Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
14-04.-2004, 03:07 AM
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Backstedt is 200 lb??
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?" |
|
|
14-04.-2004, 05:28 AM
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Backstedt is 200 lb??
jeffjones@stormloader.com (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. Morgan |
|
|
|
14-04.-2004, 10:43 AM
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Backstedt is 200 lb??
"Morgan Fletcher" <morgan@hahaha.org> wrote in message
news:87u0znhbc0.fsf@fletcher.sonic.net... > jeffjones@stormloader.com (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. Andy Coggan |
|
|
|
15-04.-2004, 12:44 AM
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Backstedt is 200 lb??
"Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news  H0fc.8745$k05.1263@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...> "Morgan Fletcher" <morgan@hahaha.org> wrote in message > news:87u0znhbc0.fsf@fletcher.sonic.net... > > jeffjones@stormloader.com (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. > > Andy Coggan > > So what? BMI is a stupid way to calculate "fitness." Not everyone in the world is an ectomorph. |
|
|
|
15-04.-2004, 10:40 AM
|
#5 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Backstedt is 200 lb??
In article <c5jm8o$9qb$1@home.itg.ti.com>, James Calivar
<amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > "Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news H0fc.8745$k05.1263@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...> > "Morgan Fletcher" <morgan@hahaha.org> wrote in message > > news:87u0znhbc0.fsf@fletcher.sonic.net... > > > jeffjones@stormloader.com (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. > > > > 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 |
|
|
|
15-04.-2004, 01:02 PM
|
#6 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Backstedt is 200 lb??
"James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<c5jm8o$9qb$1@home.itg.ti.com>...
> "Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news H0fc.8745$k05.1263@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...> > "Morgan Fletcher" <morgan@hahaha.org> wrote in message > > news:87u0znhbc0.fsf@fletcher.sonic.net... > > > jeffjones@stormloader.com (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. > > > > 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. |
|
|
|
15-04.-2004, 02:31 PM
|
#7 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Backstedt is 200 lb??
RK wrote:
> "James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote >> "Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote >>> "Morgan Fletcher" <morgan@hahaha.org> wrote >>>> jeffjones@stormloader.com (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. |
|
|
|
15-04.-2004, 02:42 PM
|
#8 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Backstedt is 200 lb??
In article <c5l6o0$2onq0$1@ID-226327.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote: > RK wrote: > > "James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote > >> "Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote > >>> "Morgan Fletcher" <morgan@hahaha.org> wrote > > >>>> jeffjones@stormloader.com (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? |
|
|
|
15-04.-2004, 10:50 PM
|
#9 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Backstedt is 200 lb??
"Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<c5l6o0$2onq0$1@ID-226327.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> RK wrote: > > "James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote > >> "Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote > >>> "Morgan Fletcher" <morgan@hahaha.org> wrote > > >>>> jeffjones@stormloader.com (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.... |
|
|
|
16-04.-2004, 04:00 AM
|
#10 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Backstedt is 200 lb??
In article <993db82c.0404150550.1ad1cb53@posting.google.com>,
rjk3@my-deja.com (RK) wrote: > "Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:<c5l6o0$2onq0$1@ID-226327.news.uni-berlin.de>... > > RK wrote: > > > "James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote > > >> "Andy Coggan" <acoggan@earthlink.net> wrote > > >>> "Morgan Fletcher" <morgan@hahaha.org> wrote > > > > >>>> jeffjones@stormloader.com (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. |
|
|
Linear Mode
