# How about a distinction between Fat Clydes and Fit Clydes?



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

I mean, I'm 6'5" and would be considered fit by most standards. I've been riding regularly since I was a teenager and started hitting the gym at around the same time to balance out my physique, which I'm pretty happy with at a lean 200lbs, 9% bf. I'm 32 now.

Despite my relative leanness and smooth riding style, I still crush a lot of gear. I have so much power and leverage moving through me that I've all but abandoned any parts labelled 'xc'.

I work hard to stay in shape and yet I'm in the same 'category' as someone who weighs 150 lbs more than me?

I guess I take issue with the word 'Clyde' being equated with 'Heavy'. Either 'Clyde' should be expanded to include the lean - or - we should come up with a new term for the lean since our needs obviously vary a great deal from those of someone who's much heavier.


----------



## FlyByWIre (Apr 11, 2008)

I think the word would be "tall. I think clyde, by its nature, implies that you're not only a little taller than average...but probably a little heavier.


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

Fair enough. The title of this forum is 'Clydesdale/Tall Riders' after all. There's that distinction I guess. Guess I just get cranky that all the gear is either too short or much too wide in the waist.

guess i'd rather be ripped with a modest wardrobe than the other way around :thumbsup:


----------



## Sullycanpara (Jul 4, 2007)

I know you're not trying to sound like a prick by insulting us heavier Clydes, so I'll try not to take offence... 

I can see what you're getting at tho. When some toothpick like yourself calls themselves a Clyde...I just laugh and don't even consider that a Clyde anymore...but the fact is that the general demographic of cycling enthusiasts is that most don't really approach the 200 lb mark. You do make a point though, you have a weight level to differentiate a heavier rider from the "normal" cyclist...so why not a "Super-Clyde" category for riders that are really far from the norm? 

Or if you hate being lumped in with the "Fattie" clydes, you could always refer to yourself as "Clyde-Lite" to prove that you're bigger/heavier based upon your musculo-skeletal structure alone...and not that, coupled with five pounds of wings  

Quite frankly though, if it bothers you that much to be lumped in with a great, and in some cases, no less committed group of like minded individuals....then perhaps being a clyde isn't for you. I think it is amazing that someone that is well over the 200 lb mark would think to still be on a bike and riding the trails, and I'd have no problems associating myself with them, rather than being bothered by being included with them.

Face facts though... for 90% of the cycling crowd someone who is 200 lbs is heavy, whether they're heavy because of fat or physiology. Accept that fact, and move on down the trail.

My two cents....

Tim


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

To be perfectly honest I don't really care that much. I don't mean to sound so judgmental. It's more just a passing thought because when I'm in the forums section I see the 'Clydesdale/_Tall_...' and think "I'm tall, maybe there's something in there for me" but of course there rarely is.

Even though I'm not very heavy I'm definitely the 'biggest' rider in the circles I travel with. 
I'm happy that there's some sort of categorization to allow bigger riders to commiserate.

Toothpick! That's not nice. lol. Some people fight to keep weight off. I fight to keep it on. It's as hard to put on lean mass as it is to strip off unwanted fat. I work my ass off at the gym and then one ride and without careful attention to my diet and bam: muscle gone - may as well have not trained in the first place. It's the opposite of the physical issues most people face but it certainly no less difficult!

I'm just stoked that everyone's out riding. That's the most important thing. I'll have to get my skinny ass south of the border to come mix with the true clydes to get a better understanding of all this!!

Is there a Clyde-fest anywhere?


----------



## coachjon (Jun 13, 2007)

i hope you aren't racing as a clyde! sub 10 percent bodyfat at 200 lbs, sounds like a hammer. no sandbaggin' it


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

asin said:


> Despite my relative leanness and smooth riding style, I still crush a lot of gear. I have so much power and leverage moving through me that I've all but abandoned any parts labelled 'xc'.


bam! clydesdale, for purposes of the forum.

fatty fat fat fat!

...but yeah, I know what you mean. at 6'3 225 I totally qualify for clyde status, but i don't really identify with many of the threads on here. Most of the folk in this forum seem to be REALLY big or REALLY tall, and have genuine special needs. I seem to be fine so long as i run a big front rotor and stay out of the weight weenies forum.


----------



## bradmtb (Mar 16, 2006)

*Clydesdale-Lite works for me*

This is my 15th year racing beginner, sport, or Clydes. For the first 8-10 years I raced age group and got passed on the climbs by guys 25-50 lbs lighter. At 210 lbs and 6'4"
I found comfort in racing with bigger guys in Clydes (40+) if possible. I reached 225 late last year, and felt too heavy, so I dropped 20 lbs, and will race at 205 this year. My first race last month, several fellow clydes who I've raced with for years gave me sh!# about
being a "lite" weight. Racing sport clydes, I'll still be lucky to finish in the top 10 in any races this year, so I'll be damned if at 47, 6'4", 205lbs, and balding if I'm going to worry
about whether I'm "fat" enough. I feel a kinship with guys that struggle to race with extra
girth or height when most of my age groupers are 5'9", and 160 lbs. I'm ok with
Clydesdale-Lite:thumbsup: ...and for my bigger brethren, unless I cut out the suds,
I should be back up to 225 by the holiday season.


----------



## UmbrousSoul (Jul 19, 2007)

I always read the distinction as"Clydesdales and Tall Riders" There are Clydes that are Also Tall, aswell. There is room for everyone, most importantly.

I mean I always read that a clyde was basically the definition I guess. So how could Clyde-Lite work? How about we make up our own term like...StickMen or ....uhmm...I can't think I am drinking. Lets see here: Lyndes? Lyndales? As in Lean. Trust me people, I have TRIED to gain weight, currently am eating very fattening diet and I hover around the same weight. Basically I need to turn the rest of the small percentage of body fat into muscle, that will gain more weight.

@#10
I don't know but I agree with the big and tall stuff, I have to shop there too. I guess the refereance is basically the same, there are dudes that are just Big and Tall. As in body build is Big, not Medium or Small. You could be any weight but have very broad shoulders and long legs and arms? Generic clothes don't fit well and when the sleeve should be on the hand its often on the wrist and you look like you're ready for the flood in generic crappy jeans.


----------



## KevinBicycle (Mar 20, 2008)

I was also wondering about the term "Clydesdales". If it were maybe like the "Big & Tall" clothing stores. I always have a hard time finding pants that are my size 31"-32" waist, 34"-36" inseam. I don't know if this is just a common size that always sells out right away or what. I always have to search store to store to try to find pants this size. Anyway, I stopped at a "Big & Tall" clothing store thinking finally a store that would have pants my size. Thinking I'm tall, this is a store for me. Nothing even close to my size. I was thinking "Big or Tall", but I guess the sign said "Big & Tall".

Is the term "Clydesdale" kinda like the "Big & Tall" clothing stores? Not "Big or Tall", but specifically "Big & Tall"?

_*Bicycling* = Transportation of the future, now_
Ride on... Right on!

*Edit:* Maybe this is not the correct thread to ask? or nobody really knows?


----------



## stingray_coach (Jun 27, 2006)

asin said:


> Fair enough. The title of this forum is 'Clydesdale/Tall Riders' after all. There's that distinction I guess. Guess I just get cranky that all the gear is either too short or much too wide in the waist.
> 
> guess i'd rather be ripped with a modest wardrobe than the other way around :thumbsup:


lol...what a d!ck


----------



## norm (Feb 20, 2005)

How about a distinction between Fat Clydes and Fit Clydes?

I sense alot hurt here..... who cares about if your fit or not. I know "fat" guys that would rip the legs off of most riders under 160lb.

How about a Jiggle Test? Maybe leg shavers vs non-leg shavers,etc? All that matters is that you have the engine to do well and your having fun at it. 


"guess i'd rather be ripped with a modest wardrobe than the other way around"
Glamour only gets you so far.....


----------



## SingleTrackLovr (Apr 25, 2007)

I don't think the bike knows the difference, 200# of fat or muscle will break parts.


----------



## Psycho Mike (Apr 2, 2006)

I've been both....fat and fit clyde. At 6' and 235lb, the BMI says I'm fat...but my ~150lb occasional riding partner and I are really well matched (he is car free and fit as can be). To be honest, in terms of overall fitness, I'm probably in better shape than I was when I was in the reserves at 180lbs.

Regardless of any "sub-category" you'd want to tack on there, I'm a Clyde...and take great joy in showing folks that big does not equal fat / out of shape.


----------



## MaddSquirrel (Aug 5, 2005)

Why can't FIT and FAT apply to one person? So, by the way the post is stated you can't be both. I am Fat will not deny it, but I am also Fit. I do not see why you posted the question as you did. Just food for thought.


----------



## Hip (Feb 11, 2008)

Less than 10% body fat?? You should have no problem racing in the non-clyde class so you dont have to be embarrassed by being lumped up with us fat azzes!

LOL...J/K...I know what you mean. When I saw the hucking clyde thread I laughed and even posted that they were skinney...LOL


----------



## FireBallKY (Apr 15, 2004)

I've said for years that there should be a Super Clyde category but nobody seems to listen to a FAT guy. I hope your chain doesn't slip at the starting line and lets me get in front of you because you'll never have a chance to pass me once we hit the single track...you know, WIDE LOAD and all. By some chance you do pass me going up the hill you better get out of the way on the down side if you value your life. LOL

Am I offended? I don't think I am. I've been bigger than average all my life so I'm used to it. Being "fat" doesn't mean you can't be fit. So you can run farther than me...How much can you bench? So you can fly up a flight of stairs quicker than me...How much can you squat? Can you lift a washing machine and put it in a truck by yourself? I can. Anyways, this is pointless. Put a little thought into your posts next time...correction...put ALOT of thought before you post next time. :thumbsup:

If you ask me, I applaud someone that you don't consider "fit" for getting out and riding and putting themselves through torture and never giving up. It's much easier for someone like you to get out and ride 10, 15 or more miles than for someone like "us".

I'm bigger than the norm but I am not sedintary. Do I want to "improve" my physical conditioning and endurance and performance? Of course I do. Who doesn't? But I'm not ashamed of how I am as shown by the shirt I had made up for a group of us clydes.

Hey asin, mind if I take your bike for a spin?


----------



## PainMagnet (May 15, 2007)

i'm like 208 6'2.5" 13% bodyfat and I say I am. Hell I'm over 200lbs and thats the line I think in most cases. 

If you tell someone your a clyde, they should be able to look at you and see you're "fit" so the only people I could imagine you worrying about in this case is people online.

If so, I think myspace is just around the corner, they are into that stuff over there.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

asin said:


> Despite my relative leanness and smooth riding style, I still crush a lot of gear. I have so much power and leverage moving through me that I've all but abandoned any parts labelled 'xc'.


One of my favourite lines there fella - a great excuse for riders without finesse who break lots of kit. Learn to ride smoother instead of bemoaning the fact you are fairly tall and in proportion weight-wise.


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

KevinBicycle said:


> I was also wondering about the term "Clydesdales". If it were maybe like the "Big & Tall" clothing stores. I always have a hard time finding pants that are my size 31"-32" waist, 34"-36" inseam. I don't know if this is just a common size that always sells out right away or what. I always have to search store to store to try to find pants this size. Anyway, I stopped at a "Big & Tall" clothing store thinking finally a store that would have pants my size. Thinking I'm tall, this is a store for me. Nothing even close to my size. I was thinking "Big or Tall", but I guess the sign said "Big & Tall".
> Is the term "Clydesdale" kinda like the "Big & Tall" clothing stores? Not "Big or Tall", but specifically "Big & Tall"?
> 
> _*Bicycling* = Transportation of the future, now_
> Ride on... Right on!


Yup. I went through the same thing. I re-read the sign and realized that it's big AND tall. Not big OR tall.


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

stingray_coach said:


> lol...what a d!ck


It's the large-waisted gentleman that makes it impossible for me to buy any clothes. The fact that I am so unbelievably outnumbered is a very sad state of affairs.

Big kudos to those guys fighting off the gut!! Nice work!


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

TooTallUK said:


> One of my favourite lines there fella - a great excuse for riders without finesse who break lots of kit. Learn to ride smoother instead of bemoaning the fact you are fairly tall and in proportion weight-wise.


Fair enough. After thinking through it carefully it's been years since I've broken anything. That's as much a testament to the quality of the gear I'm riding (*cough*Knolly*cough*) as it is about my riding style. Other than a few tubes I didn't break anything last year or the one before.

But hey, if you think you can come ride the Shore or a summer in Whistler at my size and do better you are more than welcome to come over and show me how it's done!

Ultimately a fair comment tho


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

FireBallKY said:


> ...
> 
> Hey asin, mind if I take your bike for a spin?


For sure. Where do you live? I'm in Vancouver. I've got a V-Tach (big bike) and an 05 Enduro (small bike) that serve all my needs really well. Years of trial and error to get them working right. Years of weeding out the 5'4"-150lb-bike-shop-guys' advice to find solutions that actually work for me.

Other riders around my height (6'5") have loooooved my bikes. I've got a knack for getting these (physically) large bikes dialled.

If you're gonna be around my neck of the woods PM me.


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

Wow. Some very upset folks as a result of this thread.

Having read through it all I realize that this post really hit some nerves. I didn't set out to offend anyone. Sorry for that. I'm not really sure what I set out to do.



norm said:


> How about a distinction between Fat Clydes and Fit Clydes?
> 
> I sense alot hurt here..... who cares about if your fit or not. I know "fat" guys that would rip the legs off of most riders under 160lb.
> 
> ...


If you think any of these workouts are about glamour think again. Kicking my own ass on the bike and in the gym makes me stronger/faster/leaner/better. I make sure that every single workout/ride goes a little further than the last one (or heavier, or more intense, bigger gear, faster, more reps, ride soem feature I skipped the last time, fewer rests, more _something_). As luck would have it, form follows function. Try doing one of these workouts a day for a month and see how it affects, well, everything; including your riding. It's awesome.

In all fairness I've been dropped by riders bigger/smaller/leaner/fatter/younger/older than myself. Last summer I must have passed (politely!) 15 riders on Garbanzo in the Whistler Bike Park only to be effortlessly dropped by some child on a hardtail. That is the coolest thing. You deliver a whupping to your buddies one day and then have to eat a motherlode of humble pie the next day when some random rider in jeans on an 8-year old bike schools you on the Shore.

You can't tell by looking what kind of an ass-kicking someone can deliver to you. That's the beauty of cycling/climbing/surfing/snowboarding...! 
I get a kick out of it. It totally resets my expectations of myself and of others. Most importantly it reminds me how far I've got to go; how far I _could_ go. I just laugh it off, try to learn something from it and move on, hoping (fingers crossed) to be the ass-kicker the next time. But you never know; I've been destroyed by unassuming riders on many occasions and I look forward to the next time.


----------



## skihillguy (Mar 29, 2004)

Not Sure

Not sure where you are tryin to go with this thread. But I think most of these guys are talking more about xc biking, not lift accessed riding here at whistler. Anyone can pass anyone going downhill...just depends on how daring you are. Sure gravity can help...but also technical prowness can decide who will be faster

Now when it comes to a 6'4" 205lb "clyde" with 10% body fat.... come on think about it...are you really a true clyde or are you sandbaggin it to get on the podium. Move on up to sport where you really belong, if you have that skill....it will help pudh you better to compete with the 180lb guys. Most of the time I am racing against sport...cuz there ain't no clydesdale category up here. I am 5'11" 270lb. 

I just did a race where ao guys friends kept calling him out at the start.....telling him he was sandbaggin it. He was yelling back weigh me...weigh me...I'm 205 today. So to him and all the other lightweight clydes who sandbag it....I'm coming for you!!! All 270 lb.


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

Racing? Who said anything about racing? *lightbulb*

oh.

Um, yeah. Not really interested in racing uphill or down. I just like riding fast and far, with as much technical gnar (up and down) as possible.

It would for sure be sandbagging given a significant weight differential like that. Hypothetically I'd opt to race in the category that seemed like the best fit, even if that meant going up against 165-lb guys. 

My comments about Clydes as a category was more of a life/general comment. Nothing to do with racing.


----------



## skihillguy (Mar 29, 2004)

At 6'5" and 200lbs you are hardly a clyde. Yet you are talking about how there should be a distinction. You know within yourself that you are not a true clyde.
You also keep talking about riding down through garbabzo zone. Well truth be told I am not that far behind my buddies when we ride "renegade". That takes more technical ability to navigate smoothly. Has nothing to do with being a clyde. 
Put me beside a 150 weight weeonie and let us both coast down a hill..... he's toast....I have gravity working on my side. And these same buddies know I am getting much faster at climbing.
Come on out and ride the test of metal course....... I am a clyde and proud of it....I have goals to reach but yet I know I will never be down to 200lb...but alot of the weight weenies fear that if I even get down close they will be scared of what I can do.

Sure it would be nice to have sub categories..... but there is not a perfect formula for that.


----------



## MaddSquirrel (Aug 5, 2005)

So what was the reason for the post?


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

Wow are you guys touchy.

Every response I apologize a little bit more. I've conceded to the comments and responded accordingly. Every response I've written I've tried to agree and play nice. Try and say something self-deprecating about my own skills and abilities to try and encourage some kind of discourse. Every time I do this you guys come at me a little more. Wow. 

"True Clyde" wtf. at 6'5" I'm hardly in the same size class as someone who's 5'8" 150lbs now am I? So where do people with my build fit in? By saying we don't belong you concede to my original point: there should be a distinction between fit and fat clydes since people in my situation don't belong in the existing categories. You can't have it both ways.

"Riding renegade"? What does that even mean? If you could drop your defensiveness for a second and re-read what I wrote you'll see that I brought that up to show that anyone can be a skilled rider and that the passers can just as easily become the passees. I think we'd all agree that Sam Hill could beat any of us downhill. Oh and I only mentioned Garbanzo once.

Why can't you get down to 200lbs? Are you 7' tall?

Judging by the defensiveness that my original post brought up, I realize now that I brought up a completely valid point. Sorry to have ruffled so many feathers.


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

Damn good question. Curiosity I suppose. I didn't know it was a support group.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

This thread amuses the heck out of me.

Thanks asin!


----------



## Badmamajama (Mar 28, 2008)

*rides up a set of stairs*...COME GET ME SKIHILLGUY!!!  hehe


----------



## bradmtb (Mar 16, 2006)

*200+...not 235+...or 250+*

In my 15 years of mtb xc racing, I've rarely seen an expert or pro xc racer taller or heavier than me (in a non-Clyde category). Please...I know their out there, but it's not what "I" have seen. I race 5-7 events a year, mostly in NoCal, and rarely finish inside top 10. At 6'4", and down 20lbs this year to 205lbs, I'll be damned if I worry about what other Clydes think...I have fun, I compete, I follow the rules. If I drop below 200lbs, I'll switch to sport 45-50. On the climbs weight is a disadvantage, but ultimately it comes down to time in the saddle, determination (I lack this usually about half way through a course), and perhaps some other genetic force. Have fun, and could somebody tell me what I need to do to stop getting emails on this topic...never mind, I figured it out.


----------



## KevinBicycle (Mar 20, 2008)

So does the term "Clydesdale" refer to a bicycle rider big *or* tall? or specifically "Big & Tall"?
or is it refer to weight only?

*Edit:* Maybe this is not the correct thread to ask? or nobody really knows?


----------



## Hip (Feb 11, 2008)

I dont know but if asin's head gets any bigger...he will be an Uber Clyde! 

He is politley telling us how ripped he is...how awesome his skills are...and how sweet his(cough..Knolly..cough) bikes are...

It is amusing. In his defense...at 6'5"....He has got to be a Clyde!!!!!!!!! LOL


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

You go get competitive there fella - you sound like you get off on that sort of thing - further, faster, better etc etc. I ride because it is fun and involves cake and riding to the pub and back with friends and exploring. Fitter is good too, but I ride for my fun.

Oh - don't suppose on the build or weight of others - here or anywhere else. If I got down to 200lbs I'd look very ill indeed - we're all different. In here, it is a very accepting place for most all. I think those 'do I fit in here?' posts are a bit of willy-waving TBH. I'm 6'7 and now down to a paltry 240lbs from a weedy 252. I'm a very happy person. Try being happy in a non-competitive way.


----------



## Soupboy (Jan 13, 2004)

Wow, somebody has body image issues and is seeking validation. 

Mods - please move this to the "Ricky Lake/Carnie Wilson" forum, err, wait, there isn't one.

Alternative #1 - Create a new forum:

*Tall, Over 200#, But Really Super Fit & Ripped, Egomaniacs Inequitably Pigeon-Holed as Clydesdales*

Alternative #2 - Leave "Clydesdale" for the Tall, Over 200#, _But Really Super Fit & Ripped_, Egomaniacs Previiously Inequitably Pigeon-Holed as Clydesdales set. Create a new class called Percheron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percheron) where all the sloppy, obese and otherwise apathetic riders >200# can wallow happily about in their own unfitness.


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

Wow. All I can say is 'Wow'.

I guess you didn't read the part where I said that I don't race. Um I try to get better because riding is more fun when you're not spitting your lungs out at the top of the climb; when you can go as fast as you want and not die; when you have the skills to ride all the features of a trail without killing yourself. You should try it. THAT is fun. 

I want to be fit enough that riding is fun. Call that competitive if you want.


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

scottzg said:


> This thread amuses the heck out of me.
> 
> Thanks asin!


I have totally thrown myself to a pack of hungry lions!

haha. I can't backpedal out of this fast enough.

But yeah, it's amusing to me as well. I'm not too invested in this but I am certainly curious to see where it goes. It's funny that all I wanted was a little clarity on the category rules and I've been called a lot of names (sandbagger, toothpick, d!ck, egomaniac,

I love to ride so I try to stay as fit as I'm able. I'm a larger-than-average rider riding the Shore so I buy a super-sturdy bike.

To repeat:


> Judging by the defensiveness that my original post brought up, I realize now that I brought up a completely valid point. Sorry to have ruffled so many feathers.


The Percheron comment is classic.


----------



## PainMagnet (May 15, 2007)

I say we create a new catagory for such fit athletes, so that they can be distinguished from us non-sub 10% bodyfat bikers, we shall call them princesses. I gotta be careful though, if I lose 8 lbs I'll be there. *pops a Sam Smith Oatmeal Stout* ahhh...


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

As long as you can have just one or two you're off the hook!

:thumbsup:


----------



## KevinBicycle (Mar 20, 2008)

Does the term "Clydesdale" refer to a bicycle rider's height and weight? 
or just height?
or just weight?
*According to http://www.clydesdalefitness.com/ a Clydesdale is a bicyclist over 6 feet tall or over 200 pounds.
So anyone over 6 feet tall, or over 200 pounds is a Clydesdale bicyclist?

Is this correct?*

anyone?


----------



## nachomc (Apr 26, 2006)

Soupboy said:


> Alternative #1 - Create a new forum:
> 
> *Tall, Over 200#, But Really Super Fit & Ripped, Egomaniacs Inequitably Pigeon-Holed as Clydesdales*


:lol:










Seconding.

FWIW, as Kevin found, Clydes are anyone 200+ lbs and/or over 6 ft tall. I think Asin just has a thing against fat people, doesn't like being lumped in with a group like that, and wanted to 
get out there that he's so ripped his muscles have muscles. It's cool, dude, just accept it and you'll feel better.


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

nachomc said:


> :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey if 6'+ and 200lbs+ means Clyde then cool. I get the feeling that if you're not an ex-overweight guy you're not really welcome, that you don't really qualify because you took the necessary steps to break free. And I guess my reason for starting this thread was to test that.

You guys are a bunch of haters. If you're overweight it's all 'welcome to the club'. If you lose the weight then 'you're not a real clyde'. Nice way to be supportive.

If a guy loves to ride and does everything in his power to do it better he's considered vain? Wow.

I took some real simple steps to improve myself and I figured I'd share them with other guys the same size and now apparently I hate fat people. Yeah. That makes sense.

Everything I've written so far has apologized to, well, everything. Everything I've written has also suggested that the grass is greener on the other side for _everyone_ - that everyone is struggling to reach their goals.

But seriously. WTF would make you guys happy at this point? Maybe you'd like me to ride your bike for you? Free up some time so you can go hit the 'Big *&* Tall'? Maybe rent you a meeting room where you can gather to compare excuses and criticize asin for riding his bike, going to the gym and eating well?

Any of you guys live in Vancouver and want to go riding this afternoon?


----------



## nachomc (Apr 26, 2006)

asin said:


> You guys are a bunch of haters. If you're overweight it's all 'welcome to the club'. If you lose the weight then 'you're not a real clyde'. Nice way to be supportive.


I'm 6'3", 215 lbs. There's tons of pictures on my site (in sig) and I think you'll see I'm not fat (not anymore anyway, I did come down from 250). I'm also not excluded from posting in this forum as a result. The thing about being a clyde is that you're a big dude and big heavy guys require bigger stronger equipment. This forum is to help people find those parts, as well as to help those of us that may be overweight and would like to come down, do so.



asin said:


> If a guy loves to ride and does everything in his power to do it better he's considered vain? Wow.
> 
> I took some real simple steps to improve myself and I figured I'd share them with other guys the same size and now apparently I hate fat people.


This is where I think you're missing the point. It's not about how much anyone in here rides, who loses weight, who doesn't, etc. I think the frustration in this thread, or the response you're receiving, is caused by the way you presented your 'simple steps to improve yourself'. This thread makes it look like "hey, just because I'm 200lbs I'm not fat why should I be grouped in with a bunch of fatties", not "hey, guys, here are some dieting and riding tips from a guy who is fit, this might help you".


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

Fair enough. I am in complete agreement. The whole thing was a bit of a clusterf*%ck to tell you the truth. It shouldn't have veered into the other stuff. Should have kept it to one topic at a time  . I suppose presentation is everything. I feel like I just threw a cat into a henhouse! haha.

But either way it brought out some good points because there is a huge division within the whole 'what is a clyde' question. For some it's a banner under which they can commiserate, an identity (this is where the 'you're not a real clyde' guys hang out). For others it's just an arbitrary way to divide the racers (this is where the 'non/sandbaggers' hang out).

Just like the Big & Tall stores, this forum promises inclusion but it isn't really like that.


----------



## Badmamajama (Mar 28, 2008)

:skep:


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

Badmamajama said:


> But what if one does hate fat people?


Then one is probably in the wrong forum...


----------



## nachomc (Apr 26, 2006)

asin said:


> Fair enough. I am in complete agreement. The whole thing was a bit of a clusterf*%ck to tell you the truth. It shouldn't have veered into the other stuff. Should have kept it to one topic at a time  . I suppose presentation is everything. I feel like I just threw a cat into a henhouse! haha.
> 
> But either way it brought out some good points because there is a huge division within the whole 'what is a clyde' question. For some it's a banner under which they can commiserate, an identity (this is where the 'you're not a real clyde' guys hang out). For others it's just an arbitrary way to divide the racers (this is where the 'non/sandbaggers' hang out).
> 
> Just like the Big & Tall stores, this forum promises inclusion but it isn't really like that.


FWIW, I don't race in Clydes. I race in Sport.


----------



## FireBallKY (Apr 15, 2004)

It's all been a misunderstanding. Asin chose the wrong words to get his point across.

"Fit vs Fat". Fat is usually used in a derogatory manner and that is exactly how it came across, Asin whether intended or not. Simple as that. 

I'm fit and fat. Asin is fit and tall. Some are fat and not fit. Some are fat and tall. Some are tall and not fit. Some are short and fat. Some are short and fit. Some are...you all get the point...this could go on forever. Let's end this bombardment before we all start looking stupid. Done is done. Let's go ride!!!! YEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

I like bikes. Bikes are fun.


----------



## Hip (Feb 11, 2008)

Basically...I didnt take offense to your post or take it personally so you can forget that notion....I have no dillusions about being fat and loving bikes...I dont see a division here as far as acceptance to the forum(except from you)...and it looked like you have been patting yourself on the back the whole freaking thread...and that is annoying no matter what. You seem like a good person but basically came off as you dont want to be called a Clyde because in your eyes...Clydes are fat and your not. I kind of think the opposite. As far as I am concerned...Im not even a Clyde. Im short and fat....there is no category for me. When I first joined and saw all the pics...to me...a Clyde was a big dude who was fit and rides a bike and probably races. I didnt see too many people who looked like me in the pics. So we all see things different I guess.

Then your stupid comments like..just do this...you want me to ride your bike for you?? WTF...screw you...that is SO LAME. Go stand in the mirror if you need to feel better about yourself. Your obviously pissing people off doing it here. And you do seem like the guy that would pass a fat biker and saay to yourself...Fat azzes in my way again...why cant they lose weight or go find a fire road to ride...LOL. Anyway...you sound like a dik trying to come off as a good guy.


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

I like bikes. Bikes are fun.


----------



## Hip (Feb 11, 2008)

*Yep...*



asin said:


> I like bikes. Bikes are fun.


And thats why we are all here  BTW...Im not hating on you. You just seem to come off like the way I described. Under the pride you take in your self(sounded better than Uber Ego)...you seem like a good guy


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

I like bikes. Bikes are fun.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

asin said:


> I like bikes. Bikes are fun.


we heard you, lardass.


----------



## asin (Jan 31, 2005)

Try and be nice. Try and keep things positive. There's always gotta be someone to rock the boat, huh?


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

It is easier to backpedal if you go fixie. You'll just look daft trying to backpedal with a freehub.


----------



## PainMagnet (May 15, 2007)

I've just now decieded that mountain biking is a very expensive hobby...discuss.


----------



## Konish (Dec 26, 2006)

asin said:


> Hey if 6'+ and 200lbs+ means Clyde then cool. I get the feeling that if you're not an ex-overweight guy you're not really welcome, that you don't really qualify because you took the necessary steps to break free. And I guess my reason for starting this thread was to test that.
> 
> You guys are a bunch of haters. If you're overweight it's all 'welcome to the club'. If you lose the weight then 'you're not a real clyde'. Nice way to be supportive.
> 
> ...


Dude,
"Break free..." of what exactly? I think the reason people take solace here is that many of us have stuggled with real weight issues. You call it commiserating....whatever. Have you ever been truly overweight or is 13% BF your "obese" limit. You post your crazy workouts, talk about your ripped body, how much "ass-kicking" you do...I mean come on. Let's face it Chuck Norris would own you anyway so who are you trying to impress?

I don't necessarily have a problem with any of your comments but your so-called self-depreciating comments go over like like a fart in church because they still have a tinge of how great you are overall or how extreme you are. To be reminded, you started the entire thread off with a comment (as a few have pointed out) more-or-less stating that you simply don't want to be categorized with a bunch of fat people....ewwwwww.

Losing the weight is a great success...congrats on whatever it was. That alone should be celebrated and is not considered vain. Talking about being ripped with a modest wardrobe as opposed to having the other way 'round is vain.

And now, you are feeling sorry for yourself because you "simply came here to get some clarity on the category rules and everybody jumped my amazingly tight ass (which by the way can crush a walnut into a million pieces if I just flex my taint)" (okay not a direct quote...). You pissed people off and everytime you try to explain it away as a misunderstanding you step on your crank (not the kind you peddle your bike with, either) again.

You know, I'm sure you *are* being misunderstood and most probably a pretty nice guy with lots to share, but in this thread (come, on...admit it  ) you came off like a prick. 
I think it would actually be fun to ride with you...I'm not just a clyde, I'm a beginner as well so I'm always looking for better riders. (even if you're not great, I'm sure you'll tell me how great you are....come, on, come on, that was a joke... )
R/
Dustin


----------



## blackjack (Apr 20, 2005)

*burn baby burn*

flame on....

Clyde for life!


----------



## Strykar (Mar 15, 2007)

im a "fit"clyde if you will, but i still have the muffin top. im hard on gear and im not some 150lb weigth weenie. i need gear that will hold up and take a beating,,, im proud to be a clyde, who else can wear a size 14 spd.


----------



## Badmamajama (Mar 28, 2008)

So if a guy works out and eats right and excercises and that whole lotand then hes roud of the fact that he looks good feels great and is in all around realy god health that makes him an egomaniac? I dont think so. Asin wasnt rubbing it in anyones face he was just making it known that hes in good shape and is still a clyde. So back off and go for a ride.


----------



## Hip (Feb 11, 2008)

*lol*



 Badmamajama said:


> So if a guy works out and eats right and excercises and that whole lotand then hes roud of the fact that he looks good feels great and is in all around realy god health that makes him an egomaniac? I dont think so. Asin wasnt rubbing it in anyones face he was just making it known that hes in good shape and is still a clyde. So back off and go for a ride.


Its not the message...its the delivery


----------



## Ike Turner (Dec 20, 2006)

Large and Fit would be an appropriate substitute as not to offend

Word to all my Phat brothers ride to eat not eat to ride


----------



## UmbrousSoul (Jul 19, 2007)

That doesn't work for me, I have to eat before I can ride or I don't have any energy to sustain uphills or consistent ratio.

So, I guess I am not "phat" ._.


----------



## Ike Turner (Dec 20, 2006)

UmbrousSoul said:


> That doesn't work for me, I have to eat before I can ride or I don't have any energy to sustain uphills or consistent ratio.
> 
> So, I guess I am not "phat" ._.


if I didnt ride I'd be fatter

don't sell youself short. you babyphat in the least


----------



## Ike Turner (Dec 20, 2006)

I don't know how this helps if at all but I have to tape my unit to my stomach to ride in comfort


----------



## Soupboy (Jan 13, 2004)

This thread fails epically.


----------



## norm (Feb 20, 2005)

Ike Turner said:


> I don't know how this helps if at all but I have to tape my unit to my stomach to ride in comfort


LOL....That might be the best quote ive heard in a long time. I tried my bib shorts on for a road ride and it felt like i had a girddle on.

Winter was very kind to me. :thumbsup:


----------



## KevinBicycle (Mar 20, 2008)

UmbrousSoul said:


> That doesn't work for me, I have to eat before I can ride or I don't have any energy to sustain uphills or consistent ratio.
> 
> So, I guess I am not "phat" ._.


I usually eat before I ride and after too. Need to have to the fuel.


----------



## California L33 (Jul 30, 2005)

I think the reason is the bike can't really tell the difference. Clydes have issues with bike durability and suspension setup because of their weight. In theory a highly fit Clyde might put even more stress on the machine, but they'll still have the same problems as other Clydes.


----------



## DrNickels (Jan 7, 2008)

I am 5'11, 30 inch inseam, and I weigh 285 lbs without gear.

Fat? Yes I am fat. What can I say growing up playing football, rugby, weight lifting, and farm work all made you put on weight because you needed to eat and you needed the weight to work.

Biking? Hell I just got back into it, and I am out of shape, but can still ride 30 miles at a time with a mountain bike on bike paths and have left many so called "fit" friends in the dust. 

Check your vanity at the door people, get on the bike and enjoy life.

I could care less how much I weigh, it's more how I feel and how healthy I am.

I have a huge risk of stroke, heart disease, and diabetes in my family so I could care less how I look and more how my blood work looks. I have high blood pressure, have always had high blood pressure, and will always have it. I lost 30 lbs and it made hardly any difference for me. I ride over 100 miles a week on my mountain bike at a good pace, lift weights 3 times a week, and am on weight watchers and I still don't drop weight. Some people truly have a genetic basis to being overweight. God I would love to be 200 lbs and ripped, but I'm sorry the only way I could get down to 200 lbs is if I break out my Homelite and start saw zawwing my huge legs off above the knee.

So what I am saying is please don't hate on people who are "Fat" or overweight. Unless you know what it's like to struggle your whole life with your weight and having problems finding clothes to fit, equipment that won't snap, etc. then please don't put us down. I don't think you were trying to put anyone down, but it is a struggle and a tough one for lots of people.

Sorry I just wasn't blessed with great genes, maybe I should have asked dad to marry an uber fit German model, but instead he married my short, pudgy, scottish heritage mother who loved potatoes almost as much as she loved my father. God forbid!


----------



## Ike Turner (Dec 20, 2006)

DrNickels said:


> I am 5'11, 30 inch inseam, and I weigh 285 lbs without gear.
> 
> Fat? Yes I am fat. What can I say growing up playing football, rugby, weight lifting, and farm work all made you put on weight because you needed to eat and you needed the weight to work.
> 
> ...


the good news is you are riding; good health, good friends and a good laugh and even a beer after once in a while. Just ride for your self man whatever the cause


----------



## yuntahn (Apr 26, 2008)

What none of us ever got out of this thread was a construct of what asin believes these new categories should look like. Out of all the apologizing, you never stated your case. To arrive at these metrics, do we measure someone's height? Weight? Ht/wt ratio, BMI, inseam, waist size, # of miles ridden/wk, avg pace, races/year, top 10s, wins, price of bike, hotness of GF/wife? 

How's it go, sport? Your 10% body fat to my 20%? Does that make me too fat to be fit? If not, how about someone with 21% or 22? What if the guy who weighs 230 and has a 38" waist can run a half marathon today? What if a guy is a perfect clone of you, but has not arrived there the same way you have (lots of weightlifting, biking, etc.)--he weighs 205 but is completely sedentary? Is he your equal? Is he the equal of the 'fatties' in this forum who could kick his tail up and down a mountain? Is he not a Clydesdale?

Where would you like the lines drawn so we can all fit in your world?


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

The last I checked, Clydesdales were some big, strong, beautiful, distinctive, respected, majestic horses. If that's what I'm being compared to, I have no problems at all. Class, respect, and beauty. 'Nuff said. :thumbsup:


----------



## yolithechcicken (Jul 23, 2006)

bradmtb said:


> I'm ok with
> Clydesdale-Lite:thumbsup: ...and for my bigger brethren, unless I cut out the suds,
> I should be back up to 225 by the holiday season.


YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

asin said:


> I mean, I'm 6'5" and would be considered fit by most standards. I've been riding regularly since I was a teenager and started hitting the gym at around the same time to balance out my physique, which I'm pretty happy with at a lean 200lbs, 9% bf. I'm 32 now.
> 
> Despite my relative leanness and smooth riding style, I still crush a lot of gear. I have so much power and leverage moving through me that I've all but abandoned any parts labelled 'xc'.
> 
> ...


Since we're on this subject,how about catergories for female Clydesdales.Maybe we should just leave it at...Clydesdale. ...And maybe not.


----------



## speed metal (Aug 22, 2004)

I'm 6'2" 205. I'm a Clyde and a leg shaving Roadie. So what do think about that?


----------



## Bob95065 (Apr 24, 2008)

I am 6'05" and 230. I wouldn't consider myself fat, although I wouldn’t mind getting rid of the 15 to 20 pounds I gained since I got married 1 1/2 years ago (I never ate three meals a day before and she's a great cook).

Anyway I am here because I am a runner that is injured. My doctor told me to bike. When I was running marathons I would be down near 215 or 220 but I looked skinny. Besides the increase in food I have spent more time in the weight room which also contributed to my weight gain.

When I was running races I always raced in the Clydesdale class. If I get into racing on my bike I would do the same, even though I am not overweight.

When I was running I realized that I was carrying more weight than the other runners and because of my size it took a lot more effort to perform as they do. I ran with a guy that was a champion runner. He was at least a foot shorter than me and 100 pounds lighter. When he ran he looked like he was floating. 

To me it does seem easier to make the distinction of a Clydesdale in runners than in bikers. In biking the equipment you use can give you a distinct mechanical advantage. When you run it seems to me there is no equipment to rely on other than your shoes. 

Anyway, I figure on a mountain bike I am carrying considerably more weight up the hill than other riders. Yes, most of the weight is helping but I am still doing more work than a lighter rider. I am not sure if this makes sense but I thought I would add my $0.02 as an athlete coming from another sport.

Bob


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

asin said:


> I mean, I'm 6'5" and would be considered fit by most standards. I've been riding regularly since I was a teenager and started hitting the gym at around the same time to balance out my physique, which I'm pretty happy with at a lean 200lbs, 9% bf. I'm 32 now.
> 
> Despite my relative leanness and smooth riding style, I still crush a lot of gear. I have so much power and leverage moving through me that I've all but abandoned any parts labelled 'xc'.
> 
> ...


I haven't read the other 4 pages but:

A 200 lb 6'5" person is NOT A CLYDE. No way. You are a tall rider.


----------



## Bob95065 (Apr 24, 2008)

If 6'05" and over 200 isn't a clyde, then what is? I said I am at 230, not 200 BTW.

In running anyone that size is definately a clyde. A lot of races made the distinction at 180 pounds regardless of body composition.

What defines a clyde? BF %? This sport doesn't seem to have a clear definition. At least in running the application made it clear with a weight distinction and they never even pulled out a sclae at the start line or awards ceremony.

I imagine you don't like the definition on this site that was posted earlier in this thread: http://www.clydesdalefitness.com/

_A Clydesdale is a cyclist over 6' or 200 pounds. I'm Mike Wendland and this site is for the Clydesdale community and everyone in pursuit of fitness and fun through bicycling. _

What is the criteria for the clydesdale class in cycling competitions?

I don't know why a lot of people in this thread feel that being a clyde is some sort of honor or private club and they don't want to include anyone that they feel is outside their criteria for belonging.

Why can't we all just get along?


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

A clydesdale horse is friggin' huge (in my fake scottish accent). A 6'5" person is merely tall and skinny - more like a giraffe which can be quite fierce and run pretty fast but isn't really like a clydesdale even though I wouldn't be suprised if a giraffe can run faster. Observe these pictures and tell me they are tall and skinny?



















The first image under a giraffe search....


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

In case you didn't notice, there's supposed to be a little humor and I'm proposing a 'giraffe' class - for the tallies.


----------



## Bob95065 (Apr 24, 2008)

gticlay, where are you getting your qualifications for what a Clydesdale is in sports events? It looks like you are spending time comparing animals, but I am talking sports here. If this is based on animals, I have been up close to the Budweiser Clydesdales at the Minnesota state fair years ago. Those horses were BIG but they were *lean* and strong. If we are going to apply the characteristics of these horses to this sport what does this do to the thread?

I have run competitive races for 10+ years and I know what a Clydesdale is in running. The question I would like to have answered is what is a Clydesdale in cycling based on the rules of the sport?

What are your qualifications in answering this question? Is this something that is your opinion or are you answering based on something more official pertaining to the sport like race applications, race rules, some sort of mountain biking official web site, etc?

BTW I wear XXL shirts, 36x36 jeans. Does this make me tall and skinny? 
I have some meat on my bones. If I am not a Clydesdale based on race criteria I will accept that, but if it is based on someone's opinion there isn't much weight in that assessment.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

You may want to re-read my post - 200 and 6'5". You are 230. "big" difference.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

I have an idea - a calf and shoe size measurement requirement. I haven't worked it all out but a tall skinny guy might have a big foot but he'll have skinny little calves where a clyde will have large calves because of the huge muscles or maybe a little padding on them. No such thing as a giraffe with fat calves


----------



## skihillguy (Mar 29, 2004)

I can see so many diiferent sides to this. The clydesdale category is such a wide ranging grouping. Sure it weould be nice to have some better distinctions. I'm 5'11" between 260 - 270. Now I have raced in sport category because that is all there was for me. I have also found a series with a clydesdale category, which is nice. But alot of it comes down to where you feel good about yourself. Personally when someone is yelling out on the line that they weigh just over 200 pounds and are screaming "weigh me", then they may be in the wrong category. They may want to podium( which we all do) but deep down I think they know they are in the wrong group. For the guys who are say 6'5"....you guys have awesome legs. Yes you are a clydesdale, but damm those are unfair to the rest of us! LOL!! Those legs in my opinion even you out to some of the short weight weenies.

I have a great comparison....we are like a transport truck going uphill..... an empty one will go up hill fine but when it is loaded it exerts alot more energy to make it up the same hill.

And if you really want to even things out...dare those weight weenies to carry an extra 10 pound pack. They will not be able to do it...and will run away at just the very thought of that.

Thats my 2 cents worth for today....now just go out and ride your bikes.


----------



## jyeager (Nov 30, 2006)

asin said:


> I mean, I'm 6'5" and would be considered fit by most standards. I've been riding regularly since I was a teenager and started hitting the gym at around the same time to balance out my physique, which I'm pretty happy with at a lean 200lbs, 9% bf. I'm 32 now.
> 
> Despite my relative leanness and smooth riding style, I still crush a lot of gear. I have so much power and leverage moving through me that I've all but abandoned any parts labelled 'xc'.
> 
> ...


If you want a distinction, then finish at the top of the results in the Clydesdale division...distinguish yourself with your athleticism.


----------



## speed metal (Aug 22, 2004)

OK! HERE IS THE "END ALL" SOLUTION!!!!!! To be a Clyde you should have a ratio of 3 pounds for every inch in height. See wouldn't that be simple? All the race organizers need are a set of scales and a tape measure.


----------



## FireBallKY (Apr 15, 2004)

How about a bike tossing contest? Guys over 250 get to throw the lighter guys' bikes and they can throw ours.  

How about a chunky clydesdale divsion? We could even have our own ice-cream right next to the chunky monkey. :thumbsup: 

But wait...that still leaves me out...I'm 5'11", chunky AND muscle bound underneath that. Now we're back to square one again. (sigh).


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

FireBallKY said:


> How about a bike tossing contest? Guys over 250 get to throw the lighter guys' bikes and they can throw ours.
> 
> How about a chunky clydesdale divsion? We could even have our own ice-cream right next to the chunky monkey. :thumbsup:
> 
> But wait...that still leaves me out...I'm 5'11", chunky AND muscle bound underneath that. Now we're back to square one again. (sigh).


This sounds like a subject that needs to be discussed over dinner at a nice buffet restaurant.Pizza,chicken,steak and beer anyone?


----------



## Johnux (Apr 14, 2008)

I'm about 6'6" 230lbs - I'd guess around 10% body fat. Would I be considered a Clydesdale or a Giraffe?


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

TooTallUK said:


> asin said:
> 
> 
> > Despite my relative leanness and smooth riding style, I still crush a lot of gear. I have so much power and leverage moving through me that I've all but abandoned any parts labelled 'xc'.
> ...


i'm gonna have to agree here. i'm 6'4" and 200 lbs and i'm pretty slender at that. i don't really see how an extra inch at the same weight and similar body fat could produce so much more power. i don't break anything that isn't an unreliable product to begin with. plenty of quality xc gear out there for someone our size.

and no, i don't belong in this forum.


----------



## ChromedToast (Sep 19, 2006)

Clydesdale are not fat, they are large, muscular working horses.

If you are fat, you are fat. If you are in shape and over 200 you are a clyde, not fat.
Being strong fat beats the **** out of being skinny fat though.

Most of you seem to think you look like this.









When you really look like this.


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

ChromedToast said:


> Clydesdale are not fat, they are large, muscular working horses.
> 
> If you are fat, you are fat. If you are in shape and over 200 you are a clyde, not fat.
> Being strong fat beats the **** out of being skinny fat though.
> ...


When is some clothing manufacturer gonna catch the hint at make some Clydesdale clothing with a picture like that on it? It would be real cool wouldn't it?


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

zarr said:


> When is some clothing manufacturer gonna catch the hint at make some Clydesdale clothing with a picture like that on it? It would be real cool wouldn't it?


i'd wear a jersey like that in a heartbeat.


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

ChromedToast said:


> Clydesdale are not fat, they are large, muscular working horses.
> 
> If you are fat, you are fat. If you are in shape and over 200 you are a clyde, not fat.
> Being strong fat beats the **** out of being skinny fat though.
> ...


When you get old and/or your thyroid function slows down,you're still a Clydesdale in my book.I ain't dissin' nobody who's out there that got the spirit to ride. ...nobody.


----------



## ChromedToast (Sep 19, 2006)

zarr said:


> When you get old and/or your thyroid function slows down,you're still a Clydesdale in my book.I ain't dissin' nobody who's out there that got the spirit to ride. ...nobody.


Not at all, riding is riding. Someone who is over 200 because of height is just as much a clyde as the guy with the gut. The bike can't tell the difference.


----------



## Whambat (Jul 30, 2006)

ChromedToast said:


> Clydesdale are not fat, they are large, muscular working horses.
> 
> If you are fat, you are fat. If you are in shape and over 200 you are a clyde, not fat.
> Being strong fat beats the **** out of being skinny fat though.
> ...


Nailed it.

When I used to race, in our local series (Summit County, CO), the clyde class is for people of a certain weight that wanted to bump up from beginner but would no way in hell could hang with the 150lb sport riders, not even mid-pack. We had a lot of "light-clydes" and it was a lot of fun. To call a 205lb rider sandbagging is just bull. I'm sorry but if you can't hang with the "fit-clydes" in a race either: get in shape, don't race, or shut up.

I'm all for a super-clyde class in racing, but don't complain when the rules say 200 and the guy is 201-- that just makes you a dork. Clyde class isn't the "Hey you are heavy and outta shape and you want to feel better about yourself class." It's the over 200lb class-- end of friggin story. Now if that 201lb rider can finish top 10 in sport, by all means, he should move up. I've rarely seen clydes, even fit ones, that could truly hang in sport out here-- to many long climbs. Besides, if all the fit-clydes bumped to sport in our series there'd be no clydes left.


----------

