bike is 48/32 (11-36). Have no problems doing fast road rides on the gravel bike, def climbs better, but just a touch more topend would be nice. It spins out around 35mph, would be nice to be able to push a lil more on the backside of rollers, on big descents I'm rolling 40+ anyway so there's no need to pedal. On my new road bike build, I opted for a compact, and will run 11-34 out back, should give me plenty of gear for climbing and still enough topend.
09-03-19, 08:26 AM
#83
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,753
Bikes: 1986 KHS Fiero, 1989 Trek 950, 1990 Trek 7000, 1991 Gary Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo, 1992 Trek 1400, 1997 Cannondale CAD2 R300, 1998 Cannondale CAD2 R200, 2002 Marin San Rafael, 2006 Cannondale CAAD8 R1000, 2010 Performance Access XCL9R
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 284 Post(s)
Liked 385 Times
in
207 Posts
Bloodwork is undoubtedly important. But waist-hip ratio has replaced BMI as a better indicator of health and as a predictor of the likelihood of cardiac event:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29482851
For example, my BMI is squarely in the normal range. BMI is a formula of weight compared to height.
But when I started cycling my WHR was 0.94. This is measuring the circumference of widest part of your waist without sucking in, so let it all hang out, and divide it by the circumference at the widest part of your hips. To be classified as "normal" it needs to be 0.90 or lower. In the 3 months I've been cycling, my WHR is down to 0.915 (lost about 3/4" off the waistline), but I weigh exactly the same due to I'm going to guess adding muscles in my legs. So my BMI would be the same but WHR is improving.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29482851
For example, my BMI is squarely in the normal range. BMI is a formula of weight compared to height.
But when I started cycling my WHR was 0.94. This is measuring the circumference of widest part of your waist without sucking in, so let it all hang out, and divide it by the circumference at the widest part of your hips. To be classified as "normal" it needs to be 0.90 or lower. In the 3 months I've been cycling, my WHR is down to 0.915 (lost about 3/4" off the waistline), but I weigh exactly the same due to I'm going to guess adding muscles in my legs. So my BMI would be the same but WHR is improving.
Likes For zjrog:
09-03-19, 08:29 AM
#84
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,753
Bikes: 1986 KHS Fiero, 1989 Trek 950, 1990 Trek 7000, 1991 Gary Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo, 1992 Trek 1400, 1997 Cannondale CAD2 R300, 1998 Cannondale CAD2 R200, 2002 Marin San Rafael, 2006 Cannondale CAAD8 R1000, 2010 Performance Access XCL9R
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 284 Post(s)
Liked 385 Times
in
207 Posts
No sir, I can't imagine anyone saying you're fat. I too have shrunk. 6'3" down to a bit over 6'1"... Bad knees, broken back, all the weight I used to carry around all conspired to shrink me...
09-03-19, 09:48 AM
#85
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 8,473
Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1743 Post(s)
Liked 1,279 Times
in
739 Posts
I lost my 'height thanks to a lower back problem, age and a broken neck as a result of a bike crash. Had C1 & C2 fused. If only I had lost the weight to go with it.
09-03-19, 09:48 AM
#86
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Québec, Canada
Posts: 2,107
Bikes: SL8 Pro, TCR beater
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked 579 Times
in
437 Posts
After switching from a 50/34 to 52/36 last week, I can confirm that the difference is noticeable, especially when climbing. Evidently, it's no big surprise.
I got used to it pretty quickly however. My lowest gear feels more like my other bike's second or third lowest one. I had to adapt to keep a steady climb.
I got used to it pretty quickly however. My lowest gear feels more like my other bike's second or third lowest one. I had to adapt to keep a steady climb.
Last edited by eduskator; 09-03-19 at 09:56 AM.
09-03-19, 01:49 PM
#87
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked 412 Times
in
230 Posts
Hmm, interesting, never heard of WHR. Is that your 'waist' or the largest part of your belly? Now after a several year hiatus from cycling and adding up to 40 lbs and a 1.0 WHR, its been keeping the pants up, they keep sliding right off my butt as I work around the yard, definitely have to wear a tight belt.
09-03-19, 02:04 PM
#88
Senior Member
Thread Starter
OP, correct me if I am wrong, but I read original post "bottom 3 gears" that you don't use the largest three rear gears. Then with a 52x36 would start to use at least the 3rd from largest.
I come from a 53x39 on a 1988 LeMond that I had updated with Chorus components, to a new Ti bike that came with a compact crank, I really disliked the compact crank. It seems when shifting the 53x39 when the terrain warranted it, was just fine. With the 50x34 I would almost always have to shift the rear too. Just recently I changed out the whole crank, going from a 172.5 to 175 at the same time going from 50x34 to 52x36. Couldn't be happier. We have lots of mountains here in Albuquerque, so I use 'them all'.
A note on crank length. The LeMond had 175's also. I read up a lot of 'advise' on crank length and found three different calculators that for me suggested anywhere from 165 to 180's. Go figure. I do think with the 172.5 I had no knee pain, and with the 175's a slight amount. NOTE: I am concerned about it and watching it.
I come from a 53x39 on a 1988 LeMond that I had updated with Chorus components, to a new Ti bike that came with a compact crank, I really disliked the compact crank. It seems when shifting the 53x39 when the terrain warranted it, was just fine. With the 50x34 I would almost always have to shift the rear too. Just recently I changed out the whole crank, going from a 172.5 to 175 at the same time going from 50x34 to 52x36. Couldn't be happier. We have lots of mountains here in Albuquerque, so I use 'them all'.
A note on crank length. The LeMond had 175's also. I read up a lot of 'advise' on crank length and found three different calculators that for me suggested anywhere from 165 to 180's. Go figure. I do think with the 172.5 I had no knee pain, and with the 175's a slight amount. NOTE: I am concerned about it and watching it.
09-04-19, 12:00 AM
#89
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Redmond, WA & Bangkok, Thailand
Posts: 565
Bikes: 1999 Giant ATX MTB, 2002 Lemond Zurich, 2018 Fuji Transonic 2.3, 2019 Specialized Tarmac Disc Expert
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 170 Post(s)
Liked 391 Times
in
226 Posts
I had a 52/42/30 on my 2002 LeMond Zurich. It seemed a lot of people were using triples back then. It's a 9 speed. On the back had a 12-25. Rarely used the 30 but nice to know I had it. When my rear cassette needed replacing I went to a 12-28 which was really nice.
This year I upgraded to a carbon fiber frame bike 52/36 up front and an 11-30 in the back. Typical new 11 speed. It's really nice and I climbed quite a few long hills in the mountains near where I live including a couple of centuries.
I'm 5'10" and was rolling at 208. Spent the winter in Thailand riding my road bike almost everyday. I dropped 23 pounds while there from all the riding. Have gained some back but am currently weighing in at 190-195 on most days. Most of my riding is done between 18-20mph. Of course hills and wind can change that. Just hit the big 60 in July. Almost 40 years ago and 50 less pounds I ran a 4:09 mile, low 14 5000, and barely a sub 30 10000. Never did marathons though.
This year I upgraded to a carbon fiber frame bike 52/36 up front and an 11-30 in the back. Typical new 11 speed. It's really nice and I climbed quite a few long hills in the mountains near where I live including a couple of centuries.
I'm 5'10" and was rolling at 208. Spent the winter in Thailand riding my road bike almost everyday. I dropped 23 pounds while there from all the riding. Have gained some back but am currently weighing in at 190-195 on most days. Most of my riding is done between 18-20mph. Of course hills and wind can change that. Just hit the big 60 in July. Almost 40 years ago and 50 less pounds I ran a 4:09 mile, low 14 5000, and barely a sub 30 10000. Never did marathons though.
09-04-19, 08:06 AM
#90
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,753
Bikes: 1986 KHS Fiero, 1989 Trek 950, 1990 Trek 7000, 1991 Gary Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo, 1992 Trek 1400, 1997 Cannondale CAD2 R300, 1998 Cannondale CAD2 R200, 2002 Marin San Rafael, 2006 Cannondale CAAD8 R1000, 2010 Performance Access XCL9R
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 284 Post(s)
Liked 385 Times
in
207 Posts
I'm going to try an experiment this weekend. My local unofficial cycling club has a .5 mile section they use as a "challenge" My best time so far is 42 seconds, someone has screamed through there in only 25...
My best time is on my old steel bike with 50/34 and 12-30 cassette, at 25 pounds, 1 ounce. I will ride my CAAD8 through the same section, 52/39 and 12-32, at 18 pounds 5 ounces.... I might even drop the 11-27 cassette in place for this test.
If I felt truly strong and silly, I could scream through on my 29er... Can't believe I don't know the crankset on that. I think it's running a 12-34 9 speed cassette. Might be interesting to see how it does...
My best time is on my old steel bike with 50/34 and 12-30 cassette, at 25 pounds, 1 ounce. I will ride my CAAD8 through the same section, 52/39 and 12-32, at 18 pounds 5 ounces.... I might even drop the 11-27 cassette in place for this test.
If I felt truly strong and silly, I could scream through on my 29er... Can't believe I don't know the crankset on that. I think it's running a 12-34 9 speed cassette. Might be interesting to see how it does...
Likes For zjrog:
09-04-19, 09:36 AM
#91
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,935
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3942 Post(s)
Liked 7,279 Times
in
2,940 Posts
0.5 miles in 42 seconds is 43 mph.
0.5 miles in 25 seconds is 72 mph.
09-04-19, 10:03 AM
#92
Senior Member
Likes For CarloM:
09-04-19, 02:39 PM
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,753
Bikes: 1986 KHS Fiero, 1989 Trek 950, 1990 Trek 7000, 1991 Gary Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo, 1992 Trek 1400, 1997 Cannondale CAD2 R300, 1998 Cannondale CAD2 R200, 2002 Marin San Rafael, 2006 Cannondale CAAD8 R1000, 2010 Performance Access XCL9R
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 284 Post(s)
Liked 385 Times
in
207 Posts
09-04-19, 08:12 PM
#95
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,753
Bikes: 1986 KHS Fiero, 1989 Trek 950, 1990 Trek 7000, 1991 Gary Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo, 1992 Trek 1400, 1997 Cannondale CAD2 R300, 1998 Cannondale CAD2 R200, 2002 Marin San Rafael, 2006 Cannondale CAAD8 R1000, 2010 Performance Access XCL9R
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 284 Post(s)
Liked 385 Times
in
207 Posts
09-04-19, 08:23 PM
#96
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,935
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3942 Post(s)
Liked 7,279 Times
in
2,940 Posts
09-04-19, 10:06 PM
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,753
Bikes: 1986 KHS Fiero, 1989 Trek 950, 1990 Trek 7000, 1991 Gary Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo, 1992 Trek 1400, 1997 Cannondale CAD2 R300, 1998 Cannondale CAD2 R200, 2002 Marin San Rafael, 2006 Cannondale CAAD8 R1000, 2010 Performance Access XCL9R
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 284 Post(s)
Liked 385 Times
in
207 Posts
09-05-19, 08:17 AM
#99
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked 325 Times
in
204 Posts
I doubt any of these guys are over 5'9".
My 5'9" friend who was competing at roughly 220 (and thus typically walking around at 230)
Me at 5'8" and ~185 walking around weight:
People tend to gravitate to what they are good at. Thick, big boned, mesomorphs, the kind of people you don't see doing endurance sports like cycling, can easily be 5'9" and 200 without being fat.
09-06-19, 11:28 AM
#100
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 8,473
Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1743 Post(s)
Liked 1,279 Times
in
739 Posts
This is why I ignore BMI. Can you imagine telling an NFL running back at 5'9" and 230 lbs that he's obese?
Last edited by bruce19; 09-06-19 at 11:34 AM.
