Re: Clydesdale Riding<-- What's that???

[Penny S.]

Snyperx thoughtfully penned:
> I am just getting back into riding after a long hiatous and was wonder
> what kind fo riding is Clydesdale Riding??? I have been shopping for
> some new Rims and I saw a few that were suited for this kind fo
> riding. Anyone care to explain? Thanks.
>
>
> Snyperx

www.ridephat.com


might help

[Westie]

"Snyperx" > wrote in message
news:VSnOa.1575$N7.606@sccrnsc03...
> I am just getting back into riding after a long hiatous and was wonder
> what kind fo riding is Clydesdale Riding??? I have been shopping for
> some new Rims and I saw a few that were suited for this kind fo riding.
> Anyone care to explain? Thanks.
>
>
> Snyperx
>

If you weigh in at 200 pounds or more, you are affectionately referred to as
being a 'Clydesdale' (And if by some chance you don't know what a Clydesdale
is, it is a very large solid breed of horse). Consequently it helps if,
amongst other things, your rims are built strong enough to handle 200 pounds
swinging around on top of it. Many of the 'lightweight' components and
frames that you find on bikes these days will have a very short lifespan if
you weigh a bit more than 200 pounds.
--
Westie
-He who can be a Clydesdale one day, a thoroughbred the next-

[B a r r y B u r k e J r .]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:42:18 +1200, "Westie"
> wrote:

>
>If you weigh in at 200 pounds or more, you are affectionately referred to as
>being a 'Clydesdale' (And if by some chance you don't know what a Clydesdale
>is, it is a very large solid breed of horse). Consequently it helps if,
>amongst other things, your rims are built strong enough to handle 200 pounds
>swinging around on top of it. Many of the 'lightweight' components and
>frames that you find on bikes these days will have a very short lifespan if
>you weigh a bit more than 200 pounds.

It also helps if you can ride. <G>

A Clydesdale is a 200+ pound person who can hold his own on the trail
or road. A 200+ pound person who can't ride well is simply a "fat guy
on a bike".

Barry (6'1" 230)

[Phil.Winterbourne]

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." wrote:
>

[snip]
>
> It also helps if you can ride. <G>
>
> A Clydesdale is a 200+ pound person who can hold his own on the trail

Sounds a bit risky to me however much you weigh. Good trick though :-)

Phil
(225 lb 6'1)

[KLydesdale]

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <Keep it in the > wrote
in message ...
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:42:18 +1200, "Westie"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >If you weigh in at 200 pounds or more, you are affectionately referred to
as
> >being a 'Clydesdale' (And if by some chance you don't know what a
Clydesdale
> >is, it is a very large solid breed of horse). Consequently it helps if,
> >amongst other things, your rims are built strong enough to handle 200
pounds
> >swinging around on top of it. Many of the 'lightweight' components and
> >frames that you find on bikes these days will have a very short lifespan
if
> >you weigh a bit more than 200 pounds.
>
> It also helps if you can ride. <G>
>
> A Clydesdale is a 200+ pound person who can hold his own on the trail
> or road. A 200+ pound person who can't ride well is simply a "fat guy
> on a bike".
>


Being able to ride not withstanding, there's plenty of fat regular ol'
horses misappropriating the Clydesdale name.

[Craig Brossman]

"Technician" > wrote in message
. ..
> Sure, for somebody that is 5', 200 lbs would be on the fat side. but for
> 6'3", 200 lbs is on the underweight side.
> --
> ~Travis

He's done it again.

--
Craig (6'2" and 175 lbs) Brossman, Durango Colorado
(remove .nospam. if replying)

[Andrew Thorne]

>
>"Technician" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Sure, for somebody that is 5', 200 lbs would be on the fat side. but for
>> 6'3", 200 lbs is on the underweight side.
>> --
>> ~Travis
>
>He's done it again.
>

He should check out:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/bmi_tbl.htm

Let's see: 6'3", 200# yields a BMI of 25, just over the line into "overweight".
To be "underweight" at that height would be 148 lbs or less.

Cheers,

-Andrew "needs to drop a few himself" Thorne

[Bob M]

On 08 Jul 2003 16:58:43 GMT, Andrew Thorne >
wrote:

>>
>> "Technician" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Sure, for somebody that is 5', 200 lbs would be on the fat side. but
>>> for
>>> 6'3", 200 lbs is on the underweight side.
>>> --
>>> ~Travis
>>
>> He's done it again.
>>
>
> He should check out:
> http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/bmi_tbl.htm
>
> Let's see: 6'3", 200# yields a BMI of 25, just over the line into
> "overweight".
> To be "underweight" at that height would be 148 lbs or less.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Andrew "needs to drop a few himself" Thorne
>

But BMI is BS. It's based on a mythical person. I've ALWAYS been
overweight as per BMI. The lowest I've weighed since high school is about
165, which is about 25 and overweight as per BMI. Buy my thighs are 22+
inches in circumference, my chest about 50 inches in circumference, and my
arms about 13.5 inches (unflexed) in circumference. I was a bodybuilder
when I was younger, and I'm still built even though I don't lift weights
now due to injuries. BMI doesn't take muscle mass into account. How could
you be a male at 6'3" and be 148 pounds? That's freaking obscenely thin!
They need to put some data for normal, more muscular people in here.

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

[Bran]

B a r r y B u r k e J r . <Keep it in the > spake
thusly on or about Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:56:29 UTC

-> A Clydesdale is a 200+ pound person who can hold his own on the trail
-> or road. A 200+ pound person who can't ride well is simply a "fat guy
-> on a bike".
->
-> Barry (6'1" 230)

having been 250 and 3% bodyfat I think you have confused weight/mass and
fat. a fat guy is a fat guy regardless of his mass or weight. If he is on
a bike at all good for him.

I have averaged 25Km a day winter and summer over the last year including a
couple trips with fresh snow up the axles and several days with the temps
below -35 C. these days I am 140 Kg and 2 M and carrying a fair bit of
extra lard but a lot less than I was three years back. once I get back
down to 120 Kg I would not even seem tubby.

given my own past of double centuries and cx riding I am a fat guy on a
bike enjoying the trails and single track using a down hill rim on the back
to handle an odd wheelie drop. good news is i am on the trails with my
bike and having a darn good time.



--
I hurt before the ride so fibro gives me a head
start on the rest of the pack. silver lining?

[Bran]

(Andrew Thorne) spake thusly on or about Tue,
8 Jul 2003 16:58:43 UTC

-> Let's see: 6'3", 200# yields a BMI of 25, just over the line into "overweight".
-> To be "underweight" at that height would be 148 lbs or less.
->
->

bmi is mostly a crap measure based on couch potatos; it does not take lean
body mass into account. as long as you do not apply bmi to active
athletic folks it might be worth something.

--
I hurt before the ride so fibro gives me a head
start on the rest of the pack. silver lining?

[James Messick]

"Andrew Thorne" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >"Technician" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> Sure, for somebody that is 5', 200 lbs would be on the fat side. but
for
> >> 6'3", 200 lbs is on the underweight side.
> >> --
> >> ~Travis
> >
> >He's done it again.
> >
>
> He should check out:
> http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/bmi_tbl.htm
>

And I thought I'd never see 30 again!

[Bob M]

On 08 Jul 2003 18:34:59 GMT, Andrew Thorne >
wrote:

>>
>> But BMI is BS. It's based on a mythical person. I've ALWAYS been
>> overweight as per BMI. The lowest I've weighed since high school is
>> about 165, which is about 25 and overweight as per BMI. Buy my thighs
>> are 22+ inches in circumference, my chest about 50 inches in
>> circumference, and my arms about 13.5 inches (unflexed) in
>> circumference. I was a bodybuilder when I was younger, and I'm still
>> built even though I don't lift weights now due to injuries. BMI doesn't
>> take muscle mass into account. How could you be a male at 6'3" and be
>> 148 pounds? That's freaking obscenely thin! They need to put some data
>> for normal, more muscular people in here.
>>
>> --
>
> Of course. All guidelines are just that. But when a 6'3", 200 pound guy
> claims
> he's borderline underweight, that needs to be challenged.
>
> -Andrew Thorne



I don't think so -- if he's at all muscular, 200 pounds could be
underweight. Heck, my best friend is only 6'1" and at 200 pounds he's
ridiculously skinny, but he's muscular.

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

[ClydesdaleMTB]

Andrew Thorne wrote:
> But when a 6'3", 200 pound guy claims
> he's borderline underweight, that needs to be challenged.

"way back when" (late 90's) I was training 2-3 hours a day, 5 days a
week for competition karate I was 6'3" and 200-210 and I _was_
underweight, according to our team physician. I would eat and eat and
eat some more and could not put on or even maintain weight... (see photo
below)

Eventually, I whne I cut way back on the training regimine and was able
to maintain a healthy weight....

Of course all that changed when I got married ;-(



--
John G..... Just say GRRRrrrrrr. :
http://www.shavings.net/images/justfolks/karate_john.jpg
etc.

[Andrew Thorne]

>
>
>I don't think so -- if he's at all muscular, 200 pounds could be
>underweight. Heck, my best friend is only 6'1" and at 200 pounds he's
>ridiculously skinny, but he's muscular.
>
>--

We can go back and forth on this all day, if you really want to (which I
don't). And I'm sure you can show me examples of people who are fit as hell,
with very low body fat, with BMI's in the high 20's.
But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about one, slightly
bigger than average guy, who claimed that he was borderline underweight at 6'3"
200#. He ain't a body builder. He ain't Herman Maier. And he ain't underweight.

-Andrew

[Bob M]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:39:49 GMT, Craig Brossman
> wrote:

> "Bob M" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I don't think so -- if he's at all muscular, 200 pounds could be
>> underweight. Heck, my best friend is only 6'1" and at 200 pounds he's
>> ridiculously skinny, but he's muscular.
>>
>> --
>> Bob M in CT
>> Remove 'x.' to reply
>
> Throwing away terms like muscular, underweight or "ridiculously skinny",
> I'm
> 6'2" and weight in at 175. I don't know what my BMI is, but I have been
> tested at around 7.5% body fat, w/ both the pinch test and an electronic
> scale. Althought there are more accurate tests, I have some confidence in
> these combined.
> Although I am far thinner than the average American (perhaps Euro as
> well),
> and would always like to add 10 lbs of muscle, but I am not on the verge
> of
> going anorexic.
> I guess I have no idea what muscular means in the above context. Since my
> body fat % is low, that means what, that I am also muscular, perhaps very
> large boned (nope, size 43 shoes), heavy organs ... there is not much
> left
> to contribute to my 175lbs.
>
> Somehow, not so long ago in this thread, Travis said something about a
> tall
> guy being skinny and underweight at 200lbs, and said it in very general
> terms. This group hates generalizations and so do I.
> Everyone my size is no more "ridiculously skinny" than all 6'2" guys at
> 220
> being "ridiculously fat".
>
> --
> Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado
> (remove .nospam. if replying)
>
>
>

I agree with you -- generalizations suck. If you're like that, that's
fine. What I'm saying is that people can be 6'2" (or whatever) and weigh a
wide array of weights yet still be fit and not fat. n the example I gave,
a 6'2" person could be underweight at 200 pounds. Merely selecting a
weight and saying that that weight is "light" or "heavy" is ludicrous.
This is exactly what BMI does, which makes it a useless tool. As for
muscular, what's your arm circumference, leg circumference, and chest
circumference? I guarantee that you don't have 15 inch arms and 25 inch
thighs. Some people do -- and genetically so or perhaps by lifting
weights. For instance, I'm 5'8" but I bet the circumference of my arms and
thighs are larger than yours (due in my case to a combination of genetics
and bodybuilding). But for the original poster to assign some arbitrary
weight to a height and then call all people who are above that fat and
below that "clydesdales," this is where I have to disagree. Just because
we might be above the arbitrarily defined level doesn't mean that we're
fat.

The purpose of biking should be fun -- that's why I ride a mountain bike,
to have fun. To see someone calling me fat simply because I don't meet
their height/weight definition irks me. Even though I'll never be a great
rider because I'm too damn heavy due the muscle mass I'm carrying, I enjoy
riding. I just don't like labels.

So, I think we're on the same page -- as long as you enjoy riding your
bike, who gives a crap? I don't -- except when I'm being labeled by
someone.

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

[Westie]

"Bob M" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:39:49 GMT, Craig Brossman
> > wrote:
<snip>

> > Everyone my size is no more "ridiculously skinny" than all 6'2" guys at
> > 220
> > being "ridiculously fat".
> >
> > --
> > Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado
> > (remove .nospam. if replying)
> >
> >
> >
>
> I agree with you -- generalizations suck. If you're like that, that's
> fine. What I'm saying is that people can be 6'2" (or whatever) and weigh
a
> wide array of weights yet still be fit and not fat. n the example I gave,
> a 6'2" person could be underweight at 200 pounds. Merely selecting a
> weight and saying that that weight is "light" or "heavy" is ludicrous.
> This is exactly what BMI does, which makes it a useless tool. As for
> muscular, what's your arm circumference, leg circumference, and chest
> circumference? I guarantee that you don't have 15 inch arms and 25 inch
> thighs. Some people do -- and genetically so or perhaps by lifting
> weights. For instance, I'm 5'8" but I bet the circumference of my arms
and
> thighs are larger than yours (due in my case to a combination of genetics
> and bodybuilding). But for the original poster to assign some arbitrary
> weight to a height and then call all people who are above that fat and
> below that "clydesdales," this is where I have to disagree. Just because
> we might be above the arbitrarily defined level doesn't mean that we're
> fat.
>
> The purpose of biking should be fun -- that's why I ride a mountain bike,
> to have fun. To see someone calling me fat simply because I don't meet
> their height/weight definition irks me. Even though I'll never be a great
> rider because I'm too damn heavy due the muscle mass I'm carrying, I enjoy
> riding. I just don't like labels.
>
> So, I think we're on the same page -- as long as you enjoy riding your
> bike, who gives a crap? I don't -- except when I'm being labeled by
> someone.
>
> --
> Bob M in CT
> Remove 'x.' to reply

Ditto. I agree too. I'm a perfect example of why BMI doesn't always work.
At 5'7" and 180-odd pounds when fit, BMI considers me to be verging on
"Obese". Not just "overweight" mind you, but "obese". I'm very stocky and
solidly built. At that weight, when I was 24 and doing hard physical work
outdoors for 10 hours a day, not a single person would have looked at me and
thought "overweight". BMI is suitable for only people of 'average build'.
Whatever that is.
Admittedly I might be carrying a few excess pounds recently.... :-)
--
Westie

[Gman]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:22:38 -0400, ClydesdaleMTB > wrote:
>
>
> Andrew Thorne wrote:
> > But when a 6'3", 200 pound guy claims
>> he's borderline underweight, that needs to be challenged.
>
> "way back when" (late 90's) I was training 2-3 hours a day, 5 days a
> week for competition karate I was 6'3" and 200-210 and I _was_
> underweight, according to our team physician. I would eat and eat and
> eat some more and could not put on or even maintain weight... (see photo
> below)
>
> Eventually, I whne I cut way back on the training regimine and was able
> to maintain a healthy weight....
>
> Of course all that changed when I got married ;-(

Dude, remind me not to **** you off. :)

[Shaun Rimmer]

Andrew Thorne > wrote in message
...
> >
> >
> >I don't think so -- if he's at all muscular, 200 pounds could be
> >underweight. Heck, my best friend is only 6'1" and at 200 pounds he's
> >ridiculously skinny, but he's muscular.
> >
> >--
>
> We can go back and forth on this all day, if you really want to (which I
> don't). And I'm sure you can show me examples of people who are fit as
hell,
> with very low body fat, with BMI's in the high 20's.
> But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about one, slightly
> bigger than average guy, who claimed that he was borderline underweight at
6'3"
> 200#. He ain't a body builder. He ain't Herman Maier. And he ain't
underweight.

He might well be extremely underweight, especially considering at least 100
lbs of that weight is in his big dense head.


Shaun aRe - HTH!

[Shaun Rimmer]

Craig Brossman > wrote in message
et...
> "Bob M" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I don't think so -- if he's at all muscular, 200 pounds could be
> > underweight. Heck, my best friend is only 6'1" and at 200 pounds he's
> > ridiculously skinny, but he's muscular.
> >
> > --
> > Bob M in CT
> > Remove 'x.' to reply
>
> Throwing away terms like muscular, underweight or "ridiculously skinny",
I'm
> 6'2" and weight in at 175. I don't know what my BMI is, but I have been
> tested at around 7.5% body fat, w/ both the pinch test and an electronic
> scale. Althought there are more accurate tests, I have some confidence in
> these combined.
> Although I am far thinner than the average American (perhaps Euro as
well),
> and would always like to add 10 lbs of muscle, but I am not on the verge
of
> going anorexic.
> I guess I have no idea what muscular means in the above context. Since my
> body fat % is low, that means what, that I am also muscular, perhaps very
> large boned (nope, size 43 shoes), heavy organs ... there is not much left
> to contribute to my 175lbs.
>
> Somehow, not so long ago in this thread, Travis said something about a
tall
> guy being skinny and underweight at 200lbs, and said it in very general
> terms. This group hates generalizations and so do I.
> Everyone my size is no more "ridiculously skinny" than all 6'2" guys at
220
> being "ridiculously fat".

I'm 6'1" and about 150-155 lbs. Anyone called me skinny, I'd cut 'em wide
open with my razor sharp rib cage.


Shaun aRe - but on a serious note, I'm not skinny, just not at all fat
',;~}~

[B a r r y B u r k e J r .]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:27:06 -0000, "Bran"
> wrote:

>B a r r y B u r k e J r . <Keep it in the > spake
>thusly on or about Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:56:29 UTC
>
>-> A Clydesdale is a 200+ pound person who can hold his own on the trail
>-> or road. A 200+ pound person who can't ride well is simply a "fat guy
>-> on a bike".
>->
>-> Barry (6'1" 230)
>
>having been 250 and 3% bodyfat I think you have confused weight/mass and
>fat. a fat guy is a fat guy regardless of his mass or weight. If he is on
>a bike at all good for him.

250 and 3% BF? <G> So you're in the bodyfat range of an elite NFL
wide reciever, or elite marathon runner?

How tall are you? How was the bodyfat measured?

Also, I didn't pick the 200 pound number, a sanctioning body did.

Barry

[Andrew Thorne]

>He might well be extremely underweight, especially considering at least 100
>lbs of that weight is in his big dense head.
>

Damn good point.

-Andrew

[Craig Brossman]

"Bob M" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> The purpose of biking should be fun -- that's why I ride a mountain bike,
> to have fun. To see someone calling me fat simply because I don't meet
> their height/weight definition irks me. Even though I'll never be a great
> rider because I'm too damn heavy due the muscle mass I'm carrying, I enjoy
> riding. I just don't like labels.
>
> So, I think we're on the same page -- as long as you enjoy riding your
> bike, who gives a crap? I don't -- except when I'm being labeled by
> someone.
>
> --
> Bob M in CT
> Remove 'x.' to reply

Agreed, have a great ride today!
--
Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado
(remove .nospam. if replying)

[Bran]

B a r r y B u r k e J r . <Keep it in the > spake
thusly on or about Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:31:16 UTC

-> Did you ride at that time? Was all that extra muscle on the upper
-> body a detriment? Did you ever go swimming with the 3% composition?
-> Did you sink? <G>

I have never been a Class rider but yep i was riding. I have no idea when I
learned to ride but I was riding in paris in 66/67 before they booted nato.
I suppose I had a big wind drag and extra weight but I never came home
last in a century ride.

Sinking wise i can still stand on the bottom of the deep end but at that
time i could stretch out along the bottom and any stroke that called for me
to stay near the surface was much harder.

--
I hurt before the ride so fibro gives me a head
start on the rest of the pack. silver lining?

[John Spann]

Snyperx wrote:
> I am just getting back into riding after a long hiatous and was wonder
> what kind fo riding is Clydesdale Riding??? I have been shopping for
> some new Rims and I saw a few that were suited for this kind fo riding.
> Anyone care to explain? Thanks.
>
>
> Snyperx
>

Think light.

John Spann