T Nation

Fat Cyclists

Surely you all have noticed this. While in Starbucks on Sunday morning, there were two cyclists ahead of me in line. These are the guys that ride 100+ miles on weekends. These guys have ALL the gear: camel packs, neon this, bright that, spandex bodysuits, goggles, cute little clip shoes, $300 super-duper aerodynamic helmet, $2000 road bikes. These guys act like they are bastions of manliness and physical fitness. The thing is, though, that they are FAT AS F*CK!

I don’t get it. Is it fun to ride a bike ALL WEEKEND LONG? Do they really enjoy resting 200#s on that 10 square inches of seat for hours on end? Maybe they think they are healthy? Maybe they think they look cool?

I am baffled. I don’t know which group is worse: these guys, or fat runners.

Everyone likes to toot their own horn, but look at us. We look better. We are stronger. We eat healthy because we have to to look better and get stronger. We carry less fat and thus have healthier hearts. And we have more practical application with our ability: when might you need to run for two or three hours without stopping, and when might you have to lift some heavy shit?

I work with a bunch of guys that ride bikes at lunch. They are all skinny fat. I kind of feel sorry for them. But not really. I am not saying that riding bikes all weekend is easy. Actually, I am. I personally could do it and easily due to my slow twitch make-up.

Lastly, before you pipe up on Lance. Yes, hats off to Lance Armstrong. He is cycling’s genetic freak and a very bad man.

Rant over,
BFG

First off, why are you knocking on cycling? Second of all, I used to ride all the time, and still do once in a while ($2000 road bike and all). One of my riding buddies was 5’7 185 pounds with probably around 18-19% bf, at the time, I was around 148 12% bf and he could smoke me. Just cause you’re fat doesnt mean you’re out of shape.

Who cares how much they spend on their bikes and aero helmets and all that. Also, riding 150+ miles in a weekend is very impressive and in no way should be putting them down for it. Granted lifting 500 pounds of iron off the floor is impressive also, but it doesn’t make endurance cycling any less impressive.

And lastly, Lance Armstrong is a freak of nature. I dont see why hes a very bad man though, other than his divore, but I dont see anything wrong with that either.

What do they order at Starbucks? If it’s a double cream choc vanilla latte with extra ass, I’m going to guess its a diet thing.

I don’t care what sport you do. Fatties + lycra = bad.

Geez man what the hell. What people can’t have a hobby or do something fit at least once a week. They don’t hold up to your standards so doom on them.I used to be kind of like that but that’s because that was the only time that my group could meet. Now I didn’t wear the spandex suits but I do put my 200+ ass on a 21 lbs road bike. So what. Because I’m a lard ass I’m supposed to just give up? I know it’s tuff( because to be honest I’m basically a hypocrite cause I make fun of them also from time to time) but still come on. Oh and just cause you have muscles doesn’t make you some hot shot cyclist. Without being a decent cyclist you probably couldn’t even beat a categaory 5 rider(lance is cat1).

I’m a cyclist. However, I have a single digit BF%. I do know of these cyclists you speak of, I’ve ridden with these kinds of people before.

The thing that a lot of these guys have wrong is they think the 100+ mile rides (the fat guys I know never really did the centuries though) allows them to eat shitty food afterwards. After a ride, sometimes theres some sort of a barbeque with beer, hot dogs, hamburgers and all that shit. So basically if these guys learned that not being fat is a two-pronged approach (diet and training) they’d be on the right track.

And as far as the bikes. $2000 is a little low for the type of guys you outlined. $4000 is more their price range. My bike is from the 1980s and its worth $2000. When I kick their asses, I barely even know I did it because it generally happens so quickly. And I’m left riding by myself thinking “whoa, where did Joe go?”

I really don’t care. It just annoyed me the other day.

My point with the rant was this:

Why do people do long haul road biking?

exercise?
health?
fun?
joy of spandex?
genital numbness from that seat?

I can see doing it to get out there with nature and enjoy the countryside. But this was in the middle of town. And people drive like shit. Talk about dangerous. And yummy yummy exhaust.

Oh, the Lance is a bad man comment meant that Lance is a bad-ass. Not that he is inherently evil. He might be, but I don’t know him personally. Anyone that beats cancer and still wins the TDF every year could have made a pact with you know who. :wink:

BFG

Not to mention possible fertility and erectile issues.

any of the cyclists out there ever hear snaything about this, if i remember correctly, A swiss study called this, when looking at spinning.

Stop bitching about stupid things…come on thats what chicks do.

[quote]got_beer? wrote:
Stop bitching about stupid things…come on thats what chicks do.[/quote]

Hmmmm, have you read the 1,000 plus posts about people complaining about gym rules, and gym personalities?

It’s not a “girl” thing, I guess some people can’t always sit back and either get it, and get what he is saying which I found pretty humorous or they take it much to heart as many people seem able to insult and tease anything as long as it doesn’t resemble them. I thought it was a pretty fun topic, it’s just like a person who buys a stationary bike and puts it in front of the TV and uses it only when their favorite show is on, and thus thinks they are kicking “major ass”.

Hey BFG, I would guess that the stop at Starbucks was either because they were thirsty and hungry, or it was to show off their hot gear and how active and cool they are, either one mate. :slight_smile:

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
Just cause you’re fat doesnt mean you’re out of shape.
[/quote]

It doesn’t, really? You sure bro? An excess amount of fat is usually due to an inactivity in comparsion to what you eat vs. your output, right?

BFG is not insulting Cyclists or the sport of cycling, he is talking about Fat Cyclist which is something not above being critiqued, and its a bit funny when you think about it. It reminds me of the 300 pound guy with 42% bodyfat who keeps shooting off about his 21 inch guns, and seemingly can’t stop puffing out his chest and wearing “muscle” shirts. Are you going to then tell me that that guy is the meaning of health, and I have no right saying anything when this bozo keeps putting his 21 inch flab guns in my face? As a hobby cool, maybe a good hobby in the fight for weight loss, but other than that it’s just a funny joke, and a lie they would be telling to themselves.

[quote]EmperialChina wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
Just cause you’re fat doesnt mean you’re out of shape.

It doesn’t, really? You sure bro? An excess amount of fat is usually due to an inactivity in comparsion to what you eat vs. your output, right?

[/quote]

Actually, this is interesting.

Who is healthier? Who is in better shape?

(A) a fat cyclist @ 20% bf that rides 100 miles per week
(b) an inactive guy @ 10% BF

[quote]BFG wrote:
EmperialChina wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
Just cause you’re fat doesnt mean you’re out of shape.

It doesn’t, really? You sure bro? An excess amount of fat is usually due to an inactivity in comparsion to what you eat vs. your output, right?

Actually, this is interesting.

Who is healthier? Who is in better shape?

(A) a fat cyclist @ 20% bf that rides 100 miles per week
(b) an inactive guy @ 10% BF

[/quote]

b.

Endurance training kills fast-twitch muscle fibers; if all a) does is pedal, b) might have an easier path to becoming a power athlete than A). Power athletes do better at endurance events than vice versa.

[quote]
Actually, this is interesting.

Who is healthier? Who is in better shape?

(A) a fat cyclist @ 20% bf that rides 100 miles per week
(b) an inactive guy @ 10% BF

b.

Endurance training kills fast-twitch muscle fibers; if all a) does is pedal, b) might have an easier path to becoming a power athlete than A). Power athletes do better at endurance events than vice versa.[/quote]

What happened to cross-training? Was it just another fad?

[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:
BFG wrote:
EmperialChina wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
Just cause you’re fat doesnt mean you’re out of shape.

It doesn’t, really? You sure bro? An excess amount of fat is usually due to an inactivity in comparsion to what you eat vs. your output, right?

Actually, this is interesting.

Who is healthier? Who is in better shape?

(A) a fat cyclist @ 20% bf that rides 100 miles per week
(b) an inactive guy @ 10% BF

b.

Endurance training kills fast-twitch muscle fibers; if all a) does is pedal, b) might have an easier path to becoming a power athlete than A). Power athletes do better at endurance events than vice versa.[/quote]

The question was about their level of health, not about who would be in a better position to potentially become a power athelete. The question addresses their current state, not what they could become, and, personally I’m not sure there’s a clear case that a power athelete would be the most healthy(could be but thats another debate).

In regards to BFG’s question, I vote for A. While long distance cycling may not lead to loads of muscle mass, they are certainly keeping their heart in better condition then option B, the couch potato. All other things being equal(diet, sleep, supplementation), the guy getting consistant, planned activity like that is going to be in better condition.

Hear that guys? Just because you’re fat, doesn’t mean you’re out of shape. I know, it sounds like a misnomer, but its true. I’ve been all over the place in my life, including skinny(or some might say skinny-fat) and out of shape, as well as chubby(not really fat but certainly 18-20% fat) in shape. I also used to have an ex-girlfriend who had a blackbelt in a very rather select form of karate, though she was certainly decently chubbier then most would consider “in good shape”.

[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
Ross Hunt wrote:
BFG wrote:
EmperialChina wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
Just cause you’re fat doesnt mean you’re out of shape.

It doesn’t, really? You sure bro? An excess amount of fat is usually due to an inactivity in comparsion to what you eat vs. your output, right?

Actually, this is interesting.

Who is healthier? Who is in better shape?

(A) a fat cyclist @ 20% bf that rides 100 miles per week
(b) an inactive guy @ 10% BF

b.

Endurance training kills fast-twitch muscle fibers; if all a) does is pedal, b) might have an easier path to becoming a power athlete than A). Power athletes do better at endurance events than vice versa.

The question was about their level of health, not about who would be in a better position to potentially become a power athelete. The question addresses their current state, not what they could become, and, personally I’m not sure there’s a clear case that a power athelete would be the most healthy(could be but thats another debate).

In regards to BFG’s question, I vote for A. While long distance cycling may not lead to loads of muscle mass, they are certainly keeping their heart in better condition then option B, the couch potato. All other things being equal(diet, sleep, supplementation), the guy getting consistant, planned activity like that is going to be in better condition.

Hear that guys? Just because you’re fat, doesn’t mean you’re out of shape. I know, it sounds like a misnomer, but its true. I’ve been all over the place in my life, including skinny(or some might say skinny-fat) and out of shape, as well as chubby(not really fat but certainly 18-20% fat) in shape. I also used to have an ex-girlfriend who had a blackbelt in a very rather select form of karate, though she was certainly decently chubbier then most would consider “in good shape”.[/quote]

I think we would all agree that for two persons, athletes or not, with identical performance abilities, the one with the lower bf% is healthier. I am talking like 8-10% vs 15-20% and not insanely low single digit bf%. At which point is simply being lean more healthy than being fat and “in shape”? (You know, as in the shape of a pear.) I would tend to think that someone at a natural 10% bf is healthier than someone that spends an hour a day on the treadmill and is still 30% bf. The genetic differences of these two individuals result in their natural health. Granted, for two identical humans, (when are we gonna get real clones to do this stuff with?) the exerciser would be healthier. Then again, what about fat Italians that eat pasta and sausage and get torqued on wine all day and live to be 90?

Dear Mom and Dad,

Thank you very little for these crappy genetics which you have bestowed upon me. The end.

BFG

[quote]BFG wrote:

I think we would all agree that for two persons, athletes or not, with identical performance abilities, the one with the lower bf% is healthier. I am talking like 8-10% vs 15-20% and not insanely low single digit bf%.
[/quote]

I don’t agree with that at all. What are you basing this on, esthetics? Someone 15% body fat is not LESS healthy than their twin would be at 10%. Too many other factors are involved. Leaner is not always healthier.

[quote]BFG wrote:
I really don’t care. It just annoyed me the other day.

My point with the rant was this:

Why do people do long haul road biking?

exercise?
health?
fun?
joy of spandex?
genital numbness from that seat?

I can see doing it to get out there with nature and enjoy the countryside. But this was in the middle of town. And people drive like shit. Talk about dangerous. And yummy yummy exhaust.

BFG
[/quote]

I myself am into the racing part of the sport. I rarely do 100 mile rides, because I am more about speed. But it can be fun to just go out for long ride sometimes.

I agree that fat + spandex is not cool.

As for the impotence/ED/gential numbness, I don’t have that problem at all. Those studies you hear about, they don’t prove that it affects everyone. I know many many other guys who ride and they have no issues either. There are thousands of pro cyclists who do 20,000+ miles a year, and they have children.

You may think that ‘small’ seat is very uncomfortable, but the MODERN ones made today are actually very comfortable in combination with good cycling shorts.

You need to get your facts straight, because you obviously don’t know much about the sport.

As for riding in traffic, yes it sucks, but I love biking so much that I deal with it when I have to, and try to stick to less traveled roads.

You have no idea how much shit cyclists put up with when out on the road, concerning people in cars. Sometimes riding can really suck, but most of the time it is great. It’s worth it.

also, you think cycling is easy? maybe leisure cycling is, but racing? OMG, you have no friggen idea. I did some intervals the other day, I can’t remember how long it was been since I was in so much pain. It makes those “20 rep squats with 10RM” workouts look like walk in the park.

pro cycling is one the hardest sports in the world, and don’t even try to disagree until you have raced with me.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BFG wrote:

I think we would all agree that for two persons, athletes or not, with identical performance abilities, the one with the lower bf% is healthier. I am talking like 8-10% vs 15-20% and not insanely low single digit bf%.

I don’t agree with that at all. What are you basing this on, esthetics? Someone 15% body fat is not LESS healthy than their twin would be at 10%. Too many other factors are involved. Leaner is not always healthier.[/quote]

There are numerous studies and data linking lower BF% to better overall health and longevity. Perhaps the 10% vs. 15% is a bad comparison? Take two people of identical abilities but one of 12% and the other of 24% - the leaner one is likely healthier.

[quote]KiloSprinter wrote:
also, you think cycling is easy? maybe leisure cycling is, but racing? OMG, you have no friggen idea. I did some intervals the other day, I can’t remember how long it was been since I was in so much pain. It makes those “20 rep squats with 10RM” workouts look like walk in the park.

pro cycling is one the hardest sports in the world, and don’t even try to disagree until you have raced with me.[/quote]

chill out dude. EVERY sport in the world is the hardest … for someone. and i didn’t say it was easy - i said that i have the muscle fiber make up that would enable me to be good at it. does that mean i would be a pro racer? no.

as far as the seat, come ON. no matter how comfortable that seat may be TO YOU, it is still sux balls TO ME. and FYI, yes i know they have come a long way, as i just snagged a new seat for my mountain bike.