Six-pack = too thin for cycling?

JungleBiker said:

I understand that the way to get a 6-pack stomach is to loose body fat. On the other hand I think I once read that having too little body fat can be detrimental for an endurance cyclist (because some body fat acts as a useful energy reserve?).

I am now trying to lose weight for a race and I was wondering if I was fortunate enough to develop a 6-pack as a result would it mean that I had lost too much fat?

There ain't no such thing as too skinny for cycling. Even if you only had 2% BF (which has been measured in some elite marathoners), that would still be something like 10,000 kcals of energy reserve, or about enough to ride 350 miles. Fat is, for practical purposes, inexhaustible except in true starvation.

JungleBiker said:

I understand that the way to get a 6-pack stomach is to loose body fat. On the other hand I think I once read that having too little body fat can be detrimental for an endurance cyclist (because some body fat acts as a useful energy reserve?).

I am now trying to lose weight for a race and I was wondering if I was fortunate enough to develop a 6-pack as a result would it mean that I had lost too much fat?

Thanks.

Do you know this man? If he is not too skinny for cycling, no one is....

[img]feltet.dkMR4.jpgOpen ↗[/img]

Tyler Hamilton only weighs about 133 pounds.

well generally being on the thin side isnt going to affect your cycling performance. but it depends what type of race your aiming for. if it has mountains then it will be in your best interest to lose as much weight as possible without significantly affecting your power output or your training. but if your aiming for a flatish road race or a crit then losing weight isnt really going to help you unless your actually fat and it might even put you at a disadvantage.

mountain/hilly race its best to be thin (although there are plenty of heavier cyclists who can climb)

flat time trial/road race/crit weight loss is pointless unless your fat to begin with.

JungleBiker said:

I am now trying to lose weight for a race and I was wondering if I was fortunate enough to develop a 6-pack as a result would it mean that I had lost too much fat?

If by six-pack you mean that all your ribs are sticking out and your sternum is clearly defined, then no, that's not too skinny for racing. Probably just right. 😉

Yeah, I wouldnt worry 1lb of fat = 3500 cal, it is estimated that one can ride 3 miles on 100 cal so say you weigh 150 lbs at 9% body fat (usaully where you start to see defined abs) that is 13.5 lbs of fat .. or 47,250 cal in which will take you somewhere around 1417.5 miles

ewan52 said:

flat time trial/road race/crit weight loss is pointless unless your fat to begin with.

Aren't thin people more aerodynamic?
😄

ewan52 said:

if your aiming for a flatish road race or a crit then losing weight isnt really going to help you unless your actually fat and it might even put you at a disadvantage.

Seriously, I am curious to know why might it put someone at a disadvantage?
Thanks.

JungleBiker said:

Seriously, I am curious to know why might it put someone at a disadvantage?

Huummm. Ever heard of Inertia and/or momentum?

L

well generally a heavier rider has more power. ill use a comparison between pro riders to explain. this year fabian cancellara won paris-roubaix which is pretty much flat, he weighs somewhere around 80kg. riders like michael rassmussen or carlos sastre do not have enough power to win paris roubaix, this is because they are light, rassmussen gets down to about 58kg for the tour and sastre is around 61kg.

when they have to race up mountains they dont have to carry as much weight so they are at an advantage. but when they race on the flat against heavier riders who are able to produce more power due to their higher level of muscle mass they cannot go as well. this is also why many of the noted time trial specialists (sergui gonchar, michael rogers etc) are heavier riders.

so if your focusing on flat races it might be best for you to focus on putting on or maintaining muscle mass (but not fat as a high level of body fat will reduce your efficiency) then to focus on losing weight. however if you are racing in mountains it might be best to lose weight to improve your performance.

Correct. Note, though, that Miguel Indurain was kind of strange as unlike virtually all the Spanish riders he was an ace time trialist. And despite his lanky physique he was a terrific climber too.

ewan52 said:

well generally a heavier rider has more power. ill use a comparison between pro riders to explain. this year fabian cancellara won paris-roubaix which is pretty much flat, he weighs somewhere around 80kg. riders like michael rassmussen or carlos sastre do not have enough power to win paris roubaix, this is because they are light, rassmussen gets down to about 58kg for the tour and sastre is around 61kg.

when they have to race up mountains they dont have to carry as much weight so they are at an advantage. but when they race on the flat against heavier riders who are able to produce more power due to their higher level of muscle mass they cannot go as well. this is also why many of the noted time trial specialists (sergui gonchar, michael rogers etc) are heavier riders.

so if your focusing on flat races it might be best for you to focus on putting on or maintaining muscle mass (but not fat as a high level of body fat will reduce your efficiency) then to focus on losing weight. however if you are racing in mountains it might be best to lose weight to improve your performance.

Lonnie Utah said:

Huummm. Ever heard of Inertia and/or momentum?

L

Inertia is mass. Increased mass is an advantage in time trials because in a cyclist with very low body fat etc increased mass generally implies increased muscle mass which means you can go faster. And because there are no hills, the mass doesn't slow you down.

Momentum due to increased mass may seem like an advantage, but its not really. When you weigh more, you have more momentum, so it takes more energy to slow you down.... BUT it also takes more energy to bring yourself up to speed. Otherwise you would see people riding along with mass added to their time trial bikes for "added Inertia and/or momentum".

Well what is more important than a riders overall weight is their power to weight ratio. So even if you are lighter and produce less overall energy than a heavier rider if you can produce more energy per kg of mass then you are at an advantage, despite a lower net power output.

As well carrying less fat is better, as such, since it does nothing to help generate power and loosing fat without loosing muscle mass will increase your power to weight ratio.

Exaxctly.

A little guy who gains weight does not gain power, as their lungs and heart don't grow with the waistline.

To produce lots of power you need to start with big lungs, and then if you trim down you can also climb well.

Only way losing weight can hurt power output is if it interferes with training- you can't push yourself as hard when you are starving yourself.

All the heavy riders are also slim for their build- Ulrich would be 90kg or so if he was an "average bloke" of his height and build.

mtbnewbie said:

Well what is more important than a riders overall weight is their power to weight ratio. So even if you are lighter and produce less overall energy than a heavier rider if you can produce more energy per kg of mass then you are at an advantage, despite a lower net power output.

As well carrying less fat is better, as such, since it does nothing to help generate power and loosing fat without loosing muscle mass will increase your power to weight ratio.

11ring said:

Exaxctly.

A little guy who gains weight does not gain power, as their lungs and heart don't grow with the waistline.

To produce lots of power you need to start with big lungs, and then if you trim down you can also climb well.

Only way losing weight can hurt power output is if it interferes with training- you can't push yourself as hard when you are starving yourself.

All the heavy riders are also slim for their build- Ulrich would be 90kg or so if he was an "average bloke" of his height and build.

OK, I'm a little confused. I seem to have gathered that big muscles increase strength, not power. So big guys should have no advantage in flat TTs. Perhaps you all mean "big" as in big lungs? So, "big" guys have more power by having bigger lungs and hearts than tiny climbers?

I'm 138 pounds (62.5kg) of lean body mass, with an extra 12 pounds of fat added on just for fun (well, *from* fun!). So, at 150 pounds (68kg) and 5'7" height (171cm) total am I a big guy or a small guy? Should I measure my lungs and heart next? ;-)

Just trying to assess where my strengths and weaknesses lie, and why...

DennistheMennis said:

OK, I'm a little confused. I seem to have gathered that big muscles increase strength, not power. So big guys should have no advantage in flat TTs.

When properly trained, greater muscle mass tends to produce greater power. In a gross generalization, if each cell can produce a certain amount of aerobic power, then more cells means more power. In any case, fat doesn't help push the pedals, so good riders try to be pretty lean.

DennistheMennis said:

Just trying to assess where my strengths and weaknesses lie, and why...

The best way to do that is by riding your bike in a group, not standing on a scale. Most of the posts above are gross generalizations based on entire populations of riders. Don't try to apply them to one individual or another.

ok lets straighten things out. Lets say there is a rider who's FT is 300 watts he is 60kg's (5w/kg) which is quite powerful for someone that size. Lets say he has a bit of a gut and too much upper body mass. He comes back next year at 300 watts and weighs only 55kg's (5.45w/kg) that is a big difference! For him to ride at the same pace uphill as last year he only needs 275 watts to keep the same pace.

So pretty much you need to become as powerful as possible and then cut down unneccessary weight to make it easier on yourself.

lance's FT is 450 watts? and he weighs 74kg's thats (6.08 w/ kg). Jose Rujano weighs 50kg's for him to have the same power to weight he only needs 304 watts!!!

Now I am not saying everyone can be a rujano but if you can't see your ribs or cant see high definition in your arms/ abs / legs then start watching what you eat because those 5kg's make a difference.

And remember to wear tight clothing! Someone wearing baggy gear will prolly have to push 20% harder than the guy in the skinsuit!

Training is also recommended :p

That guys got a nice package down there.

IndyRider said:

Do you know this man? If he is not too skinny for cycling, no one is....

[img]feltet.dkMR4.jpgOpen ↗[/img]

My point is that the more powerful guys have a naturally "big" frame with correspondingly big lungs. You "ideal" weight is determined by genetics, a little guy will not gain sustainable power from eating more and/or gaining muscle mass (only anaerobic power).

At only 5,7 I would say you are a little guy unless you are really broad. You can probably mose an extra 5kg before your power output falls.

At 183 cm and 69kg i am overweight for my body type. I need to get to 65. NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Unless i want to become a sprinter then i should bulk up to 75kg.

DennistheMennis said:

OK, I'm a little confused. I seem to have gathered that big muscles increase strength, not power. So big guys should have no advantage in flat TTs. Perhaps you all mean "big" as in big lungs? So, "big" guys have more power by having bigger lungs and hearts than tiny climbers?

I'm 138 pounds (62.5kg) of lean body mass, with an extra 12 pounds of fat added on just for fun (well, *from* fun!). So, at 150 pounds (68kg) and 5'7" height (171cm) total am I a big guy or a small guy? Should I measure my lungs and heart next? ;-)

Just trying to assess where my strengths and weaknesses lie, and why...