True that.

As with most ST threads, facts/data rarely get in the way of an argument.
1. Based on the larger 5 Oly race (LA, CHI, MINN, Dallas, USAT NATS where Clyde data is available) the fastest time was 2:10 . The second fastest is 2:20-ish at Chicago. Then, it falls between 2:30-3:30.
2. AGs of all ages have a solid distribution of 2:10 - 2:30 of which there are little to no distribution in Clydesdale
3. There was 1 Clyde that had a sub 7 minute mile in all those races. The next was 7:37.
4. Weight is the key limiter.
5. Classifications should be determined by the key limiters: gender, weight and age

Argument by antidote just doesn't work. "I heard of a guy who is 240pd and finished at 2:20" is one story, not data. Or one pro who may be 185 wet compared to hundreds of pros.

There is no argument made for asking for help or access, just the a classification of heavier weight individuals so appropriate benchmarks can be determined.

Does anyone give a rats ass about them? I don't race as a Clyde, and I don't care. But I've never seen a Clyde or anyone else call out the guys who look smaller than me (185 pounds) who are racing as Clydes.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

I would think the substance (or lack thereof) of his words should be independent of how long he's done triathlons. But I've only done them for a few years myself so maybe what I say doesn't matter either.

(In other words, what was "stupid ass" about what he said?)

Sure is a lot of dicussion for anyone "not caring". I would care if I raced cyldes but I've never actually seen it. Would I call a guy out if I saw one? I don't think so. Much like mostm don't call people out for drafting. Well that is until they get back to ST on mondays.

Weight isn't the key limiter, genetics is. Genetics made you bigger and heavier, so you can't be as fast as lighter guys. Guess what? Genetics gave me short legs, a long torso, and only decent aerobic capacity. There's no way on this earth that I'll ever run a 3:00 marathon. Should there be a division for my genetic makeup?

Boxing and wrestling are strawmen. Put a 5'6", 135-pound lightweight with a 69" reach in the ring against a 6'2", 200+ pound heavyweight with a 78" reach and the smaller guy is going to get destroyed if the heavyweight is remotely skilled. Boxing is not an endurance sport, it's a skill sport. And you can not measure skill with such disparity in stature.

Well said.

What about Andy Potts who is 195lbs and 6'5?

If you found a correlation between those results and weight that doesn't mean weight is the key limiter. It could be that people over 200lbs don't train as hard as people under 200lbs, hence the extra body fat. Or that people over 200lbs are not as dedicated endurance athletes and do more weight lifting so they weigh more. I know these are inflammatory comments but my point is correlation does not indicate causation.

---

CEO at TrainerRoad
Co-host of the Ask a Cycling Coach Podcast

Clydes/Athenas: "But we want to be special too! WAAAA!!!"
Regular size: "Good, who needs it, age-groups are the way to go, because that's all I need to feel special"
Slow people: "I don't win anything anyways, so getting that finishers medal makes me feel special"
Fast people: "I have rock-hard abs and kick your ass. Look at me, I KNOW I'm special"
Wanna-be fast people: "My split was xx:xx this year. That's better than expected based on my HR, power readings, training logs, and my new P4 with dimpled Zipp wheels. I didn't get my Hawaii spot, but I was x out of x in my AG. And I'll talk about this race for the next year to everyone and anyone so I'll feel special."

Damn straight there's lightweight rowing - and it's in the OLYMPICS! To fit the lightweight events in there they had to eliminate several *actual* rowing events from olympic competition.

There were a lot of very (evidently) persuasive arguments put forth by the lightweight lobby at the time they eliminated these rowing events. I can summarize the main point here: Whaaaaa! It's not fair that I was born too small to move a boat fast! I want my chance to be "good" at something for which I have no genetic predisposition!

Given that I know quite a few former (real - meaning, no weight adjustment required) rowers turned triathloners, I don't see this going over well at all - at least not in my circles.

So, you know, if I were principled, perhaps I would agree that the fatso categories in triathloning are as contrived and as stupid as the bulimic categories in rowing.

But I'm not principled, and I hope a chorus of caterwauling and bellyaching erupts citing insensitivity and body image and that the whole concept of including designated victims' categories in sports is turned on it's ear.

I suppose one could make the argument that the whole rowing/triathloning thing is a bad comparison in that the vast majority of competetive rowers go to a race to, like, actually race and not to prop up some falsely acquired sense of self-esteem where their kids and spouses and co-workers hold up hand-painted signs and they're celebrated as a "winner" just for coughing up an entry fee and not drowning.

Which I guess leads to my other point that of course triathloners should have weight categories: Isn't the whole idea of being a triathloner to make you feel good about yourself and, in the process, inspire you to blow money on cool gear and exorbitant entry fees?

The fat, rich people are the lifeblood of triathloning. If the fat, rich people are marginalized, triathloning will eventually cease to exist. There's a reason you can get your hands on a new, built up 2008 P2C for less than $2500 right now: It's because enough people with deep pockets, large appetites and a need for validation will pay MSRP. If it were left to plain old cheapskate, annoying bike racers to do all the consuming, for example, it would be impossible to keep a bike shop in business.

Regardless, we can all agree that one thing that's completing appalling about the fatso triathloner thing is the terminology: How come fat guys are stuck in a category named after a big smelly animal but the fat girls' category is named after a goddess? (or is it named after a bad cylon?) I mean, I can see the whole "big stinky horse" metaphor being accurately descriptive on both accounts. I'm not an expert or anything, but I'd be willing to bet that there are both girl and boy horses in the animal kingdom.

So what we need is some sort of fair-handed solution for all parties involved in this dispute.

One side wants to ditch the whole clydesdale/athena construct and the other wants to be able to continue "racing" against similarly-sized gluttonous hogs.

So allow me to play Solomon here and toss in my $.02: I hereby propose that we keep the weight categories but rename them "Jabba the Hutt" and "Motor Scooter."

:)

---

Are YOU in the Zone?
http://www.discomfortzone.com

USAT Website
Full Name: Andrew Robert Potts
Hometown: Princeton, N.J.
Resides: Colorado Springs, Colo.
College: University of Michigan
Height: 6-2
Weight: 175
I wonder if Andy would be pleased to know that he is 3 inches taller and 25 pounds heavier. If Andy the poster child for the pro clydes, 175 on a 6"2 frame is pretty slim. He is 25 pounds off the mark.

You are right about one thing: correlation does not indicate causation, a theoretical truth. In the practical world, if it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, flies like a duck...it is probably a duck. Tight correlation is usually a strong indicator for causation. It is clear you have no data or correlation that 200+ pounders don't work as hard or weight lift all the time.

Show some real data in your argument.

Good catch on Andy, I swore he was bigger but I was wrong.

Here's a dood that's 6'8, 200lbs with an FTP of 430. He's fast enough to qualify for Hawaii and run a pretty good IM marathon.

http://www2.trainingbible.com/...-uk-power-graph.html

"It is clear you have no data or correlation that 200+ pounders don't work as hard or weight lift all the time."

I'm not saying that this is the cause but it is just as likely that those are the answers as it is that weight is a limiting factor. There is a proven correlation between body fat and weight. There is also a proven correlation between increased levels of exercise and lower body fat. I'm not trying to prove anything hear but you are looking at this with a vary narrow focus.

You don't have any data that weight is the true causation of being the limiter so that's funny that you accuse me of it. You even say in your post that you're assuming. The duck argument does not fly. I am not however saying that what I posted is a causation, I'm just saying it's just as likely as your hypothesis.

---

CEO at TrainerRoad
Co-host of the Ask a Cycling Coach Podcast

One can always do Silverman. A race that cares about athletes first and is willing to do the little things to make the race the best it can be for everyone. They even had Krispy Cremes at the weigh in if you were struggling to meet weight...a nice light joke...no problem for me though. Don't worry about the hills, there is no more effort to get up them if you are caring more weight. ;-)

People get way to uptight if someone is getting something and it isn't them. If people are only racing for external gratification, they have more to work on than just their work out splits.

---

it turns out that our OP is only "mostly" dead........ ElGordo

 

Look, I am not trying to win a Nobel peace prize in economics. Strictly speaking, I cannot prove causality but you got nothing but incorrect facts and theoretical statements. I find it hard to believe that you are serious that given that only one Clyde broke 2:20 in five major Olys amongst a large number of AG at different ages, that weight is no more compelling than Clydes not working hard enough or weightlifting all the time. The only way I have these benchmarks is because these races have a Clyde category.

I raced Clydes last weekend. I am racing Clydes this weekend. I am 6'4" at about 210. If they offer it, I will race it.

Hugs and kisses.

Cpt Awesome.

Let's say weight is the limiter. Why don't the clydes just loose weight? Maybe they don't have the same passion as the other people? Maybe they don't work as hard?

As for "I cannot prove causality but you got nothing but incorrect facts and theoretical statements." You've only got theoretical statements and I did have one incorrect fact and I applaude you for correcting me.

I think that's a good question about weight. You're a clyde too guessing by your name. Why don't you just loose weight if weight is your limiter? Maybe you aren't as dedicated to triathlon as other people of similar build who lost weight to get faster. Again, this sounds inflammatory but I just want to make you think about why you're a clyde.

Like I said before I'm 6'6 and about 183lbs. I lost lots of upper body weight to become faster in triathlon. Again, that doesn't mean that weight is the limiter. If I worked out less and gained 20lbs of fat and raced clydesdale i would be slower because I wasn't training as hard. The weight gain would be just a byproduct of that.

---

CEO at TrainerRoad
Co-host of the Ask a Cycling Coach Podcast

Weight isn't necessarily a limiter. In your example you didn't (and couldn't, because the info isn't available) account for clydes that didn't register as clydes. Also BMI would be much more of a accurate way of handicaping

Styrrell.

---

Styrrell

styrrel hit the nail on the head. The 5 biggest Oly's you mention are also full of first timers. I hear people all the time say they would've signed up for clydes/athena if they knew what it was. As well, the really fast clydes and athenas are probably signing up for age group becaue they can easily win the clyde/athena division and want to race in their AG. No one is forced to signup for clydes/athena. Look how many people on here have said they always race in AG.

 
Great point, you are spot on. But, don't you find it odd that the only disclosing Clydes were not able to break 2:20?

 

You put a smile on my face. All I have to do is lose 20 pounds of fat and upper body muscle and get down to AG weight? Unfortunately, I don't have 8 pounds of fat to lose and I stopped lifting 3 years ago after 20 years of lifting. If I lost 20, then I would be on IVs in an emergency room.

  

I am not sure that the 5 biggest Olys are a bad data set. The smaller Olys don't often have a Clyde category. You offer some anecdotal evidence that you hear people would not sign up for it. It is exactly that, anecdotal.

Perhaps you are right, may be there is a (moral) fast clyde majority who prefer to remain anonymous. Perhaps there is a legion of Clydes that break 42 minute/10Ks. I certainly haven't seen them. I live in Chicago and we have one of the largest tri and populations and you see them every Saturday on the lakefront.

The ones that advocate racing in AG above are all below 200 pounds. They couldn't race Clyde even if they wanted.

Woah, if you lost 20lbs you would be in the ER? How tall are you?

"All I have to do is lose 20 pounds of fat and upper body muscle and get down to AG weight?"
You should re-read my post. I did not imply that.

"Unfortunately, I don't have 8 pounds of fat to lose and I stopped lifting 3 years ago after 20 years of lifting."
If that isn't enough for you to loose weight you should eat less and up your cardio. You will lose that weight that you're having problems getting rid of. I'm guessing after 20 years of weight lifting you like your muscle and don't want to get rid of it.

I'd be very surprised to see people that are under 6'9 who can't get their weight under 200lbs without a trip to the emergency room. If you have 20 years of weight lifting muscle on your body I'm sure you're a big guy. You're going to need to really cut your calorie intake and do lots of cardio to loose that muscle so you can be more competitive in triathlon. So it looks like in your case your limiter is a very long history of weight lifting has added a lot of useless (in terms of triathlon) bulk to your body that you're carrying around. That doesn't seem fair to make a division for you just because you choose to focus on lifting weights for 20 years.

So do you look like this guy? http://www.citynoise.org/upload/6092.jpg If so and you're still over 200lbs then you might have a case. Maybe you could post a pic of you being a skinny guy still over 200lbs where if you lost 20lbs you would have to go to the ER. I personally feel that you are wildly exagerating your claims. I mean, how did you get to that height and weight in the first place? Maybe you were over 200lbs when you were 14. If so please prove me wrong again and post your height, weight and some pics of your body now.

---

CEO at TrainerRoad
Co-host of the Ask a Cycling Coach Podcast

Damn, I like your posts. Agree with you 100%. The excuses that I hear from overweight/obese people everyday at work are often un-freaking-believeable. My diet philosophy is called "Learn how to put the fork down." Thanks again for your posts.

I have spent most of my adult life working with female athletes. Only a very small percentage of women in world are over 6 feet, but as a basketball coach, I had teams with 7 of 12 athletes were between 6' and 6'7. Surprise many weighed 185 and up.

The point is that within a sport many start to believe that athletes must be their sports standard to be considered an athlete. You get used to the type of people you spend time with every day. Triathletes still seem incredibly tiny to me. Guys can weigh 135 - 145 as an adult, really?

I will miss the clydes for the friends and rivals I made racing against them.

I will just have to take comfort in the times on the IM course where people assume I am on the first lap of the run and get pissed off that I am running by them on my way to the finish. Still a lot of people to catch, 13:33 at 275lb IMCDA 2008, but that is the fun of it. 12:00 IMC 09 here I come.

---

it turns out that our OP is only "mostly" dead........ ElGordo