Well, I don't know how I feel about that. I'm 238lbs right now, hope to be 220 by Aug 26th for IMC, but I have only dipped below 220 a few times in the last 20 years, usually only for a few weeks in August each year.
.
Anyway, I am not aware of any races in my region that actually pay attention to Clydes/Athena participation.

If I made it under 220, would I have to change my username at Trifuel?
I wonder. Would you people still recognize me?
heh.

[img]http://www.geoffwhite.ws/images/poc-swim.jpg[/img]

Prince of Clydes

we dont have those categories in australia at all. what is the reasoning behind having another category/group ? if they have one for athena and clysedales then why not have one for olive oil and stick insects (the other end of the weight spectrum) ? please explain ?

Why is there a special category for people who weigh more than a certain weight. What am I missing?

[quote=hamlet_cat]Why is there a special category for people who weigh more than a certain weight. What am I missing?[/quote]

I'm not really sure. You can't qualify for anything with it (ie, there's no Clydesdale/Athena qualifying times or categories for any major race I know of). Probably just so they can give our more hardware? Raise it to 300lbs, lower it 100 pounds, keep it, do away with it. Makes no difference to me. For the brief amount of time I was in/around 200, I still wouldn't race in that cat. No thanks.

[quote=hamlet_cat]Why is there a special category for people who weigh more than a certain weight. What am I missing?

[/quote]

Weight has a pretty close inverse correlation with speed, especially running and riding uphill. The category was supposedly invented to allow bigger, taller, more muscular folks to compete against one another, because they have little chance against a similarly-trained triathlete with a typical pro body-type in a race for the overall win (Note, big does not equal fat. Does POC look fat in that picture? ) It's similar to the rationale for age groups.

Nowadays, my sense is that it is mostly newer triathletes who sign up for the clyde category.

IMNA used to have clyde and athena categories, but those categories did not award any Kona slots.

Yeah, the newes isn't the creation of the categories, it's increasing the threshold for what qualifies for the category. My only guess is that they raised the weight to make it more of a category for those new to the sport who are working hard to get in shape, and move thos like PoC into the standard AG classification.

+1 to PJT. I suspect that the categories were never intended to be a marketing attraction for the plus-sized set. Rather, they were intended to give the larger -- but still very much fit and athletic -- set their own physical peer group against whom to compete. With the boom of triathlon, though, the categories evolved into aspirational catch-alls for the BMI-challenged. I would hope that USAT is looking to return the designations to their original intent.

Then again, TriSooner makes a good point in that I doubt most self-respecting athletes would *want* to race in those categories.

"BMI challenged" is not rough. Go to another famous [url=http://www.slowtwitch.com]tri forum[/url] and search for "clydesdale" or "athena" to recalibrate your notions of rough.

For the record: I have never raced clyde, though I was probably within a couple pounds of it for my 1st 1 or 2 triathlons. My max weight, just prior to starting in tri, was 224lbs. My lowest racing weight was 181. And yes, even then I considered myself slightly BMI challenged for my personal goals.

I am not convinced that the weight metric is a disadvantage in triathlon. I am assuming meaning the more you weigh, you are at some type of disadvantage. For example weight is determined by a lot of factors: muscle mass; water mass; fat mass....etc. Maybe would it be more related to body composition? For example my husband weighs about the same as PoC. Here is a photo of him:

[img]http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/335_24225478943_560808943...

When you compare the two, PoC looks more like a professional triathlete, where as my husband looks more like a professional couch potato (poor bastard). Can't say for sure, but judging by the look of PoC, compared to my husband, PoC looks like he could kick his @#$ in a triathlon for sure.

Also, after my baby was born my body composition stats put me into the "obese" BMI range for my height and I weighed 145lbs at that point. I wouldn't even have made it into that category based on the 150lb standard. Was it difficult doing a tri at that weight for me, definitely it was, I was probably over 35% BF at that time. I don't think you can't just pick a weight and say that is a special category, I don't think it quite that simple.

On the other hand Trisooner makes a good point, if it is just for giving out more hardware and it is just encouraging more people to take up tris, then it doesn't really matter.

Totally agree with the last two posts. My only point in using the term "BMI-challenged" is to differentiate between the tall/muscular/athletic types that happen to fit into the Clydes/Athena category and those that, quite simply, have a higher BMI. It's the precise delineation that hamlet_cat makes. Exactly as she notes, the use of *weight* as the measure to define the category is capricious.

Love the ST link!

I personally think C/A designation is great, and I think it's a good idea that they raised the weight limit. I have some good friends who took up the sport while still at Clyde weight, and they shared how intimidating it was early on. They also talked about how good it made them feel to place well in their category and that it was motivating them to keep going with the sport.
Maybe that works for you, maybe not but if it keeps people moving towards a healthier lifestyle, then I'm not going to argue.

sidebar: PoC should be racing the greyhounds, not the Clydes!

I've never understood the beef people have with the Clyde/Athena category. If it gets more people into the sport, and doesn't take away from the Kona slots/hardware that you can get in your own age category, then how does it harm anyone?

I also think that people don't think anything of the fact that at a certain age they're going to be slower, but it's pretty darn obvious that at a certain weight you're going to be slower too, even if that weight is purely muscle. I've known ex-football players who were rock solid and raced in the Clyde category because no way were they going to compete with the 150 pound whippets in their AG.

I raced in the Athena category a couple of times, and then stopped because I won it pretty much every time, and I think it should be more to encourage new folks who are trying to get into shape. Now with the new regs, I probably wouldn't qualify, at least at typical race weight. I still think it's a good idea though.

Funny story: at IMFL, I apparently signed up in the Athena category and then totally forgot about it. I didn't go to the awards banquet, and then 3 months later I got this plaque in the mail from placing in the category. Now if it had come with a Kona slot, I would've been truly excited, LOL.

[quote=hamlet_cat]I am not convinced that the weight metric is a disadvantage in triathlon. I am assuming meaning the more you weigh, you are at some type of disadvantage. For example weight is determined by a lot of factors: muscle mass; water mass; fat mass....etc. Maybe would it be more related to body composition?[/quote]

Unfortunately, there's no getting around physics. It takes X amount of power to move a given mass a given distance, and it doesn't matter whether that mass is water, muscle or fat. Cycling on flat ground, there's a little difference in power required for a 170lb and 220lb rider to maintain the same pace, but as soon as the road turns uphill, the difference is dramatic. It would take the 220 lber about 25% more power to maintain a 10mph pace up a 6% grade compared to the 170 lber, or at the same power output, he'd go a few mph slower. And for decades I've heard the claim that every additional lb costs a runner about 2 seconds per mile.

The only real difference between fat and muscle is that if that additional mass is muscle, you're more likely to be able to put out at least some of that extra power required...

[quote]On the other hand Trisooner makes a good point, if it is just for giving out more hardware and it is just encouraging more people to take up tris, then it doesn't really matter. [/quote]

These categories existed a long time before triathlon got very popular. I remember races back in the 80s where none of the C/A awards were claimed because nobody had entered those divisions...

I no longer race in the clydesdale or super-clydesdale, i would probably qualify for the super duper clydesdale.

I found that sometimes i got more hardware, depending on the race. At this point, I just want to get better, and I liked the idea of trying to get under the weight limit, but now if they increase the limit, it seems like cheating on my weight loss plan.

Ultimately, it is all about being ready for the zombie apocalypse anyway...

[quote=yakn4ever]

Ultimately, it is all about being ready for the zombie apocalypse anyway... [/quote]

"When the zombie outbreak first hit, the first to go, for obvious reasons... were the fatties"

Which reminds me, I REALLY want to do this run!:

http://nomadadventureseries.com/about-the-race

In the Marine Corps Marathon, back in 2002, the Clysdale and Athena divisions were based on a height to weight ratio. At 5'9" and 190 (at the time) I qualified for it. However, I did not mark it on my registration. I ran a 3:11 marathon and would not have finished in the top ten of the division. There were a lot of muscular and fast men and women in that race. I like the idea of any division that inspires people to compete and train at a higher level. Keeping the criteria limited to just weight instead of the height to weight ratio seems limiting.

Great Zombieland quote, Ironmom, and the zombie race looks cool.

[quote=gfd]In the Marine Corps Marathon, back in 2002, the Clysdale and Athena divisions were based on a height to weight ratio.
[/quote]
This makes a lot more sense as opposed to just picking a weight number. At 145lbs and 35% BF I should have qualified for that category, but didn't because I am so short. It is funny though, because even at that weight I managed to come 2nd in the two sprint tris I did that summer. The extra weight only affected my running split, my cycling splits remained unchanged; so much for the "fat cyclists being slow" theory.

Many tri websites claim that it is your "strength to weight" ratio that makes the difference. Here's just one that discusses it:

http://www.tri247.com/article_2936.html

And here is a quote directly from Chrissie Wellington:

Training for 35 hours a week keeps the weight off. I have to make a conscious effort to put the pounds on. I avoid crisps, biscuits and cake, but consume a lot of cheese and chocolate, as they're a dense form of calories.

Although in her case I think she is talking about making sure she doesn't lose too much muscle mass, I don't think she is talking about gaining body fat necessarily. Chrissie outweighs Mirinda by at least 20lbs, her extra weight doesn't seem to be a handicap at all.

Me personally I would never think my extra weight is a handicap, as soon as you start thinking that, you develop the biggest excuse of all not to train.

Based on this discussion I think they should lower the standards, maybe go to 140lbs (for women) so maybe short, fat people can race in that category as well. Although I still don't know whether I would enter in that category anyways, I like racing against the PAGers, and they wouldn't be in that category, unless their weight comes from muscle (muscle apparently weighs a lot more than fat per volume).

[quote=hamlet_cat][quote=gfd]In the Marine Corps Marathon, back in 2002, the Clysdale and Athena divisions were based on a height to weight ratio.
[/quote]
This makes a lot more sense as opposed to just picking a weight number. At 145lbs and 35% BF I should have qualified for that category, but didn't because I am so short. It is funny though, because even at that weight I managed to come 2nd in the two sprint tris I did that summer. The extra weight only affected my running split, my cycling splits remained unchanged; so much for the "fat cyclists being slow" theory. [/quote]

Power required to move a given weight a given distance doesn't change based on height, so someone who was a few inches shorter, and a few lbs lighter, would actually have an advantage.

On flat or mild rolling courses, weight isn't much of a handicap for cycling. At 215 lbs, it would only take a few more watts of power for me to maintain the same pace as you. But once we start climbing, that completely changes. On one of my favorite training climbs (an 8% average grade), I would need to put out about 50% more power than you to keep the same pace. Or, if we both did that climb putting out the same wattage needed to go 20mph on the flat, you'd be able to maintain a pace about 2 mph faster on the climb, and beat me by several minutes.

[quote=msk]
Power required to move a given weight a given distance.[/quote]

Exactly. And this is why they claim that added weight due to increased muscle mass is an advantage. Fat mass is a different story, it is dead weight and doesn't increase your power. This is the reason why a heavier more muscular person has an advantage over a light person with less muscle mass. That is why elite coaches have their triathletes strength training like mad. It is all about the "strength vs. weight" ratio. Weight itself has nothing to do with it. These coaches know what they are doing.

Or, if we both did that climb putting out the same wattage needed to go 20mph on the flat, you'd be able to maintain a pace about 2 mph faster on the climb, and beat me by several minutes.

How much of that do I get back on the downhill? I am always the worst up the hill, then pass everyone as i coast down. Is it 1-1 ratio, so throughout the entire ride if the total vertical feet becomes 0, then the only excess wattage i need is to account for my excess cargo?

[quote=hamlet_cat][quote=msk]
Power required to move a given weight a given distance.[/quote]

Exactly. And this is why they claim that added weight due to increased muscle mass is an advantage. Fat mass is a different story, it is dead weight and doesn't increase your power. This is the reason why a heavier more muscular person has an advantage over a light person with less muscle mass.
[/quote]

Added weight due to increased muscle mass is only a cut and dry advantage when compared to added weight due to increased fat mass. Additional muscle mass is still weight that needs to be overcome with more power. The difference is that the added muscle can contribute to that extra needed power. But that extra power doesn't necessarily negate the extra weight. Even if I have a greater percentage of muscle mass than someone 50lbs lighter than me, I will still have to work harder than they will just to go as fast. On a flat bike course, I have an advantage over many of the people I train with, since my power to weight ratio is enough to overcome that few extra watts. But as soon as we head to the hills, I'm way off the back, even though I'm putting out more power...

[quote=yakn4ever]

Or, if we both did that climb putting out the same wattage needed to go 20mph on the flat, you'd be able to maintain a pace about 2 mph faster on the climb, and beat me by several minutes.

How much of that do I get back on the downhill? I am always the worst up the hill, then pass everyone as i coast down. Is it 1-1 ratio, so throughout the entire ride if the total vertical feet becomes 0, then the only excess wattage i need is to account for my excess cargo?[/quote]

The longer and steeper the climbs, the less time you can make up on the descent. The time you lose going 1-2 mph slower at climbing speeds often can't be made up on the descent, even if you went twice as fast.

If the lighter riders went up a 3 mile climb at 8mph, and my pace was 7mph, I'd be 3 minutes behind at the top. If they descended at 40mph, I'd have to go 120mph to catch them at the bottom. Realistically, I'd probably only be able to go a few mph faster on the descent, and at 45mph I'd still be 2:30 behind...

More muscle does not always equal more power. Functional strength is the key. Any overdeveloped muscles that aren't being used could be considered extra weight.

something is not right. PoC pic does not look like him a month ago celebrating in Baja. I guess the 50 days challenge is paying off!!!!

Yeah, Pancho, that was last year's photo from the trifuel album.

Anyway, toss Oxygen uptake into the mix.
If I'm hiking uphill with a girlfriend I know who is 115lbs to my 230lbs - at that time, I'm out of breath and she's not breathing heavy. Why?
because it takes X mols of O2 to lift that weight up the same hill - on foot or bike.
I need to take in twice the O2 that she does to get up the hill, but my lungs are not twice as large as hers, so my performance is limited by the V02 max factor
as well as power/wt ratio,
as well as cumulative effect of total calorie expenditure for the 14 or 15 hours we're out there, as in an IM.

Life is tougher for a Clyde or Athena on a number of counts because of greater mass - regardless of fitness level. Not that I'm complaining! I'm not, because life is more than one Sunday in August when my skinny pencil neck friends get back to T2 before I do.

Just save me a chocolate chip cookie, please.
:)

PoC

[quote=msk]

Added weight due to increased muscle mass is only a cut and dry advantage when compared to added weight due to increased fat mass. Additional muscle mass is still weight that needs to be overcome with more power. ...[/quote]

Yeah I know. That is what everyone thinks. And I was skeptical too, my coach put me on a strength training program last fall, and laughed at me when I told him I was only going to lift light weights because I didn't want to put on any muscle mass. The extra weight is negligible, compared to the advantage you get from the extra strength. It is the main reason why girls can't compete against guys in triathlon, if weight due to increased muscle mass was a detriment, guys might as well stay at home and triathlon would be a "female" sport. But we all know it isn't.

But I can only speak for myself, I have put on 7lbs of muscle mass since last season and all it has done is made me faster. Even when I did pack on extra fat mass a couple of years ago, it only seemed to affect the running. The body seems to adjust to whatever your weight is, and learns to move it accordingly. That is the reason why crossfitters use weight vests to train.

No triathlete should ever be afraid of packing on muscle mass, there are so many successful "heavy, muscular" athletes, where does one begin to start the list.

Hammie, the benefits you have gained are more important for the shorter distance triathlons.
In 1994 the winner of the Kelowna Apple Olympic distance triathlon was a Clydesdale at 6'3" and 200lbs in 1:57:00

However, the longer the event the less sheer strength matters. That's why Chrissie is nipping at the heels of the best pro men. She and Craig Alexander have similar bodies,
Crowie 5'11", 150lbs
Chrissie, 5'7", 132lbs

but at Olympic distance it's a different story.
The Gold medalists in Beijing were:
Jan Frodeno, Germany 6'4" 165lbs
Emma Snowsill, Australia, 5'3", 103lbs

At extreme distances, the physiques of top athletes male & female tend to look more like each other.
In 100 mile foot races like the W. States 100 etc. Ann Trason is competitive for overall podium spots.

"She has won Western States 14 times in all, most recently in 2003, and holds the women's division course record of 17:37:51, which she set in 1994
In both 1996 and 1997 Trason performed the "double" of winning the Western States 100 just 12 days after winning the 56-mile Comrades Marathon in South Africa."

You see the same trend of big, strong sprinters like Usain Bolt dominating the short distances and more slightly built men winning the marathon.

Oh, and another thing: the heat loss factor is crucial. The surface area to mass ratio means that Clydes can't lose body heat the way little skinny people can, and so I'm never going to finish in the same zip code with someone like Macca or Crowie.

Geoff

[quote=hamlet_cat]
But I can only speak for myself, I have put on 7lbs of muscle mass since last season and all it has done is made me faster. Even when I did pack on extra fat mass a couple of years ago, it only seemed to affect the running.[/quote]

I'm currently 45 lbs heavier than I was at my peak. My body fat percentage is only a little higher (I'll still sink if I stop swimming), so a good chunk of that extra weight is muscle, in addition to some fat. And despite being able to put out more power on the bike, I'm no faster on the flat, and a hell of a lot slower on the climbs (and don't even ask about my running)

My club recently did an 8 mile uphill time trial, and several of us posted our data. I was by far the slowest out of everyone that posted, even though my power output was in the same range as the majority. The difference was that almost everyone with the same wattage as me was only 70-80% of my weight, resulting in times that were 15-24 minutes faster than mine. The second fastest (by only a few seconds) was a woman, who put out 20% less power than me, but beat me by 24 minutes. That was possible because she literally weighs only half as much as I do. In order to have kept up with her, I would have to average about 350 watts for the entire climb.

[quote]No triathlete should ever be afraid of packing on muscle mass, there are so many successful "heavy, muscular" athletes, where does one begin to start the list. [/quote]

I'm drawing a blank on successful pro triathletes that weigh over 200lbs...

Yeah, but what we are discussing or what the OP was, was just picking a weight and saying if you are above that you are at a disadvantage, compared to people under that weight. That is what the discussion was about. My point, was that it is much more complicated than that. Weight is related to muscle mass and fat mass, plus a few other things. I agreed that the dead weight such as fat mass, and water weight IS a detriment. But when you look at things like muscle mass, it ISN'T a detriment.

In fact when you look at who gets on the podium, it isn't just all the little tiny light people, there are people of all shapes and sizes up there, big and small. But what IS common to them is that they are all very fit. The general formula is to increase muscle mass, and decrease fat mass. For heavy people, they might already have the muscle they need, they might just have to lose fat, where as for light people they most likely need to put on muscle mass. Light people tend to smaller, underdeveloped muscles, and to compete in triathlon you need muscle mass.

If you need to improve your VO2 max, you need to do it through VO2 max workouts, not by losing muscle mass.

@MSK. I think you need to consult a professional about your body composition, I don't think it is possible to put on 45lbs of muscle. Body builders can do that but they do it through steroids and extreme dieting/training. It is possible that the body fat reader you are using is inaccurate.

It is more complicated than just picking a number, but we started by talking about the changes to the C/A weight classes. Who cares? Folks in C/A aren't generally thinking about VO2 max and power to weight ratios, or podium spots or silly little medals. Most I see are just trying to get through the course, finish, and celebrate the fact that they are moving in the right direction from a health perspective. Pick a number, and call it good. What is the reasonable alternative? Put a scale and height measurement chart at the registration desk and check people? Better yet, how about setting the category based on body fat percentage and force anyone who looks a little chubby to climb into the body composition water tank before allowing them into the category.
I just don't think it matters, unless we think that there are folks who are calling themselves clydes to pull down the hardware? pretty silly.

[quote=hamlet_cat][quote=msk]
Power required to move a given weight a given distance.[/quote]

Exactly. And this is why they claim that added weight due to increased muscle mass is an advantage. Fat mass is a different story, it is dead weight and doesn't increase your power. This is the reason why a heavier more muscular person has an advantage over a light person with less muscle mass. That is why elite coaches have their triathletes strength training like mad. It is all about the "strength vs. weight" ratio. Weight itself has nothing to do with it. These coaches know what they are doing.
[/quote]

your theory only works if there is enough energy/ power to compensate for the gravity effect of going uphill. Thus in most cases (especially longer races) Rider A who weighs 150 lbs and puts out 220 watts will out ride Rider B who weighs 190 lbs and puts out 230 watts. Rider B has to put out more watts than Rider A to just stay even. Now the counter -argument is that Rider B has more power to push because he is bigger (assuming more muscle). This is true, however at a certain point fatigue takes over no matter how in shape you are. Remember Jordan Simball (SUV) (I think thats the correct spelling) that competed at Kona. Big as an OX, but couldn't keep the power needed to keep up with the smaller guys. IF that race was based on power output for SBR then he would have won by a land slide.

The other piece of the puzzle is overheating. The bigger you are the more energy your body burns trying to cool you off.

[quote=dkhartung] Folks in C/A aren't generally thinking about VO2 max and power to weight ratios, or podium spots or silly little medals. Most I see are just trying to get through the course, finish, and celebrate the fact that they are moving in the right direction from a health perspective. Pick a number, and call it good. .[/quote]

I think Trisooner's point is a good one, it helps encourage more people to get into the sport.
It would be nice though if my "overfat" little friend could make it into that category though, she is almost 5 feet tall and weighs 143lbs. Even though we are the same age, it would be demoralizing for her to race against me, and not really fair either since a lot of my weight is muscle in comparison. But you can't drop it so low that the Chrissie Wellingtons can make it into that category either, I get that. Oh well.