Stuntman And Lover Of Cheese

by Dan Bostonweeks

NYT: The Bicycling Paradox: Fit Doesn’t Have to Mean Thin

There an article in the New York Times titled The Bicycling Paradox: Fit Doesn’t Have to Mean Thin. It’s a short article with an interesting conclusion that a person’s size isn’t going to be indicative of their cycling performance. Sure, me and my gut don’t climb as well as if I was 50 lbs. (22.7 kg) lighter, but I can still climb.

“When I first got into cycling, I would see cyclists and say, ‘O.K., that’s not what I perceive a cyclist to be,’ ” said Michael Berry, an exercise physiologist at Wake Forest University. Dr. Berry had been a competitive runner, and he thought good cyclists would look like good runners — rail-thin and young. But, Dr. Berry added, “I quickly learned that when I was riding with someone with a 36-inch waist, I could be looking at the back of their waist when they rode away from me.”

Hopefully one day I’ll have people staring at my 36-inch (91.4 cm) waist as I pull away from them. I mean, I’m pretty sure I pulled away from people on the ride, but it’ll be nice to be passing people a little more than I do now ((mostly I just get passed on the hills)). Update: As Chris has put it: “Ayup. Clydesdales rule.” (via drunkcyclist)