Road Cycling · Public discussion

Backstedt is 200 lb??

Other Jeff Jones · 2004-04-13T18:07:08+00:00

Cyclingnews.com: Asked if his weight was a problem, Bäckstedt replied, "I'm at 90 kilos now, but I don't pay much attention to that. It might be better for preventing flats to be lighter, but it has to be a balance. I figure as long as I'm fit, I should be fine." What was that about "Dierkxsen's Cottage of Wattage?"

Started by Other Jeff Jones · 13 April 2004 · Last activity 15 April 2004 · 10 posts · 984 views

← Back to Road Cycling

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postBackstedt is 200 lb??Other Jeff Jones · 13 Apr 2004 02 / This pagePosts 1–10Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #10Sonarrat · 15 Apr 2004

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: Road Cycling
Published: 13 April 2004
Last activity: 15 April 2004
Original author: Other Jeff Jones
Posts: 10
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 984
Views / 30 days: 0
Topics: Power-to-weight ratio Weight management Body composition

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Other Jeff Jones
Archived post

13 April 2004, 18:07 UTC #1

Cyclingnews.com:
Asked if his weight was a problem, Bäckstedt replied, "I'm at 90 kilos
now, but I don't pay much attention to that. It might be better for
preventing flats to be lighter, but it has to be a balance. I figure
as long as I'm fit, I should be fine."
What was that about "Dierkxsen's Cottage of Wattage?"

Report
Morgan Fletcher
Archived post

13 April 2004, 20:28 UTC #2

(Other Jeff Jones) said:
Asked if his weight was a problem, Bäckstedt replied, "I'm at 90 kilos
now, but I don't pay much attention to that. It might be better for
preventing flats to be lighter, but it has to be a balance. I figure as
long as I'm fit, I should be fine."
He's also 6'4", as far as I can tell.
Morgan

Report
Andy Coggan
Archived post

14 April 2004, 01:43 UTC #3

"Morgan Fletcher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
(Other Jeff Jones) said:
Asked if his weight was a problem, Bäckstedt replied, "I'm at 90 kilos
now, but I don't pay much attention to that. It might be better for
preventing flats to be lighter, but it has to be a balance. I figure as
long as I'm fit, I should be fine."
He's also 6'4", as far as I can tell.
Which still makes his BMI to be 24.2 kg/m^2.
Andy Coggan

Report
James Calivar
Archived post

14 April 2004, 15:44 UTC #4

"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Morgan Fletcher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
(Other Jeff Jones) said:
Asked if his weight was a problem, Bäckstedt replied, "I'm at 90 kilos
now, but I don't pay much attention to that. It might be better for
preventing flats to be lighter, but it has to be a balance. I figure

as
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
long as I'm fit, I should be fine."
He's also 6'4", as far as I can tell.
Which still makes his BMI to be 24.2 kg/m^2.
Andy Coggan
So what? BMI is a stupid way to calculate "fitness." Not everyone in the
world is an ectomorph.

Report
warren
Archived post

15 April 2004, 01:40 UTC #5

In article <[email hidden]>, James Calivar
Quoted message said:
"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Morgan Fletcher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
[email hidden] (Other Jeff Jones) writes:
> Asked if his weight was a problem, Bäckstedt replied, "I'm at 90 kilos
> now, but I don't pay much attention to that. It might be better for
> preventing flats to be lighter, but it has to be a balance. I figure

as
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> long as I'm fit, I should be fine."
He's also 6'4", as far as I can tell.
Which still makes his BMI to be 24.2 kg/m^2.
Andy Coggan
So what? BMI is a stupid way to calculate "fitness." Not everyone in the
world is an ectomorph.
Jim,
Andy's reply wasn't serious. It was a little love note to his buddy
Henry.
-WG

Report
RK
Archived post

15 April 2004, 04:02 UTC #6

"James Calivar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Morgan Fletcher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
[email hidden] (Other Jeff Jones) writes:
> Asked if his weight was a problem, Bäckstedt replied, "I'm at 90 kilos
> now, but I don't pay much attention to that. It might be better for
> preventing flats to be lighter, but it has to be a balance. I figure

as
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> long as I'm fit, I should be fine."
He's also 6'4", as far as I can tell.
Which still makes his BMI to be 24.2 kg/m^2.
Andy Coggan
So what? BMI is a stupid way to calculate "fitness." Not everyone in the
world is an ectomorph.
But it is a good way to calculate power-to-weight ratio, which is
critical to cycling except on a flat course like PR.

Report
Robert Chung
Archived post

15 April 2004, 05:31 UTC #7

RK said:
"James Calivar" <[email hidden]> wrote
Quoted message said:
"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote
Quoted message said:
"Morgan Fletcher" <[email hidden]> wrote
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> [email hidden] (Other Jeff Jones) writes:
>> Asked if his weight was a problem, Bäckstedt replied, "I'm at 90
>> kilos now, but I don't pay much attention to that. It might be
>> better for preventing flats to be lighter, but it has to be a
>> balance. I figure as long as I'm fit, I should be fine."
>
> He's also 6'4", as far as I can tell.
Which still makes his BMI to be 24.2 kg/m^2.
So what? BMI is a stupid way to calculate "fitness." Not everyone in
the world is an ectomorph.
But it is a good way to calculate power-to-weight ratio, which is
critical to cycling except on a flat course like PR.
I would have thought that all you needed to calculate a power-to-weight
ratio was power and weight.

Report
Howard Kveck
Archived post

15 April 2004, 05:42 UTC #8

In article <[email hidden]>,
Robert Chung said:
RK said:
"James Calivar" <[email hidden]> wrote
Quoted message said:
"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote
> "Morgan Fletcher" <[email hidden]> wrote
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>> [email hidden] (Other Jeff Jones) writes:
>>> Asked if his weight was a problem, Bäckstedt replied, "I'm at 90
>>> kilos now, but I don't pay much attention to that. It might be
>>> better for preventing flats to be lighter, but it has to be a
>>> balance. I figure as long as I'm fit, I should be fine."
>>
>> He's also 6'4", as far as I can tell.
>
> Which still makes his BMI to be 24.2 kg/m^2.
So what? BMI is a stupid way to calculate "fitness." Not everyone in
the world is an ectomorph.
But it is a good way to calculate power-to-weight ratio, which is
critical to cycling except on a flat course like PR.
I would have thought that all you needed to calculate a power-to-weight
ratio was power and weight.
That's too easy.
--
tanx,
Howard
Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Report
RK
Archived post

15 April 2004, 13:50 UTC #9

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
RK said:
"James Calivar" <[email hidden]> wrote
Quoted message said:
"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote
> "Morgan Fletcher" <[email hidden]> wrote
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>> [email hidden] (Other Jeff Jones) writes:
>>> Asked if his weight was a problem, Bäckstedt replied, "I'm at 90
>>> kilos now, but I don't pay much attention to that. It might be
>>> better for preventing flats to be lighter, but it has to be a
>>> balance. I figure as long as I'm fit, I should be fine."
>>
>> He's also 6'4", as far as I can tell.
>
> Which still makes his BMI to be 24.2 kg/m^2.
So what? BMI is a stupid way to calculate "fitness." Not everyone in
the world is an ectomorph.
But it is a good way to calculate power-to-weight ratio, which is
critical to cycling except on a flat course like PR.
I would have thought that all you needed to calculate a power-to-weight
ratio was power and weight.
My bad. I meant there is a correlation. If the BMI indicates the
likelihood of a lower power-to-weight ration, the rider will have to
wait to get up the hills....

Report
Sonarrat
Archived post

15 April 2004, 19:00 UTC #10

In article <[email hidden]>,
(RK) said:
"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
RK said:
"James Calivar" <[email hidden]> wrote
> "Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote
>> "Morgan Fletcher" <[email hidden]> wrote
Quoted message said:
>>> [email hidden] (Other Jeff Jones) writes:
>>>> Asked if his weight was a problem, Bäckstedt replied, "I'm at 90
>>>> kilos now, but I don't pay much attention to that. It might be
>>>> better for preventing flats to be lighter, but it has to be a
>>>> balance. I figure as long as I'm fit, I should be fine."
>>>
>>> He's also 6'4", as far as I can tell.
>>
>> Which still makes his BMI to be 24.2 kg/m^2.
>
> So what? BMI is a stupid way to calculate "fitness." Not everyone in
> the world is an ectomorph.
But it is a good way to calculate power-to-weight ratio, which is
critical to cycling except on a flat course like PR.
I would have thought that all you needed to calculate a power-to-weight
ratio was power and weight.
My bad. I meant there is a correlation. If the BMI indicates the
likelihood of a lower power-to-weight ration, the rider will have to
wait to get up the hills....
To put it this way, there isn't much chance of a RvV-PR double for
Backstedt.
-Sonarrat.

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread