Half your body weight
11-25-15, 07:56 AM
#76
In Real Life
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 596 Times
in
329 Posts
But if you're carrying more than half your body weight, and if you feel like you're struggling to get up hills and/or manage everything, you might, perhaps, consider reducing the amount you're carrying to half your body weight or lower. However, if you're carrying more than half your body weight and you're managing just fine ... great!
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
11-25-15, 08:23 AM
#77
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Remember that my half-your-body-weight suggestion is a maximum. I wouldn't suggest bumping up to that number at all.
But if you're carrying more than half your body weight, and if you feel like you're struggling to get up hills and/or manage everything, you might, perhaps, consider reducing the amount you're carrying to half your body weight or lower. However, if you're carrying more than half your body weight and you're managing just fine ... great!
But if you're carrying more than half your body weight, and if you feel like you're struggling to get up hills and/or manage everything, you might, perhaps, consider reducing the amount you're carrying to half your body weight or lower. However, if you're carrying more than half your body weight and you're managing just fine ... great!
Essentially I'm saying that the suggestion doesn't really work because these things aren't linear. The big rider will not generally have the watts/kg of the smaller rider. So half body weight might work for the 150lb rider but will be impractical for the 250lb rider, however strong. And at the other end of the scale, it might be tough for a 100lb rider to keep the total load below 50lbs unless they're going ultralight - which, as we know, is unpopular.
People of different sizes need similar amounts of gear, and the difference in the weights of their bikes is marginal. Hence I'm saying that the half body weight recommendation is likely to be relevant only for middle-sized riders, and needs modifying if it's to be of general application.
But don't imagine I'm taking this too seriously. Half an hour to kill, that's all.
11-25-15, 08:43 AM
#78
Senior Member
Chasm, chuckle, exactly, not taking it too seriously is the best way, people do get riled up about details here sometimes.
But yes, I understand your point about that it is probably more applicable in real life to middling people weight wise.
As I've said in the past, I just found it neat that when I saw this rough rule of thumb, it really did apply to what I had figured out on my own nearly 25 years ago, ie with X lbs it was just a bit too hard all the time, brought my load weight down (and proper gearing) and it was just more enjoyable.
As you say, you get into power per kg thing, but I certainly recall meeting some guys who were fine touring with 60, 70 of 80 lbs of stuff and I could never imagine pushing that up hills. Mind you some of them had legs twice as thick as mine, so yes, lots of factors.
I still think it's a good rule of thumb to suggest to beginners:
Bike+load= no more than half your body weight.... But that they try it out and see how it goes.
But yes, I understand your point about that it is probably more applicable in real life to middling people weight wise.
As I've said in the past, I just found it neat that when I saw this rough rule of thumb, it really did apply to what I had figured out on my own nearly 25 years ago, ie with X lbs it was just a bit too hard all the time, brought my load weight down (and proper gearing) and it was just more enjoyable.
As you say, you get into power per kg thing, but I certainly recall meeting some guys who were fine touring with 60, 70 of 80 lbs of stuff and I could never imagine pushing that up hills. Mind you some of them had legs twice as thick as mine, so yes, lots of factors.
I still think it's a good rule of thumb to suggest to beginners:
Bike+load= no more than half your body weight.... But that they try it out and see how it goes.
11-25-15, 09:04 AM
#80
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I'd add an upper limit, though. We don't want some unsuspecting 400lb tourist to be misled into toting 120lbs up some Alp or other...
11-25-15, 11:17 PM
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,150
Bikes: 2013 Surly Disc Trucker, 2004 Novara Randonee , old fixie , etc
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 671 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 49 Times
in
43 Posts
Not sure about this. I agree it feels different, weight on the bike changes its handling and gives one a sense of hauling a load in a way that being fat does not. However, if in losing weight one retains one's power - which may be quite a big if - I think the physics of it would be the same. 20 pounds off my fat carcass would have as big an impact as shedding 20lbs of luggage, assuming the wind resistance of the panniers remained constant. And, of course, losing the weight off myself would mean I retained the advantage even when riding unloaded. Now that's an attractive prospect.
11-26-15, 04:12 PM
#83
In Real Life
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 596 Times
in
329 Posts
Things do not come inexpensively in Australia.
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
11-26-15, 05:23 PM
#84
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
That isn't objectively true, and it is even less true if a person is already doing something like long distance touring and still can't get their weight under control.
On the objective basis, reducing what one eats if it is already unhealthy food (as is generally the case with obesity, and even most "sensible" diets), leads to nutritional starvation, which just tweaks the desire to eat more. Healthy food generally is more expensive than unhealthy food, that is part of the reason that obesity is more of a problem in the underclass. McDonalds, which is getting slaughtered with competition from perceived healthy brands, like Sweetgreens, has just implemented the nuclear option of further lowering it's prices. Since the corn economy was implemented during the Nixon admin, the amount of time americans work to feed themselves has plummeted, while calories consumed have soared.
Of course healthy food can be extremely cheap if you juice your lawn, grow your own vegetables, or raise your own tofu. But the same is in the roots of ultralite gear, home sewn, and kits are still for sale today.
The majority of ways of saving gear weight are actually cheaper in several categories: 1) just not having some stuff, not buying it (or not bringing it); 2) Buying lighter stuff, so this may not actually be cheaper because of supply issues, but lighter materials or products are in most cases cheaper. Light nylon costs less than cordura, cordura costs less than ballistic, and waterproof heavy vinyls are often the most expensive. Bags made of silnylon are cheaper and lighter than waterproof bags used in boats and still airtight. Bag covers or liners are cheaper and lighter than Otliebs. Less pockets/dividers/zippers cost and weigh less than more pockets and dividers or zippers. Ponchos and leggings are cheaper (particularly when they were more popular) and lighter than technical jackets and pants.
One reason why we have Otliebs is because cordura packs don't seal from water well, particularly if they are penetrated with many zippers and pockets. But lighter pack cloths, are quite waterproof, and if delivered in roller type constructions would satisfy most wet uses. But fashion moved in the direction of very heavy panniers, and they ended up not being water proof, so we moved to even heavier fabrics that were able to sell the simpler designs. Designs that if we had just stuck with in lighter fabrics, none of this would have been necessary.
The only stupid expensive stuff is stuff like carbon frames, and the weight savings of maybe a pound or so, (touring or MTB weight carbon parts are not as light as racing parts) is not worth the expense and other limitations.
Of course one does have to eat anew every day, but one normally can go without buying new touring gear, so on that basis your point is well taken, but as far as necessary purchases are concerned cost of lightweight is not a major issue.
On the objective basis, reducing what one eats if it is already unhealthy food (as is generally the case with obesity, and even most "sensible" diets), leads to nutritional starvation, which just tweaks the desire to eat more. Healthy food generally is more expensive than unhealthy food, that is part of the reason that obesity is more of a problem in the underclass. McDonalds, which is getting slaughtered with competition from perceived healthy brands, like Sweetgreens, has just implemented the nuclear option of further lowering it's prices. Since the corn economy was implemented during the Nixon admin, the amount of time americans work to feed themselves has plummeted, while calories consumed have soared.
Of course healthy food can be extremely cheap if you juice your lawn, grow your own vegetables, or raise your own tofu. But the same is in the roots of ultralite gear, home sewn, and kits are still for sale today.
The majority of ways of saving gear weight are actually cheaper in several categories: 1) just not having some stuff, not buying it (or not bringing it); 2) Buying lighter stuff, so this may not actually be cheaper because of supply issues, but lighter materials or products are in most cases cheaper. Light nylon costs less than cordura, cordura costs less than ballistic, and waterproof heavy vinyls are often the most expensive. Bags made of silnylon are cheaper and lighter than waterproof bags used in boats and still airtight. Bag covers or liners are cheaper and lighter than Otliebs. Less pockets/dividers/zippers cost and weigh less than more pockets and dividers or zippers. Ponchos and leggings are cheaper (particularly when they were more popular) and lighter than technical jackets and pants.
One reason why we have Otliebs is because cordura packs don't seal from water well, particularly if they are penetrated with many zippers and pockets. But lighter pack cloths, are quite waterproof, and if delivered in roller type constructions would satisfy most wet uses. But fashion moved in the direction of very heavy panniers, and they ended up not being water proof, so we moved to even heavier fabrics that were able to sell the simpler designs. Designs that if we had just stuck with in lighter fabrics, none of this would have been necessary.
The only stupid expensive stuff is stuff like carbon frames, and the weight savings of maybe a pound or so, (touring or MTB weight carbon parts are not as light as racing parts) is not worth the expense and other limitations.
Of course one does have to eat anew every day, but one normally can go without buying new touring gear, so on that basis your point is well taken, but as far as necessary purchases are concerned cost of lightweight is not a major issue.
Last edited by MassiveD; 11-26-15 at 05:31 PM.
11-26-15, 06:17 PM
#85
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,150
Bikes: 2013 Surly Disc Trucker, 2004 Novara Randonee , old fixie , etc
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 671 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 49 Times
in
43 Posts
That isn't objectively true, and it is even less true if a person is already doing something like long distance touring and still can't get their weight under control.
On the objective basis, reducing what one eats if it is already unhealthy food (as is generally the case with obesity, and even most "sensible" diets), leads to nutritional starvation, which just tweaks the desire to eat more. Healthy food generally is more expensive than unhealthy food, that is part of the reason that obesity is more of a problem in the underclass. McDonalds, which is getting slaughtered with competition from perceived healthy brands, like Sweetgreens, has just implemented the nuclear option of further lowering it's prices. Since the corn economy was implemented during the Nixon admin, the amount of time americans work to feed themselves has plummeted, while calories consumed have soared.
Of course healthy food can be extremely cheap if you juice your lawn, grow your own vegetables, or raise your own tofu. But the same is in the roots of ultralite gear, home sewn, and kits are still for sale today.
On the objective basis, reducing what one eats if it is already unhealthy food (as is generally the case with obesity, and even most "sensible" diets), leads to nutritional starvation, which just tweaks the desire to eat more. Healthy food generally is more expensive than unhealthy food, that is part of the reason that obesity is more of a problem in the underclass. McDonalds, which is getting slaughtered with competition from perceived healthy brands, like Sweetgreens, has just implemented the nuclear option of further lowering it's prices. Since the corn economy was implemented during the Nixon admin, the amount of time americans work to feed themselves has plummeted, while calories consumed have soared.
Of course healthy food can be extremely cheap if you juice your lawn, grow your own vegetables, or raise your own tofu. But the same is in the roots of ultralite gear, home sewn, and kits are still for sale today.
