When did Clydesdale come to mean FAT?

android · Feb 8, 2008

So when I first heard this term, I understood it to mean large, strong riders. Like Reiner. I raced with Reiner a few years back. He was 6'4" tall and weighed about 240 lbs. And it was all in his arms, shoulders and thighs with about 5% body fat. He was a WALL. What I would consider a true Clydesdale.

He could TT like nobodies business and he did darn good in road races. Not quite so good up hills, but he was strong enough to keep up.

Anyway, now it seems to be that any slob over 200lbs calls themselves a Clydesdale? Dude, I'm 6'1", but when I'm over 200 lbs, I'm just a fat slob that needs to lose weight, that doesn't make me a Clydesdale.

And it's insulting to the equine population as well. Well kept Clydesdales are NOT fat. They are like Reiner, big, but it's muscle. That's why they are draft horses that can pull huge wagons of beer. Does this horse look fat to you? I don't think so, that about 1800 lbs of muscle and bone.

Anyway, just thought I would get that off my chest.

Treker · Feb 8, 2008

android said:
So when I first heard this term, I understood it to mean large, strong riders. Like Reiner. I raced with Reiner a few years back. He was 6'4" tall and weighed about 240 lbs. And it was all in his arms, shoulders and thighs with about 5% body fat. He was a WALL. What I would consider a true Clydesdale.

He could TT like nobodies business and he did darn good in road races. Not quite so good up hills, but he was strong enough to keep up.

Anyway, now it seems to be that any slob over 200lbs calls themselves a Clydesdale? Dude, I'm 6'1", but when I'm over 200 lbs, I'm just a fat slob that needs to lose weight, that doesn't make me a Clydesdale.

And it's insulting to the equine population as well. Well kept Clydesdales are NOT fat. They are like Reiner, big, but it's muscle. That's why they are draft horses that can pull huge wagons of beer. Does this horse look fat to you? I don't think so, that about 1800 lbs of muscle and bone.

Anyway, just thought I would get that off my chest.

I have been wondering myself just what the parameters are for being considered a Clydesdale. At 6'5" and 215 lbs, I obviously will never be anything but a Clydesdale. However, no one would consider me fat. Slightly overweight maybe, but certainly not fat. Personally, I would like to drop about 10-15 lbs or so, but even if I hit 200 lbs, at 6'5" I don't think I will never be considered anything but a Clydesdale.

So even though I will always be a Clydesdale, is there any concensus out there on what does and does not make someone a Clydesdale? Is there a height and weight combination that is considered a threshold that puts one into the Clydesdale catagory? Just curious...

Later,

bikeboy389 · Feb 9, 2008

I figure it's anybody who's gonna be over 180 or so even when completely fit. Let's face it--that's a big guy in the cycling world. This means that, in my book, guys who are 5'6" and weigh 250 lbs don't count.

I just barely count, as I got as low as 183 when I was skin and bones as a messenger--I was maybe a small Clydesdale. Now I'm more like 225+, and am a fat small Clydesdale.

Guest · Feb 9, 2008

bikeboy389 said:
I figure it's anybody who's gonna be over 180 or so .........................

.

I'm a Clyde ??!!

I never knew ................................

At least I have an excuse now.

Terex · Feb 9, 2008

I ride with a Clyde. He was a linebacker in college. I'm sure he's less than 10% body fat - and he can climb. It's not fair.

slowdave · Feb 9, 2008

Does that me a clyde? im 174cm about 5'7", 87kg about 200lbs, like your mate i hold on (just) on the hills but i go ok on the flats Im all shoulders, tight head prop in my silly younger days, now im lighter but stronger. reckon i could get to 80kg if i really tried. but there would be very little of me at that weight.

FTR · Feb 9, 2008

Well that makes me a Clyde at 6'3' and 187lb.
Cannot see it myself.

So I need to lose nearly 5kg to be a non clyde??
I am off to purge.

Treker · Feb 9, 2008

I kinda figure its anyone over about 6'3" and within 5% or so of their "ideal" weight. If you are much over that you may still be a Clyde, but then you would be an overweight Clyde.

You could still be a very fit Clyde, however, even if you were overweight a bit. Someone with a linebacker build is way out of the average body type anyway so their "ideal" weight or BMI weight is going to be off the average scale a bit.

At 6'5" and 215 lbs, I am right on the upper end of the "ideal" weight range. That's why I would like to drop about 10 - 15 lbs. I always felt best about myself in the 200 lb. range. Before that I always thought I was too skinny. In my early 20's I was in the 180 lb range, and always felt too thin. Not that I have that problem any longer 25 years later!

Later,

Treker

Cory · Feb 9, 2008

Oh, don't be so sensitive, Tubby

I'm a lifelong Clyde (6'4" and 225-240), and I've never thought of "Clydesdale" as meaning "fat." Just means a larger-than-average rider, at least around here.

MIN in PDX · Feb 9, 2008

Astute observation. Clyde =/= Fat traditionally.

FTR · Feb 9, 2008

Treker said:
I kinda figure its anyone over about 6'3" and within 5% or so of their "ideal" weight. If you are much over that you may still be a Clyde, but then you would be an overweight Clyde.

You could still be a very fit Clyde, however, even if you were overweight a bit. Someone with a linebacker build is way out of the average body type anyway so their "ideal" weight or BMI weight is going to be off the average scale a bit.

At 6'5" and 215 lbs, I am right on the upper end of the "ideal" weight range. That's why I would like to drop about 10 - 15 lbs. I always felt best about myself in the 200 lb. range. Before that I always thought I was too skinny. In my early 20's I was in the 180 lb range, and always felt too thin. Not that I have that problem any longer 25 years later!

Later,

Treker

Well I am within the BMI (not that BMI is useful at all as a measurement of health IMO) but according to you I am still a Clyde??
Makes no sense at all.

Treker · Feb 9, 2008

FTR said:
Well that makes me a Clyde at 6'3' and 187lb.
Cannot see it myself.

So I need to lose nearly 5kg to be a non clyde??
I am off to purge.

Are you a Clyde or not? I don't know. I was just trying to see if there is any type of consensus as to what size constitutes a Clyde. Is there a size and weight threshold that when it is crossed you are commonly considered a Clydesdale by your fellow riders?

I have always thought of 6'3" as kinda the threshold when someone is considered "really tall", and not just "tall". At least that has been my experience. So would someone 6'3" be considered a Clyde at 187 lbs.? Personally I don't think so. The height is there but the weight is not.

I have a 17 year old son who is 6'3" and about 160 lbs. I would not consider him a Clyde since he is skinny as a bean poll! But give him 20 years and he probably will have entered Clydesdale territory.

Now, at 6'5", if I were able to get my weight down to just under 200 lbs, say 197 lbs., would I still be considered a Clyde? I don't know. I'm just asking for opinions here.

Later,

FTR · Feb 9, 2008

Treker said:
Are you a Clyde or not? I don't know. I was just trying to see if there is any type of consensus as to what size constitutes a Clyde. Is there a size and weight threshold that when it is crossed you are commonly considered a Clydesdale by your fellow riders?

Yes, I agree with you.
I was not having a go at you Treker.
More agreeing with you actually.

CleavesF · Feb 9, 2008

android said:
So when I first heard this term, I understood it to mean large, strong riders. Like Reiner. I raced with Reiner a few years back. He was 6'4" tall and weighed about 240 lbs. And it was all in his arms, shoulders and thighs with about 5% body fat. He was a WALL. What I would consider a true Clydesdale.

You're right. I just call fat people fatties. The Weight Section of this forum called me out on calling fatties fatties. So be it. :cryin:

JaeP · Feb 9, 2008

Polite

It's just a polite term instead of calling us "fatty bobolatty". I'm 6'2" and currently 235lbs.

logansites · Feb 9, 2008

Im 6'2 (6' 2 1/2" if you want to be technical) and 162 lbs...am I a clydesdale? i wouldnt consider myself one.

edit: that is within range for my body frame size

venus · Feb 9, 2008

Bring It.

As I see it being a Clydesdale is a complement. Those Bud horses are probably paid millions to strut their stuff & are tough enough to take any challenge, any day, any where. They are lean, mean, larger than life, working machines. I’d be proud to be a Clydesdale.

Terrapin · Feb 9, 2008

The OP lost me when he said 6'1' and 200 lbs = "Fat Slob that needs to lose weight". Give me a f*cking break.

QuiQuaeQuod · Feb 9, 2008

I believe that in MTB races there is sometimes a clyde class. 200lbs is the minimum to race in it. At least that is how it was back in the day.

Racing mtb just ruins a good day in the woods, imo. But more power to those who enjoy it.

android · Feb 9, 2008

Terrapin said:
The OP lost me when he said 6'1' and 200 lbs = "Fat Slob that needs to lose weight". Give me a f*cking break.

That's just me with my build. I'm around 18% body fat at that weight, with most of it hanging over my belt. I consider myself to be fit around 185.

Obviously, some people can be 6'1"/200 lbs and not have any fat on them.

When did Clydesdale come to mean FAT?

android

Treker

bikeboy389

Guest

Terex

slowdave

FTR

Treker

Cory

MIN in PDX

FTR

Treker

FTR

CleavesF

JaeP

logansites

venus

Terrapin

QuiQuaeQuod

android

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities