rider weight

I’m just short of 15 stone,
I’m just short of 15 stone, 5’10”
Bloody hard work going up the hills……but 47mph last week coming down….always a silver lining 😀

PurpleDog wrote:Surely

PurpleDog wrote:

Surely there’s a flaw in equating height (in one dimension) with weight (three dimensions)?

If you took, say, Froome and shrunk him by, say, 5%, his weight would drop by around 14% as you’d be reducing height, width and depth (front to back) and he would have 14% less volume to weigh.

This weight per inch of height ignores the three-dimensionality of the rider. The only way it would work as advertised is if cyclists have a consistent width and depth, and all that changes between one and another is height – then you’re changing one dimension only between different riders and a obe-dimensional relationship between height and weight would work. Otherwise, it makes no sense whatsoever!

This, also that guys blog article is essentially BMI under a veil.
(Uses the same two inputs, though manipulated in a different way)

Surely there’s a flaw in
Surely there’s a flaw in equating height (in one dimension) with weight (three dimensions)?

If you took, say, Froome and shrunk him by, say, 5%, his weight would drop by around 14% as you’d be reducing height, width and depth (front to back) and he would have 14% less volume to weigh.

This weight per inch of height ignores the three-dimensionality of the rider. The only way it would work as advertised is if cyclists have a consistent width and depth, and all that changes between one and another is height – then you’re changing one dimension only between different riders and a obe-dimensional relationship between height and weight would work. Otherwise, it makes no sense whatsoever!

1.9 But I’m already eating
1.9 🙁 But I’m already eating as much as I can!

Yeah the weight training is
Yeah the weight training is just a habit I’ve formed over the years, it’s not specifically there to improve my riding. The only cycling related bits are core training and various leg exercises that I use to try and strengthen specific parts like my problem knees. Plus you have to look good with your shirt off right 😀

Hmm, that’s actually vaguely
Hmm, that’s actually vaguely concerning reading, my ratio on that measure is 2.04. I don’t think I’m remotely underweight and it’s not like I’m a weakling, I’m in the gym 4+ times a week doing strength training on top of my weekend cycling.

I’ll have a look at some of the turbo trainer stuff – I was thinking about getting one for the winter anyway – I just need to find a good argument I can put to the missus for allowing my bike in the house…

sergius wrote:Random comment,

sergius wrote:

Random comment, is there anyway to measure or rather calculate your power output roughly, without going to the expense of a power meter?

Obviously it would be a rough guideline, but it’s something I’d be interested in calculating and recording over time (deltas even if absolute values aren’t spot on).

You can get a rough estimate by signing up to trainer road and using their FTP test and estimated power data with your turbo trainer. You’ll need an ant+ Speed / cadence sensor and USB dongle also (And pbviously a turbo trainer!). I found it very accurate and it was only roughly 6 watts below what Power tap told me on the same test.

IMO this is a brilliant tool for indoor training and a great introduction to training with power data without the expense. Can’t recommend it enough, it’s completely revolutionised my winter training.

Edited to add: Giobox got there first!