Cippo Posted December 27, 2012 Share Eg (75kg x 2.2) = 165 / 1.85 m = 89.18 * 39.37 = 3511.37. Is this the right answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheese Posted December 27, 2012 Share Eg (75kg x 2.2) = 165 / 1.85 m = 89.18 * 39.37 = 3511.37.Is this the right answer?No (75x2.2)/( 1.85x39.37)=2.26 Edited December 27, 2012 by Cheese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubehunter Posted December 27, 2012 Share I'm 2.38 Nice formula! Shot CoS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capeofstorms Posted December 27, 2012 Share I'm 2.38 Nice formula! Shot CoS! 2.38 is great man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpecialK Posted December 27, 2012 Share Does the same formula count for ladies? Cause than I'm doing well at 2.24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mads Posted December 27, 2012 Share I am 2.1.................... interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M L Posted December 27, 2012 Share Eg (75kg x 2.2) = 165 / 1.85 m = 89.18 * 39.37 = 3511.37. Is this the right answer?Exact same specs as me. Whats your body fat %? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubehunter Posted December 27, 2012 Share 2.38 is great man. Thanks! I'll live with that! Can't see a 12kg drop to 63kgs to get to a 2.0 happening...(Especially since I've started white collar boxing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mads Posted December 27, 2012 Share Exact same specs as me. Whats your body fat %? You are doiing it wrong (75*2.2)/(1.85*39.37) which gives you 2.2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaleE Posted December 27, 2012 Share Ummm, excuse my ignorance, but is this formula not just another expression of BMI? BMI is weight (kg) divided by height (meters) squared. This formula is = weight(kg) x 2.2 / height(m) * 39.37, ... but ... weight (kg) x 2.2 = weight in pounds, and ...height (m) x 39.37 = height in inches .... so ... the formula is really ... weight divided by height ... same as BMI, just in imperial form. Or have I missed something? Edited December 27, 2012 by DaleE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTB_Roadie Posted December 27, 2012 Share BMI is overrated. Big time. Weight and fat percentage is all you have to worry about. I agree! However, you cant be a bodybuilder and cycle, the two just dont correspond. My Bodyfat is currently 11%, I am 24 years old (turning 25 soon) and I am 1.84m tall. I currently weigh in at +-77kg.... I dont even look at my weight anymore, I just look at bodyfat and also muscle mass. According to the fomula I am 2.338...rounding to 2.34, I am quite a good climber though Edited December 27, 2012 by MTB_Roadie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capeofstorms Posted December 27, 2012 Share Ummm, excuse my ignorance, but is this formula not just another expression of BMI? BMI is weight (kg) divided by height (meters) squared. This formula is = weight(kg) x 2.2 / height(m) * 39.37, ... but ... weight (kg) x 2.2 = weight in pounds, and ...height (m) x 39.37 = height in inches .... so ... the formula is really ... weight divided by height ... same as BMI, just in imperial form. Or have I missed something? More or less. It'a mapped to a constant though. sport scientist have shown that in cycling an ideal weight to height ratio to have is 2. Contador, Pantani et al is sitting very close to a constant of 2 Edited December 27, 2012 by capeofstorms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andydude Posted December 27, 2012 Share As mentioned earlier, anything below 10% is very good. It's probably better to think in terms of your optimal race weight based on your height. Optimal race weight constant = weight(kg) x 2.2 / height(m) * 39.37. Pro climbers have an optimal race weight constant of 2As we are not PRO's <2.5 is acceptable. Midway between 2 and 2.5 is very good Mine works out at 2.4 at 82kg and 1.88m. If I want to be 2.0 I have to weight 67kg - interesting because that is Andy Schleck's racing weight and he is about the same length as me. But I'm not built for climbing so I have to find a more realistic comparison. Denny Menchov 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTB_Roadie Posted December 27, 2012 Share More or less. It'a mapped to a constant though. sport scientist have shown that in cycling an ideal weight to height ratio to have is 2. Contador, Pantani et al is sitting very close to a constant of 2 I would agree here, if I have an weight of around 68kg I would be about 2.06...which means my goal weight just increased, damn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capeofstorms Posted December 27, 2012 Share I agree! However, you cant be a bodybuilder and cycle, the two just dont correspond. My Bodyfat is currently 11%, I am 24 years old (turning 25 soon) and I am 1.84m tall. I currently weigh in at +-77kg.... I dont even look at my weight anymore, I just look at bodyfat and also muscle mass. According to the fomula I am 2.338...rounding to 2.34, I am quite a good climber though You could even be a better climber if you weighed slighlt less. You probably pushing out oodles of power to compensate for your weight. You might find that the slighlty lighter guy is pushing out less watts than you on the same climb and going at the same speed. In other words it takes less effort for him to hold your wheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cippo Posted December 27, 2012 Share Tx CoS. So according calculations with my real figures I am 2.2 . I cant get taller so I have to drop down to 66kg. That seems a bit drastic at 1.85m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now