New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Former Member — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 11:17:57 GMT

The official USA Triathlon weight cut-off for Athena is currently 165 pounds (recently increased from 150 pounds). There are plenty of non-USAT races, where race directors can make up whatever weight cut-offs they want. Triathlon Australia doesn't have an official Athena weight cut-off AFAIK. In practice, I've seen between 70kg (154lb) and 80kg (176lb). 70kg or 75kg are most common. The 145lb one was on a road race, not a triathlon, that a friend was trying to convince me to do. When I saw that, I balled up the entry form, threw it across the room, and ordered a pizza. :D

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

jim thornton — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 07:55:45 GMT

It looks like we have more extremely skinny and/or extremely slow and/or skinny-and-slow 50 SCY swimmers than we have very fast and/or very high BMI and/or plump-and-fast swimmers. In conjunction with the research of Stephen Blair, Ph.D. and his colleagues, an argument might be made that the former are at a survival disadvantage compared to the latter. Fat and fit folks, especially those falling into the "overweight" and "low grade obesity" BMI categories (i.e., over 25 and under 35) live longer, on average, than normal weight and underweight people. Anyhow, this might be a further consolation to the Clydesdales and Athenas out there. Interesting that there are 0 people in that one category (1.3-1.39) towards the skinnier and/or slower and/or skinnier-and-slower end of the spectrum, though this one category is flanked by 4 and 6 respondents, respectively. A statistical fluke, I suppose, is common when the overall response rate is relatively small. More reason to recruit more voters for the poll!

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Sportygeek — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 06:01:15 GMT

ETA: I've seen the Athena category have a weight as low as 145 pounds. :bitching: The official USA Triathlon weight cut-off for Athena is currently 165 pounds (recently increased from 150 pounds). There are plenty of non-USAT races, where race directors can make up whatever weight cut-offs they want. Triathlon Australia doesn't have an official Athena weight cut-off AFAIK. In practice, I've seen between 70kg (154lb) and 80kg (176lb). 70kg or 75kg are most common.

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Former Member — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:39:37 GMT

What are heavier women triathletes called in Australia? If there is no term yet, might I suggest Xena's? images5.fanpop.com/.../Xena-Warrior-Princess-xena-warrior-princess-24708839-475-604.jpg I don't know about Australia, but in the US I've seen the category for women listed as Athenas. ETA: I've seen the Athena category have a weight as low as 145 pounds. :bitching:

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Former Member — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 14:18:20 GMT

Town I lived in obviously had a running club and they considered anyone over like 200 to be in the "big man" group. I always laughed at BMI as when I finished my college track career and started gaining weight and went from 175 to 190-195 I started to get in the "overweight" category.... yet I looked a lot healthier than when I was 175.

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Former Member — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:37:56 GMT

You could always become a triathlete. Thats about as likely as me having a BMI that isn't "overweight" lol. I don't run, and I bike ultra rarely. Its also my contention that you only need to be an average or novice swimmer to be a pretty outstanding triathlete and it doesn't really matter if you are an elite swimmer. The swimming leg just isn't long enough to make a difference.

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Former Member — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:14:02 GMT

Talk about a rocket thru the pool! dang! My wife mentioned to me that she can already see my belly going down even though i've only lost about 5 lbs. This week was the first week I started to watch what I eat... ie not eat a king size snicker and 44 oz coke when i get to work first thnig... Instead I've been having a shake and no soda (except for one 16 oz I had 2 days ago over lunch). I think my goal of getting to 240 by March 3 will be attained. If I somehow decided to do nationals I'd try to get down to 220-215... where I haven't been since July 2009 and before I had knee cartliage replacement done.

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

jim thornton — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:04:13 GMT

Okay, so far 39 people have replied to this poll, and it seems to be stuck on this number. In the interests of pseudo-scientific validity, I would love to get a minimum of 100 poll results. Might I ask my swimming comrades to each recruit a couple of teammates of any size to do the calculations and post on the poll? If each of the 39 who have done so already recruits two friends to contribute, we will have 117 responses, enough to see where the crest of the bell falls!

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

jim thornton — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:00:49 GMT

You could always become a triathlete. :bolt: (In triathlon, weight divisions are a thing. You heavier men are called 'Clydesdales', for what it's worth.) What are heavier women triathletes called in Australia? If there is no term yet, might I suggest Xena's? images5.fanpop.com/.../Xena-Warrior-Princess-xena-warrior-princess-24708839-475-604.jpg

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Sportygeek — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 08:14:26 GMT

Lastly, I am wholeheartedly in favor of weight classes in races. I feel like i'd fare well with that. :) You could always become a triathlete. :bolt: (In triathlon, weight divisions are a thing. You heavier men are called 'Clydesdales', for what it's worth.)

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Former Member — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 07:38:31 GMT

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

jim thornton — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 05:49:56 GMT

That said, what about bigger body = bigger muscle mass, which i think is clearly the reason that women's times are slower (generally women have or can develop less muscle mass from the same amount of conditioning as compared with a man-unless they are taking male hormones, as with the east germans in the '80s). I read somewhere the typical differences in muscle mass between men and women, and the disparity is far larger for the upper body than lower body. I, too, have heard that testosterone has a much greater effect at building muscle mass in the upper body than the lower body, and that the average discrepancy between men and women is much, much less in leg strength than arm and shoulder strength. I wonder where core muscle figures into this. I would like to think that it is closer to leg strength than arm strength vis a vis its response to testosterone. The combination of leg and core strength are the key to SDKs, and Leslie Livingston, who is not terribly tall (5' 6", give or take), and does a lot of kick and SDK training in practice and relatively less pulling compared to many swimmers, is an absolutely phenomenal sprinter. Her SDK-ing ability is remarkable. She told me she just did a 26.8 50 fly in a little local meet. Lordy! I am hoping that the reason she can beat me, a so-called man, so badly is that she is using muscles for which gender is neither a tremendous handicap (for women) or advantage (for men.) Anyhow, that's what I plan to tell myself from here on in.

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

habu987 — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 05:04:53 GMT

My 50 free is a 24.9. I swim it maybe twice a season (not counting relays), so I can't really say how indicative it is of my swimming performance. Who knows, I might be able to get that down to a 23 something if I trained for sprint freestyle, but that's a whole 'nother matter (I'm a backstroker/butterflyer/IMer). I'm 5'9" and ~180 pounds, with a BMI of 26.6. That gives me a .94 score on the poll. By Nats I should be stable around 170. With that 24.9 50 time and resulting BMI of 25.1, that would give me a .99 score. Going off on the tangent that others have, I also disagree with the BMI method. I'm built like a tank, and while I currently have about 10-15 pounds of excess weight I'm trying to lose, even at 170, that gives me a BMI in the overweight category. I was incredibly scrawny while swimming in high school and only weighed about 130. That gave me a BMI of 19.2. Once I got to college and stopped swimming/started lifting, I put on muscle crazy fast. Peaked at around 165 sophomore year (due to the hellacious nature of freshman year at the military college I went to, I only put on about 5 pounds the entire first year), got injured halfway through junior year and stopped working out at ~170, and started putting on excess weight. Now that I'm working out in addition to swimming, the weight is coming off much slower, even though I can see the fat coming off on a weekly basis, due to how easily I'm packing on the muscle again. On a side note, we've got a guy who's pretty much been out of the water for about 5 years--he's maybe 5'8", about 260 pounds (admittedly, a fairly sizeable portion of that is muscle), and busted out a 23 flat on a 200 free relay a couple months ago.

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Sojerz — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 01:28:58 GMT

Hmmm. My weight went down and 50 scy time went up slightly due to injury last year. I used my best recent 50 scy time of 32.3 and current BMI of 27.8 (5'-8" and 183lbs). By 9/2012 i was down to low 170s and swam a 33.1 with a badly pulled calf and no warmup. At any rate i wind up in the 1.1 to 1.19 range, which seems average. It does seem to me that there is a large variance in weight and speed amongst masters swimmers at all levels i.e., there are some guys that appear overwieght but are still pretty fast, probably cause they were fast before they got overwieght and have stayed reasonably conditioned. Although, you don't see that in elite swimmers. I think we tend to continue those old eating habits from HS and college, but metabolism takes a nose dive in our late 40s and 50s. Some may have been "big" shaped to begin with. While height seems to provide a clear competitive advantage due to wing-span, overweight doesn't seem to have a similar negative impact. Weight is reduced in the water, and although drag increases with size/shape, swimming velocities are all pretty low (even for elite swimmers), so size/shape don't seem to have the kind of impact that one associates with weight in running and to some degree in cycling where it really matters, hence Clydesdales and Athenas in tri's. That said, what about bigger body = bigger muscle mass, which i think is clearly the reason that women's times are slower (generally women have or can develop less muscle mass from the same amount of conditioning as compared with a man-unless they are taking male hormones, as with the east germans in the '80s). I read somewhere the typical differences in muscle mass between men and women, and the disparity is far larger for the upper body than lower body. For swimming, im wondering if the relationship between height and muscle mass may better correlate to 50 scy times than height and weight (BMI) with 50 scy times. I guess muscle mass it harder to determine and not generally known by most people. Then there's variables like genetics, age, work ethic, training, years of experience, technique, the pool, swim suits, and a host of others TNTC (too numerous to count) that impact times. My $0.02

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Former Member — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:12:25 GMT

Have you lost any strength with the 35 lb weight loss (congrats by the way, I'm in a similar boat being 6'1 250 and more of a linebacker build!)? I know when I lose weight my lifts tend to drop even if I have worked out more. I don't feel so, in fact I feel I've gained a lot of strength, and thats why the weight hasn't gone even lower. To date I am down about 8 waist sizes since beginning my swimming comeback at 281lbs in dec 2009 :) The past may I was 252 when I started on, 6 days a week pool, 3 in the weight room each week plus watching calories (2000-2500/day). So far good progress. My goal was 219 by nats. I think that is a perfect weight for me. Dunno if I'll hit it though, it seems I drop waist size still, but the actual weight stays about the same because of the weight room.

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Former Member — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:41:23 GMT

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Former Member — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:40:42 GMT

This is crazy on the lean/slow end of the spectrum. To get to 1.4 (the highest number in the poll), I would have to get my 50 down to 32s. As it now stands, I'm over 1.7: (39s-3s)/20.7. I'm in the B/BB range for anything >= 500 on the Masters Motivational Times chart. (A huge and very recent accomplishment, BTW :))

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Former Member — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:51:52 GMT

fmracing is going to love this, me, not so much. It makes my already also-ran status fall to, well,... should I select the cyanide tablets of the handgun? Its good to know I am immediately (read: 2nd post worthiness) thought of when it comes to fast heavyweights :D Here's where I break Jim's "scale": Two years ago... 260lbs, BMI 33.4, top time of the season 22.39 = .670 Last year... 250lbs, BMI 32.1, top time of season 22.30 = .695 (these are weights at the time of those races) Nows where I disappoint the heavyweight community... This year 225lbs, BMI 28.9, top time this season (no taper yet) 23.2 = .803 I am aiming for sub 22 this year shaved and tapered at nats. So lets say I can do it at 21.99, it'd be a .761 To match my "jim measure" from two years ago at .670, I'd have to go 19.36 this year. LOL The funny thing is, people probably think I was some elite top ten collegiate swimmer, much to the contrary. My PB is 21.7... and only 6 tenths off that when 70lbs higher. I think I have a legit shot at a PB this year. As someone said before to me, i shouldn't be that fast now. Obviously not really any good form of measure other than food for discussion here BUT it might be a good way to finally calculate "worlds fastest fat man" which I may've just been as little as two years ago. However the world is a large place, so I will lay claim to having been "thread's fastest fat man" last year and the year before until someone posts results otherwise. Recent weight loss has made it tough to keep this up however. Lastly, I am wholeheartedly in favor of weight classes in races. I feel like i'd fare well with that. :)

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

jim thornton — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:28:11 GMT

I don't feel so, in fact I feel I've gained a lot of strength, and thats why the weight hasn't gone even lower. To date I am down about 8 waist sizes since beginning my swimming comeback at 281lbs in dec 2009 :) The past may I was 252 when I started on, 6 days a week pool, 3 in the weight room each week plus watching calories (2000-2500/day). So far good progress. My goal was 219 by nats. I think that is a perfect weight for me. Dunno if I'll hit it though, it seems I drop waist size still, but the actual weight stays about the same because of the weight room. Again, congratulations, FMRACING! The one thing I'd like to add is this: as impressive as your own weight change has been, some classic twin studies by obesity researcher Claude Bouchard have shown that there are strong genetic influences on how much different individuals respond to diet and exercise. He took a bunch of identical twin volunteers, assessed each one for how many calories they had been consuming to maintain their current weight, then provided them with exactly those many calories per day while also have them expend 1000 Kcal per day during twice daily sessions on an exercise bike. He had them do this 9 out of every 10 days for a total 93 days. If you believe the old chestnut that says l lb. of body weight equals 3200 or so calories, then you would figure each person would shed about a lb. every three or so days, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-30 lb. by the experiment's conclusion. This isn't what happened. Some men lost much more weight than predicted. Others lost very little. The one thing that was consistent: if your identical twin lost a lot in response to exercise, chances were extremely high you, would too. If your twin lost practically nothing, you, too, would lose practically nothing. The bottom line was that genes and other factors beyond our conscious control do strongly influence exercise-response to body weight. Bouchard showed the same applies to diet response. You are very fortunate that swimming has helped you shed so many pounds, but I don't want other people to look at your example and feel like failures if their own commitment to the sport has not resulted in similar changes to their own weight. We all have different puppetmasters calling some, if not all, of the shots when it comes to weight. The important thing to focus on is the increased fitness that regular swimming brings, whether or not it has any major impact on weight per se. Sorry if I sound preachy!

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

jim thornton — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:05:15 GMT

Its good to know I am immediately (read: 2nd post worthiness) thought of when it comes to fast heavyweights :D Here's where I break Jim's "scale": Two years ago... 260lbs, BMI 33.4, top time of the season 22.39 = .670 Last year... 250lbs, BMI 32.1, top time of season 22.30 = .695 (these are weights at the time of those races) Nows where I disappoint the heavyweight community... This year 225lbs, BMI 28.9, top time this season (no taper yet) 23.2 = .803 I am aiming for sub 22 this year shaved and tapered at nats. So lets say I can do it at 21.99, it'd be a .761 To match my "jim measure" from two years ago at .670, I'd have to go 19.36 this year. LOL The funny thing is, people probably think I was some elite top ten collegiate swimmer, much to the contrary. My PB is 21.7... and only 6 tenths off that when 70lbs higher. I think I have a legit shot at a PB this year. As someone said before to me, i shouldn't be that fast now. Obviously not really any good form of measure other than food for discussion here BUT it might be a good way to finally calculate "worlds fastest fat man" which I may've just been as little as two years ago. However the world is a large place, so I will lay claim to having been "thread's fastest fat man" last year and the year before until someone posts results otherwise. Recent weight loss has made it tough to keep this up however. Lastly, I am wholeheartedly in favor of weight classes in races. I feel like i'd fare well with that. :) Superb! You definitely have my full and unmitigated admiration for being (so far, at least) the Undisputed Thread's Fastest Big Man Title. You have even more of my admiration for not allowing yourself to feel stigmatized by your girth! Perhaps we should all chip in and buy one of those Boxing Style Belts (the ones that look like Dinner Platters with a leather cinch) to bestow upon the Fastest Big Man and Fastest Big Lady, respectively, at this year's Nationals! But I agree with Michele, too--we need to have a separate category for the Big Man and Big Lady Greatest Endurance Swimmers (I suggest the 500 free because this will allow middle distance freestylers to give it a shot, too, but if there is an outcry from distance purists, I'd be fine with using the 1650), and possibly another one for the Big Man and Big Lady Greatest Versatility Swimmer (for which the 200 IM might be a good proxy?) To make the competition fair, we would have to incorporate some kind of age-grading feature, too. The Finnish formula http://n3times.com/swimtimes/ might be too generous to us geezers. Maybe Chris Stevenson's brilliant and much more detailed age-grading calculator would be fairer? www.vaswim.org/.../rcalc.cgi I will ask my twin brother to begin designing the belts!

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

aquageek — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:19:26 GMT

This is blatant discrimination against distance swimmers. You've been hanging around Leslie for too long.

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Former Member — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:05:47 GMT

Karl, are you trying to say you are both slow and skinny? Story of my life. After a lot of converting, my Jim's Weight-Weighted 50 score seems to be 1.14. I tried three online swim time converters and settled for 24.2 as a SCY conversion of my 26.87 SCM time. I'm 191 cm (6'3"), 77,5 kg (171 pounds). To reach a score of 1.00 I'd have to 1) gain nearly 25 pounds or 2) drop 3.3 seconds (there's the third way, involving invasive surgery and dropping only 0.3 sec, but there's more to life than a perfect Jim's Weight-Weighted 50 score, I feel). So, we're stuck on the familiar sliding scale from the obtainable (1) to the attractive (2) option.

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Former Member — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 07:46:09 GMT

Well give me a few months and we can have that race! Of course I didn't swim in college and didn't swim after I was 10. But I can give you a run for your money once I get in swim shape! J/k... kinda. Still impressed man with your dedication over the last 3 years. Sounds like you are about the same size as me height wise 6-1- 6-2. Its funny on the weightlifting boards I used to go to all the guys were 5'8-5'10... with the occasional 6'6 guy. Here its like everyone is 6'1+. Obviously there are shorter people but being tall does lend itself to swimming.

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Former Member — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 06:50:57 GMT

Dang dude... that is awesome! 8 waist sizes??? Holy Cow! Right now at about 250-260 I wear about a 36-8 depending if its dress paints or jeans... I can't imagine getting down to a size 30-32 again! My goal for the beginning of March for my first meet in 25 years is to be about 240... then in June be down to 225. Good luck on your goals. If I learned anything its all about taking a little at a time with regards to lifestyle changes. I was wearing 42 pants, now I can easily get into 34 's, but I normally wear 36's just for "crotch clearance" because I like being comfortable, lol. Had to buy all new clothes. Jim, Trust me I know how that goes, I don't really talk about my weight loss to that many people in my circle of friends, mainly because I don't want people to get discouraged with how "easy" I appear to drop it. In all reality I've busted my ass for 3 years (moreso the last 9 months) to get where i'm at... not that I wanted to turn this topic into a "look how much i lost" discussion either :) I wanna see someone drop a JW-W score lower than me so I can set up a race :)

RE: New Proposed Metric: Jim's Weight-Weighted 50

Former Member — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 06:47:20 GMT

Tangential, but possibly of interest since there was mention of swimming speed pound per pound: "Pound for pound, the strongest girl in the world may be Naomi Kutin, a ten-year-old from Fair Lawn, New Jersey, who weighs only ninety-nine pounds but can squat and deadlift more than twice that much." From a New Yorker article on strength competitions www.newyorker.com/.../120723fa_fact_bilger