Optimum weight for hills?

I've lost 30 pounds since October 1, and continue to work out at 5 days a week between spinning/weight lifting/training (not counting cycling/hiking activities). I am trying to figure out how far down I need to go - but I know it is about more than just a number on a scale. I also need strength and muscle to be able to become mistress of the hills :D

Is there a way of knowing when we have reached the optimum weight? Obviously practice and cardiovascular endurance is a part of the equation as well, so it is far more nuanced than a simple number. How have others approached this?

I LOVE going downhill, but one must go up first :p

No.
Just ride.

When you can zoom up a hill without trouble, you know you are at optimum fitness. Weight has very little to do with it. I actually weighed MORE by the time I was able to climb the monster hill on my commute.

Weight is just a number, and has no meaning.

Focus on the bike, not the scale.

I tend to think that "optimum weight," at least for anybody who isn't a professional or competitive cyclist, should be determined by something other than climbing. Strive for a weight that feels like a healthy weight for your body type and age, that makes you feel strong and athletic, and that you can realistically maintain. If you consistently do both cardio, including hill training, and strength building work, then your climbing will take care of itself. If it helps, I know a lot of really good climbers who aren't necessarily thin. I also know that at any given weight, my climbing ability had more to do with the amount of hill training I was doing than my actual weight.

We have a member of TE who does Ironman triathlons, yet was technically "obese."

She wrote a great story once about her experience at the doctor's office shortly after an Ironman, how she got a lecture about needing to lose weight and exercise... :rolleyes:

Weight really means nothing. Ride, ride, ride!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnottedYet

We have a member of TE who does Ironman triathlons, yet was technically "obese."

She wrote a great story once about her experience at the doctor's office shortly after an Ironman, how she got a lecture about needing to lose weight and exercise... :rolleyes:

Weight really means nothing. Ride, ride, ride!

---

I'd like to read that story.

I know her real name, but can't remember her TE name! There's a really good video a friend of hers did of one of the Ironmans.

I think it's this one. Soundtrack has some off color words :rolleyes: hence the warning. Well done film though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGFx4xWnnnI

Here's the thread.

http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showt...ghlight=doctor

Post # 5.

Veronica

Catrin--Have you tried pylometrics or core strengthening exercises to help keep/build muscle and power as you lose weight?

Veronica--Thanks for sharing the link. Can I RELATE!

I've always been heavier myself. At one point I got down to 155, that lasted for a month. A good weight that I can maintain is about 175. I'm usually the heaviest at alot of the events I do.

A few years back I did an XTerra Triathlon. I was the heaviest girl in the crowd. My mom's GP was also doing the tri. We met a few times and I saw him at the start. And, perhaps I was being self-conscious, but I swear I was getting that look from him like he was thinking "seriously, this obese girl is racing xterra???" In our pre-race "good-luck" conversation, he was talking down to me, giving me pointers, treating my like a child. It was annoying.

Then the race started. I came out towards the back of the swim, as I suspected. Then it was the mountain bike, all single track, hilly, technical. About 8 miles in, I passed my mom's GP. I wish I could have seen the look on his face as my fat *ss passed him :)

He managed to stay within site behind me the rest of the bike, but he just couldn't get enough speed to pass me. Another guy was right behind me as well. He would catch me on the climbs. I asked him if he needed room to pass and he said no. He said that he was watching me take the down-hills and technical sections so that he could learn from me!

Yeah, it was pretty awesome. It's annoying to have to prove yourself all the time, but at the same time, it is such a sweet feeling to make jaws drop :cool:

Thanks for sharing that, Limewave! I'm still working towards being that strong:)

Thankfully my trainer is a mountain biker and has competed in the past - he also road bikes - he is a life-long avid cyclist. He and his wife seem to have taken me under their wing as I progress and he even went with me to my first ride outside of the training parking lot - I think they were more nervous than I was about my first time around cars :p

I train with him two days a week - and he is also my spinning instructor. He does focus on core and balance training, along with strength training and plyometric exercises. I also do my own strength training twice a week outside of our sessions - usually before spinning :)

As we get closer to spring I see our exercises starting to change, and I will ask him about this as well.

Thanks for your input - I suspected that I was focusing too much on the actual numbers...

Catrin - when I first started riding, my goal was to use the bike for my cardio to lose the last 10 lbs. I was significantly larger than all the women I rode with and I was thicker (if not actually heavier) than most of the guys. What stunned me and everyone I rode with was how I flew up hills. I used to look forward to the uphills on large group rides so that I could pass everyone and get some riding room! And I was an absolute beginner, too. I remember being shocked at a photo of myself after I'd been riding a few months - I felt like a lean mean riding machine but the photo said otherwise. I'm 5'4" and I was 142 lbs at the time.

Now, 5 years later I'm almost 30 lbs heavier and I can feel it when I ride...particulalry on the hills. Part of my problem is my lack of conditioning (though that's greatly improving thanks to running and swimming) but I can definitely feel my bodyweight holding me back. I have NO acceleration on even the smaller hills like I used to. And they are certainly not fun anymore. ;)

So for me, even though I thought I was heavy and needed to lose weight, it turns out that about 140 is my 'happy hill' biking weight. 170 is not. I can use these numbers to gauge my progress or to set goals because I've lived them. For a new rider, you are going to have to figure them out for yourself. The overall key is your strength-to-weight ratio (besides cardio conditioning and bike skills) and there is a fine line in order to optimize that. I'm strong, so pulling 140lbs up hills was 'easy'. For some people I know, that would be total hell. It's all very individual. But, like wiser people than me have said, the best way to figure it out is to keep riding! :)

No weight I have ever been has been particularly happy on hills.

Im not a small girl....size 8-10....But I also compete in du's and tris and marathons. Muscle weighs more than fat...it is about your endurance/fitness level for the average person.

the best hill climbers have a 2:1 ratio height weight OR LESS. (I read this sometime back..)
take your height (we'll use me) 63.5 inches. weight 128 --- 63.5+63.5= 127
so even though I am not the strongest or fittest rider, hills are easier for me than, say a well muscled man who weighs 185 lbs and is 5'9" tall.The ratio again: 69" 69+69=138... there's no way he's ever going to take hills easily. He's probably strong enough that he can do them, but he'll never be king of the mountain.

Is that for men or women?

At any given weight, a healthy athletic female will have a body fat 5-8% higher (I mean as a % of total body weight - body fat itself could be 50-80% higher) than a healthy athletic male. As far as strength-to-weight ratios, competitive weight-lifting records are instructive that men have about the same strength as women 20% heavier.

I have trouble believing that a pat formula like that would hold for both sexes.

that is for men AND women. It's certainly not exact. I don't know who you ride with, but start looking around. You'll notice that bigger people width-wise are not the champion climbers. Both men and women, if they're much taller than I am, it is the narrow shouldered people who excel at climbing.
And i'm not talking about fat, nor sex differences, this is a general thing, not a specific thing.
You'll notice that shorter women can get away with more "apparent" weight because of that particular ratio. And i'm not saying that a person who does not match that ratio can't climb or can't climb well. I'm just saying they're going to have to work on it perhaps more than the guy who weighs 130 pounds and is 5'10".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biciclista

the best hill climbers have a 2:1 ratio height weight. (I read this sometime back..)
take your height (we'll use me) 63.5 inches. weight 128 --- 63.5+63.5= 127
so even though I am not the strongest or fittest rider, hills are easier for me than, say a well muscled man who weighs 185 lbs and is 5'9" tall.The ratio again: 69" 69+69=138... there's no way he's ever going to take hills easily. He's probably strong enough that he can do them, but he'll never be king of the mountain.

---

Interesting. What if your ratio is slightly under? 67 inches at 130? Should I be an even better hill climber or worse?

And while what you say about the 185 lb man makes sense, doesn't the fact that he is muscular (vs. a hypothetical less muscular dude) count for anything?

better! but this is a generality. the less you weigh, the less muscles you need to climb. But you still need muscles to climb!

Look at pro cyclists. They are not built like charles atlas. That's a lot of extra bulk up there that you have to carry up the hills. And if they're naturally built like that, it's a detriment.

Like other things of this type, it's only a general guideline. Obviously someone who is fit and has been training, but is over or under the guideline, will climb a lot better than someone who meets it precisely but is not fit and hasn't done much hill training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biciclista

the best hill climbers have a 2:1 ratio height weight OR LESS. (I read this sometime back..)
take your height (we'll use me) 63.5 inches. weight 128 --- 63.5+63.5= 127
so even though I am not the strongest or fittest rider, hills are easier for me than, say a well muscled man who weighs 185 lbs and is 5'9" tall.The ratio again: 69" 69+69=138... there's no way he's ever going to take hills easily. He's probably strong enough that he can do them, but he'll never be king of the mountain.

---

This is interesting, and I heard someone discussing this before spinning class the other day. Of course as a beginner the only way to learn how to master hills is to ride them. All I care about is to be able to get up and over them :D The ratio is interesting.

Don't you love generalizations. :D

Veronica

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biciclista

Look at pro cyclists. They are not built like charles atlas. That's a lot of extra bulk up there that you have to carry up the hills. And if they're naturally built like that, it's a detriment.

---

Not entirely true. I can't find it now, but I saw a recap of the height/weight numbers for the top women and top men cyclists (top climbers). The men were as you say - very lean and very strong. The women, on the other hand, were not so lean...or I should say, not so light. They were obviously lean and fit, but overall, the best women climbers were relatively heavier than their male counterparts. I think that this is because women need more muscle to retain their strength where as men can be more of a 'wire-y' strong (if that makes sense).

I remember one woman's numbers specifically because they were so close to my goal. She was 5'4" and 136 lbs. That is 8 lbs heavier than a 2:1 ratio and yet she was one of the best in the world at climbing.

8 pounds heavier and I'll bet that is all muscle. She fits into the generalization quite well.
Women can afford to carry more apparent weight because they're generally speaking, shorter. fits quite well.
It's a generalization. It's like saying, It's better to be tall if you want to be a pro basketball player. Then someone's going to trot out this guy who is 5'8" and is a dynamite basketball player. Yes, but most of them are way over 6 feet tall...

This is interesting. I wondered what would be an "optimal" cycling weight for myself. According to "the ratio" I should weigh approx. 134.

That is quite a goal for me to achieve (i'm 183 right now). I do feel like a dead-weight when I hit those climbs. I've managed to master downhilling (I do more mntn biking) and find that I'm able to keep up with Sport women quite well because of my downhill skills. I would LOVE to be able to climb faster though. Then maybe I could move up to Expert . . . :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgtiger

Like other things of this type, it's only a general guideline. Obviously someone who is fit and has been training, but is over or under the guideline, will climb a lot better than someone who meets it precisely but is not fit and hasn't done much hill training.

---

Oh sure, I totally get this. But I live in a mountainous region where like 90% of my rides necessarily involve some sort of climb (unless I want to ride around in circles for several miles - which I have done out of sheer hill exhaustion). So I am conditioned for it but thinking in terms of extra advantages. Interesting thread for me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limewave

This is interesting. I wondered what would be an "optimal" cycling weight for myself. According to "the ratio" I should weigh approx. 134.

That is quite a goal for me to achieve (i'm 183 right now). I do feel like a dead-weight when I hit those climbs. I've managed to master downhilling (I do more mntn biking) and find that I'm able to keep up with Sport women quite well because of my downhill skills. I would LOVE to be able to climb faster though. Then maybe I could move up to Expert . . . :)

---

Limewave, it isn't going to happen if you're not built like a rail! You sound like you're very strong. YOu can't sacrifice muscle to make up for how you're built. Instead, stay healthy and have fun. Know your strengths and work towards goals. but you are what you are...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malkin

No weight I have ever been has been particularly happy on hills.

---

What she said.

I was only a few pounds above the "optimal" weight last year and was just as slow going uphill as I was when I weighed 15 pounds more.

When I'm between 120 and 125 pounds, I'm a whole lot better climber than when I was 145 pounds. No question.

I can't really say that I'm a better climber because I'm lighter or because I'm riding more. For me, when I ride alot, extra weight does not stick around. I cannot do a controlled experiment that would entail alot of riding/training and being heavy; my body just doesn't function that way.

To the OP, focus on riding alot and climbing and intervals. You will become a better climber that way. Just ride.

Am trying to imagine what it be like for me to be approx. 120 lbs. if that rough ratio was properly applied to my height, 5'1".

Or even reduce it abit to 110 lbs. if I became a muscular powerhouse, since my bone structure is small, not just because I'm short.


Am having a hard time imagining the above, because I have never been up that high. Just going over 100 lbs. makes work harder to get the weight down.

But I do know someone who is 4'11" and is 106-108 lbs, cycles (commutes, long-distance bike touring), plays tennis several times per week and does some weight-training also several times per week. She looks slim.

I'm too lazy to figure out what my ideal weight would be using that formula given earlier, but I'm 5'6". Of course, height matters!

When I was leg-pressing 220# and doing a whole lot of upper body work as well, I was still lighter than that ratio by a couple of pounds, and I'm definitely happier on hills now that I'm doing less strength training. It's not my optimum weight for anything, except maybe bodybuilding for appearance, which just isn't my thing.

A couple of weeks ago I posted that thing from the NYT about finding one's ideal weight, which according to the article, even today is a matter of trial and error for every athlete. Obviously different body types will be better at different sports, and even at different disciplines within a sport (compare Olympic sprinters with Olympic marathoners, or the hill climbing specialists on a cycling team with the time trialists or the sprinters).

I get regular testing done on my body composition. I know its not all 100% accurate, but I usually come out with 145lbs lean body weight. Does that mean if I had 0% body fat, I would weigh 145 lbs? Just wondering. That would put me 10 lbs over my 2:1 ratio.

0% body fat would put you at 145lbs of lean solid muscle......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TryingisDying

0% body fat would put you at 145lbs of lean solid muscle......

---

Wait, huh? What about bones, water, and organs? Not that organs would be functioning any more at 0% bf...

Damn..lol I think that is figured in there....I can check at work. I do this for a living...well kinda...Let me ask what the figuration is...