Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

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 by Cheese
Posted

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 %?

Posted

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

Posted (edited)

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 by DaleE
Posted (edited)

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 by MTB_Roadie
Posted (edited)

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 by capeofstorms
Posted

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 2

As 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.

Posted

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!

Posted

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 smile.png

 

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

Posted

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.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout