Eric F 

Cyclists of the GC/climber variety generally have minimal upper body mass. This is intentional. Upper mass is extra weight to carry that does not make a meaningful contribution to powering the bike.

10 Wheels

Wiggens

terrymorse 

Height: 190 cm
Weight: 69 kg
BMI: 19.1 (healthy)

Maelochs

On the other hand, anyone who is even close to honest and rational can see that they are incredibly thin.

Riders during the season--particularly climbers, or GC contenders ---have Exceedingly low fat and store almost no energy. They have almost no insulation. They need to eat constantly. They are so close to the edge of what is sustainable that they are in fact Not very healthy---though they are very athletic.

It is a tough and very uncompromising life.

Saying they are "healthy" because of some generalized standard ..... and in fact, BMI does not apply to a Lot of the sports-oriented population. I'd imagine body-builders pre-competition, with 5% body fat, would fall into the "Morbidly Obese" category.

No dude. They Are Exceedingly Thin. They trim not just fat but every gram of unused muscle off their bodies. They carry nothing more than what gets them up that hill ... they are extremely highly specialized. it is not that they "look" thin. They are nearly emaciated.

They are so lean because they train to be so lean. Serious GC contenders Try to lose fat and muscle anywhere it doesn't help them win races. By the way ... a long-distance swimmer who trains that much might have 25 BMI ... because fatt aids buoyancy, provides fuel, and provides insulation.

"According to Knechtle, women are better at fat burning over longer distances than men. He averaged that women marathon swimmers have between 30.7 and 31.3% of body fat, while men have between 18.8-20.2%. The higher the fat percentage, the better the buoyancy and insulation against cold water." (https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.co...thon-swimming/)

surak

While they definitely are on the skinny side for humans, they're nowhere near animals who actually need to eat constantly like sea otters. Pros need to eat constantly because they're expending a lot of energy competing in races and carbs are a much quicker source of energy. They've still got plenty of body fat to burn as fuel to complement that carb intake, and they're exceptionally efficient at burning that fat as their bodies have adapted from all the riding they do. If they weren't racing, the average pro has enough body fat to survive for probably 2 weeks at least without eating (I've seen estimates of 6% body fat at the low end of the spectrum) even with moderate exercise. They aren't going to keel over instantly if they miss a meal, they'd just be hangry (there are lots of stories of pros going through wild mood swings when deep into a stage race) and uncompetitive.

Heck, when I started bike commuting regularly without consciously increasing my regular calorie intake, I dropped 10 lbs over ~4 months and my BMI was 19. I never felt anything worse than a little hungry and tired, and only after long efforts.

Maelochs

Six percent body fat is about as low as competing body-builders ... about as low as it gets. There is no way they have fat to burn for two weeks ... the body starts eating muscle when it is starving, and they have leg muscle ... but you look at that picture of Bradley Wiggins and tell me he isn't extremely thin. Go ahead.

Much less fat intake and the body lacks lipids to build the myelin sheaths around the nerves, which is why (according to a couple sources, not experience) body-builders in the couple days before competition can be really cranky---their nerves are short-circuiting because the insulation is worn.

Whatever. You keep thinking BMI is what determines health.

And keep explaining that those marathon swimmers with 20+ percent body fat are not as healthy.

seypat

All you had to do to determine how a body build affects a particular discipline is to watch one of the many college conference track and field outdoor championships that were going on this weekend. Horses for courses. You don't see any skinny runts out there putting the shot. Nor do you see any big bulky people running distance. It's a Captain Obvious moment. The commentators on one I was watching said that if you polled all of the competitiors on which were the hardest races, they would say the 2 or 3 events that transition between the pure sprints and the distance events. Most if not all of the competitors were doing multiple races within their disciplines. A lot of times, they would finish one event and head off to do another within the next 30 minutes to an hour.

Those are about as well conditioned of an athlete as you'll see, at least relative to the disciplines they are doing.

phrantic09

I don’t get the obsession with BMI. Every year I get my physical my PCP mentions how I’m close to overweight despite my 12% body fat being much lower than many with a lower BMI.

At some point, we have to use our eyes no?

surak

Straw-man much? You'll have to show where I wrote any of what you think you're refuting. I was disagreeing with your statement that they're unhealthily thin and will keel over if they don't eat, just because they have low body fat percentage. A pro burns an estimated 7000 kCals in one grand tour stage, and they burn part of their ample fat stores along with carbs, period.

genejockey 

And/or our brains. But BMI is easily calculated from two easily-measured numbers and it allows people to be segregated into discrete categories, which makes things so much simpler than the multidimensional spectra that Nature actually provides.

Sy Reene

BMI doesn't seem to address distribution of the weight. If a lot of it is disproportionately sitting in the thighs and legs , does it count toward 'healthy' or 'unhealthy' biases?

Maelochs

So ... parts of the riders are exceedingly healthy while other parts are exceedingly unhealthy .... makes as much sense ......