Is it time to update the weight requirements for this forum?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
Is it time to update the weight requirements for this forum?
The average American man weighs 195.7 pounds and the average American woman is 168.5 pounds, according to the CDC. Clydesdales are supposed to be above average, the big and the strong.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm
#2
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,604
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10947 Post(s)
Liked 7,473 Times
in
4,181 Posts
Ha, I've always thought 200# was a low bar for men.
I accept I am a Clyde for life as at 6'5 I can't imagine being under 200 and will always view myself as 'big'.
But I guess in this sport/activity, 200# is high if you come at it from a competitive perspective.
I accept I am a Clyde for life as at 6'5 I can't imagine being under 200 and will always view myself as 'big'.
But I guess in this sport/activity, 200# is high if you come at it from a competitive perspective.
#3
Senior Member
Over 6' and over 65, 230 is the new 190... comfort/endurance/gravel bikes with 28 tires is the industry's response.
#4
Non omnino gravis
Barring a degenerative disease, I don't see my weight getting under 200lbs. Even if I keep shrinking, I think I'm gonna successfully stay above 6 foot-- I'm down to around 6'1 3/4" from a previous high of 6'2", so I'm feelin' alright about that.
My height and weight aside, as long as those genetically gifted jerks that are 5'10" and weigh 140lbs are out there hoovering up KOMs, I will continue to fall back on the fact that I am a big ol' freight train of a man, and I'll never be fast up hills.
Two hundred pounds might not be a high target for the typical inactive American, but for a cyclist, it's pretty big. Pretty damn big.
My height and weight aside, as long as those genetically gifted jerks that are 5'10" and weigh 140lbs are out there hoovering up KOMs, I will continue to fall back on the fact that I am a big ol' freight train of a man, and I'll never be fast up hills.
Two hundred pounds might not be a high target for the typical inactive American, but for a cyclist, it's pretty big. Pretty damn big.
#5
Senior Member
No because it also shows the average male is 5'9" (I don't think that's accurate, I think it's lower). At 195 and 5'9" by definition that is overweight and close to moderately obese.
So why update the weight on this forum?
So why update the weight on this forum?
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Center of Central CA
Posts: 1,582
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 897 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
For the same reason that 32 waist shorts are really 34", so that people can feeeeel better.
Anyone else old enough to remember "Husky" sized jeans?
Anyone else old enough to remember "Husky" sized jeans?
#7
Occam's Rotor
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times
in
1,164 Posts
WTF:
So I am pretty much spot on average for the first two, but my waist circumference is 34, and pretty much all my body fat is around my waist (the worst place, fwiw). So something is wrong with this picture.
Men:
Height in inches: 69.2 (5.75 ft., or 5 ft 9")
Weight in pounds: 195.7
Waist circumference in inches: 40.0* (101.5 centimeters)
Height in inches: 69.2 (5.75 ft., or 5 ft 9")
Weight in pounds: 195.7
Waist circumference in inches: 40.0* (101.5 centimeters)
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Salt Lake City, UT (Formerly Los Angeles, CA)
Posts: 1,145
Bikes: 2008 Cannondale Synapse -- 2014 Cannondale Quick CX
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 212 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 83 Times
in
54 Posts
The average American man weighs 195.7 pounds and the average American woman is 168.5 pounds, according to the CDC. Clydesdales are supposed to be above average, the big and the strong.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm
I was 212 in April. In August I'm now 194. The goal is to keep easing my way down toward the 180s as long as it feels right.
The concept is simple, and the implementation is hard but thoroughly enjoyable:
- Step 1: Ride 4-5 days a week, 15-60 miles, targeting over 100 for the week (typically around 120 now).
- Step 2: Eat when I'm hungry, until I'm full. Don't eat when I'm not hungry, or when I'm bored.
People mention the difference. I state I've been cycling. They nod as if it's a foregone conclusion that getting onto a bike here and there will shed pounds. That assumption is not recognizing that it's not a few miles here and there a couple times a week; it's a commitment to hit that 100+ and 4-5x/week threshold consistently. As for my eating, I eat whatever I want when I'm eating a full meal, and in whatever quantity I want. But I eat full meals when I need them, and stay away from other times.
#9
Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#10
Senior Member
I am 6'3"
I was 212 in April. In August I'm now 194. The goal is to keep easing my way down toward the 180s as long as it feels right.
The concept is simple, and the implementation is hard but thoroughly enjoyable:
I was 212 in April. In August I'm now 194. The goal is to keep easing my way down toward the 180s as long as it feels right.
The concept is simple, and the implementation is hard but thoroughly enjoyable:
- Step 1: Ride 4-5 days a week, 15-60 miles, targeting over 100 for the week (typically around 120 now).
- Step 2: Eat when I'm hungry, until I'm full. Don't eat when I'm not hungry, or when I'm bored.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Brodhead, WI - south of Madison
Posts: 2,928
Bikes: 2009 Trek 1.2
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
1 Post
The concept is simple, and the implementation is hard but thoroughly enjoyable:
- Step 1: Ride 4-5 days a week, 15-60 miles, targeting over 100 for the week (typically around 120 now).
- Step 2: Eat when I'm hungry, until I'm full. Don't eat when I'm not hungry, or when I'm bored.
Last few weeks I haven't been as diligent, and put on a couple of pounds, but I've just about dropped them again.
And my legs ... holy crap ... I don't think my legs have ever been this lean.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Iowa
Posts: 239
Bikes: Fuji Gran Fondo 2.1 and Scott Sportster P45
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
If you think the standards should be reset, look at new wheel sets and rider weight recommendations.
#13
Senior Member
Oh sure.... making people feel like they don't belong here is just the perfect way to treat people who might have body image issues.
"Sorry dude, you can't be here, you are not fat enough."
"Sorry dude, you can't be here, you are not fat enough."
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Up
Posts: 4,695
Bikes: Masi, Giant TCR, Eisentraut (retired), Jamis Aurora Elite, Zullo, Cannondale, 84 & 93 Stumpjumpers, Waterford, Tern D8, Bianchi, Gunner Roadie, Serotta, Serotta Duette, was gifted a Diamond Back
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked 2,038 Times
in
604 Posts
#15
Super Modest
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 23,460
Bikes: Trek Emonda, Giant Propel, Colnago V3, Co-Motion Supremo, ICE VTX WC
Mentioned: 107 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10961 Post(s)
Liked 4,616 Times
in
2,120 Posts
#16
☢
I am 6'3"
I was 212 in April. In August I'm now 194. The goal is to keep easing my way down toward the 180s as long as it feels right.
The concept is simple, and the implementation is hard but thoroughly enjoyable:
People mention the difference. I state I've been cycling. They nod as if it's a foregone conclusion that getting onto a bike here and there will shed pounds. That assumption is not recognizing that it's not a few miles here and there a couple times a week; it's a commitment to hit that 100+ and 4-5x/week threshold consistently. As for my eating, I eat whatever I want when I'm eating a full meal, and in whatever quantity I want. But I eat full meals when I need them, and stay away from other times.
I was 212 in April. In August I'm now 194. The goal is to keep easing my way down toward the 180s as long as it feels right.
The concept is simple, and the implementation is hard but thoroughly enjoyable:
- Step 1: Ride 4-5 days a week, 15-60 miles, targeting over 100 for the week (typically around 120 now).
- Step 2: Eat when I'm hungry, until I'm full. Don't eat when I'm not hungry, or when I'm bored.
People mention the difference. I state I've been cycling. They nod as if it's a foregone conclusion that getting onto a bike here and there will shed pounds. That assumption is not recognizing that it's not a few miles here and there a couple times a week; it's a commitment to hit that 100+ and 4-5x/week threshold consistently. As for my eating, I eat whatever I want when I'm eating a full meal, and in whatever quantity I want. But I eat full meals when I need them, and stay away from other times.
One more thing, that scale is dubious. What type of "average" does it refer to?
#17
Senior Member
Works for me. Why does diet need to be more complicated than eat when hungary, stop when not. I'm not saying wait until you"re ravenous, then gorge irresponsibly. Just get a feel for initial hunger and nip in the bud, then stop.
#18
☢
The problem with hunger feeding is that it can be triggered by many things. Like Pavlov's dogs for example. And some people just see food or others eating and feel hunger. Even smells can often times trigger what we feel is hunger or the desire to eat.
Anyway, the problem for the majority of the population that rely on hunger as a feeding mechanism is the delayed response: by the time they feel satiated, they've already overeaten.
#19
Occam's Rotor
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times
in
1,164 Posts
Just read this in The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rweight-people
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rweight-people
So here’s the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According to government figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. But in 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when they’re included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures.
#20
☢
Also, this caught my attention.
The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his film The Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use of subliminal scents.
They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance. The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims
They hire biddable scientists and thinktanks to confuse us about the causes of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is a question of “personal responsibility”. After spending billions on overriding our willpower, they blame us for failing to exercise it.
Thanks for reading.
#21
minimalist cyclist
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,745
Bikes: yes please
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1119 Post(s)
Liked 1,639 Times
in
943 Posts
Yep, and I remember jeans before they were all stone washed. I'm pretty weird in a lot of ways, and one is I always loved the smell of brand new denim and I'm frugal enough to not want my jeans "pre-worn". I recently found some throwback jeans by Wrangler that are the exact style and brand of the husky sized jeans of my youth. Stiff as a board and I love 'um
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 'burque, holmes
Posts: 820
Bikes: Ridley X-Fire (now an ex-bicycle), Trek X-Cal, Giant Defy 3
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 17 Times
in
13 Posts
Honestly, my weight is sub-clyde now. I'm holding right around 13 stone, and have been since I gained 4-5 pounds back after losing 30+ in November in the accident
However, I'm 6'7. I think that makes me Cyldey! I have the wind resistance of HMS Victory!!
However, I'm 6'7. I think that makes me Cyldey! I have the wind resistance of HMS Victory!!
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Brodhead, WI - south of Madison
Posts: 2,928
Bikes: 2009 Trek 1.2
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
1 Post
I've never ... NEVER understood the mentality in this subforum of, "Your diet can't possibly be working because my diet says it shouldn't. You should be doing this and this and that instead."
If something is working for someone in terms of weight loss, why do others feel the need to interject? I know this is an open forum, but seriously ... if someone isn't ASKING for your opinion, there's no need to interject because you feel your brain is bigger.
To each their own, your mileage may vary, you do you and all that other assorted BS.
Sorry ... it touched a nerve today.
If something is working for someone in terms of weight loss, why do others feel the need to interject? I know this is an open forum, but seriously ... if someone isn't ASKING for your opinion, there's no need to interject because you feel your brain is bigger.
To each their own, your mileage may vary, you do you and all that other assorted BS.
Sorry ... it touched a nerve today.
#25
Senior Member
I've never ... NEVER understood the mentality in this subforum of, "Your diet can't possibly be working because my diet says it shouldn't. You should be doing this and this and that instead."
If something is working for someone in terms of weight loss, why do others feel the need to interject? I know this is an open forum, but seriously ... if someone isn't ASKING for your opinion, there's no need to interject because you feel your brain is bigger.
To each their own, your mileage may vary, you do you and all that other assorted BS.
Sorry ... it touched a nerve today.
If something is working for someone in terms of weight loss, why do others feel the need to interject? I know this is an open forum, but seriously ... if someone isn't ASKING for your opinion, there's no need to interject because you feel your brain is bigger.
To each their own, your mileage may vary, you do you and all that other assorted BS.
Sorry ... it touched a nerve today.
Misrepresenting it as The One True Way is the problem.