BMI vs. Weight to measure clydsdale

Believe what you will, and one of these days when I have time, I will truly research this, but the weight classes were not created for the overweight.  They were created for the overly muscular and/or overly large in stature athlete.  BMI is too deceptive of a measurement to truly be a valid source of measurement.

And in all reality, what RD is going to want to have to measure both height AND weight?

so where do i fit in?

weight    210lbs
height    6'0"
BMI        28.5

am i just SOL on the clyde category from now on? my waist line would beg to differ.

what you have is a good idea but lets face it... when you do a road race/tri the age group & weight categories are simply a means to give people a "good" feeling about competing with "similar" others. they are like finisher medals.

at the Olympics... they don't break the high jump, pole vault, 800m, 10k events into categories... you either have great talent and win or you don't.

they didn't put Dara Torres (oy.. she's hot)  in the masters Olympics?

I don't know about you but I still compete with the guys doing sprints in 1hr even tho I am way back at 1hr 30.

on second thought lets just create 4 groups from the two...

clyde/ athena (muscular builds)
doughboy/ doughgirl (overweighters)

sorry, I am in a sarcastic mood today.

The whole idea of the Clyde / Athena categories is to level the playing field for us amateurs, so we can compare ourselves to people of similar body types.

I would suggest that doing that by setting an arbitrary 200 lbs demarkation may be too broad of a brush.

so lets do it as in boxing where its only by weight and do away with ages... so no more will a 39y.o. not be competing against a 40 y.o. because lets face it someone who's 39 is in the prime of life but a 40y.o. is a "master" and is about to die of old age. age groups are just as arbitrary as weight.

the reality is that at a race with 250 competitors there will be maybe 20 clydes and 10 athenas and thats not breaking them into master's, non-master's, novice, or other sub group.

people our size on average do not do events like this... quite frankly i am surprised they even have the categories for us. everything usually goes by age.

NEW CATS (regardless of age or BMI)

Super Clyde's                 250+
Clyde's                           235 - 249
Fly Clyde's                      220 - 234
Junior Mustangs             205 - 219
Middle Mustangs            195 - 204
Junior Jack Rabbits         185 - 194
Feather Jack Rabbits      175 - 184
Bantam Hare's               165 - 174
Mini Hare's                     155 - 164
Super Mini Hare's           154 or less

(Womens categories would be a less in weight)



Edited by rugb_wngr 2009-09-18 4:48 PM

So OP then you wouldn't qualify?

I puffy heart you right now.  I'm tiered of C/A's whining about weight.

To the OP: good luck at your HIM this weekend!

Edited by k_watzek 2009-09-18 10:48 PM

I think using BMI as a tool for anything is pointless. The whole BMI concept is garbage.

Really?  Are you sure?  I don't recall seeing this in the USAT rules.  What exactly makes you think this?

FYI My husband is 5'10", muscular and just at 200.  He runs and cycles but is not into tri's, he would not register as a clyde because he isn't regularly above 200 and sometimes under.  However, by your post he would easily qualify as a clyde based on BMI - Warning - he is quite fast for a beginner and if/when he learns to swim he would finish well I am sure.

This has been said again and again - The Clyde/Athena class is not for the out of shape/heavy/fluffy/fat/doughy etc.  From what I understand the class is for people who weigh more due to height and muscle.

I am 5'9" and sit around 155.  I qualify as Athena for some but not all races as some put the weight at 160.  I am not heavy/fat/fluffy or out of shape but I am muscular and am on the tall side for a woman. 

Athena/Clyde is measured by wieght not BMI or body fat % and I think as long as men and women qualify whether it is their first season or fifteenth they should register in the class that best fits them.

Thank you.  BMI is about as arbitrary as the original food pyramid.

X2

So why not make work the scale for winning.

W=Force times Distance.  All things being equal (assuming resistance to wind, elevation gain = zero) except for weight and time, use basic physics and calculate who worked the hardest?
  A 100 pound guy would have to be twice as fast as a 200 pound guy two win.  This is really the only way a big guy can compete against a small guy, who flat out worked hard, with hard data to prove it.

Time would be an issue, but the winner is who has the largest W.

Based on BMI I'm over 30% which would make me obese. At 5'7 193 I wouldnt normally disagree. I spent alot of years, lifting weights (since i was 10 or so I'm now 23). I have a 46 inch chest and my thighs are bigger around than most peoples waist and 15% BF or so. So based on BMI you would have me race against people who are very overweight? still doesnt work. BMI is a crap measurement all the way around.

This is just as ridiculous Swanny. Let's leave it the way it is and all have a beer after the race BS podium medal or not.

+1 to BMI being garbage

The whole Clyde/Athena idea is that weight actually does affect someones swimming/biking/running performance. 

Most of us 200+ lb triathletes are not at the same level as a 150 lb man or a 110 lb woman who are agonizing to take half a pound off their bike weight to get a competitive advantage (if you know what I mean).  For me, heck, I bike in my running shoes in cages with flat pedals (and that's about a minute T2 advantage   T2 = drop bike, drop helmet, grab hat and put on while running)

Really, it is what it is.  And unless you are elite you are competing with yourself (really) and that's all it matters...

Of course it ridiculous, but its probably better than BMI, or should it be BM,BS.  Suffice it to say, Time is the only standard that is practical. But I also know, I will work harder than 95% of the folks there. Exited for Sunday.

I think weight classes are more valid than age groups though. 

Actually it was a tool created in Belgium in the 1840s to make statistical and social conclusions about broad populations. It's worthless as a tool to measure health or fitness when compared to something more tangible like blood pressure, VO2 max, a stress test, etc.

I agree 100%.  That's why I see a lot more relevance in weight classes than age groups.  I see more relevance in a 225lb 25yr old vs a 225yr old 40yr old than two 30 yr olds who weight 130 and 190.  Obviously, the 130lb person has to produce a lot less effort and spend a lot less energy.

The age/ weight thing is still arbitrary in my opinion.

I used to weigh 150lbs and ran in college. I could crank out 6 min miles for a 10k even tho I was an 800m runner. When I started playing rugby around 28, I lifted weights to get to 185lbs and could only do about 7:30 per mile. I now weigh 210lbs and I am 42 and can do around 9min per mile for a 10k.

I have noticed a huge difference over the years in ability due to weight and age. If we went weight classes, I think there could be age spans added on as well.

u21 (21 & under) for those young novices not yet fully developed
u28 for those in their prime
u35 for those of us just at the age of losing our youth
u42 for those of us thinking we are still young but refuse to admit it
u49
u56
u63
64+ for those of us senile enough to never quit (I know I'll be one)

but face it... it would be way to complicated a system.

maybe the clyde/ athena should be a height/ weight ratio instead. For men maybe the following:

5'-8"     180lbs+
5'-10"   190lbs+
6'          200lbs+
6'-2"      210lbs+
6'-4"      220lbs+

I'm opposed to adding even MORE divisions just so someone has a better chance to get some hardware.

Why not break it up into 1 year age groups?  Then by 5 lb increments, then body fat percentages?  It can go on and on and on.  How much pride can one take if winning a division if it get's so watered down, that only 2-3 people are in each division?

I AM a clydesdale, and proud of the fact I can do this sport as a clyde.  I race it when it's available, but don't cry about it when it's not...  I have won the clydesdale division one week, and placed MOP the next.  Division breakdown gets trumped most of the time by who shows up that week.

To be honest, I would rather get rid of divisions rather than add more.  If anything, the entire system could be revamped.  Maybe catagory levels like cycle racing.  Start out at cat 5 or 6 and move up based on the number of races you do and your performance.

I'm not sure if you just pick a BMI of 30 as a random number or actually want to use it... but a BMI of 30 or above is considered Obese. 

the Clydes division was not created for obese people.. it was created for those Taller" low body fat people that are larger than everyone else, but not Obese.    Could there be a better weight than the 200lb that was picked? perhaps. 

there used to be someone that would post a picture of a Clydesdale horse as compared to a regular to illistrate this point.