Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

______________
12" White Stickers
______________
BallOfSpray $5 Donation
______________
BallOfSpray $10 Donation

Power To Weight

I would like to get some feedback on what people think is the ideal body size, height, weight, etc. We've all seen skiers of different shapes and sizes get the job done but how do we know what it ideal in terms of skiing for us as individuals? I read a lot about ski's and minor fin adjustments but not much about shifting the extra 10 or 15 lbs that could make all the difference.. I'm at about 180 these days, when I was younger skiing 36 I was closer to 185 - 190. I figure 175 - 180 @ 5'11 is about optimal for me at 34..
'Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.'' 2021 MC As soon as it lands Ski - KD Platinum

«1

Comments

  • WishWish Posts: 8,137 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    5'10" 185. Would love to be 170-5. Skied my best at that weight.
    >>> 11.25..a different kettle of fish. <<<
  • A_BA_B Posts: 4,287 Mega Baller
    I can tell you 6'1" and 260lbs is not very ideal. You would think a bigger COM would help too!

    If I weighed 190, I would be running 38 or darn close.
  • Texas6Texas6 Posts: 2,197
    5'11" and 170 and people of all shapes and sizes out ski me all the time
    Daryn Dean - Lakes of Katy, TX
    ***Robbed out of Hundreds of Panda Worthy Posts***
  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 6,056 Mega Baller
    I am 6' 220 and in pretty good shape and I can tell you that is too heavy. As opposed to @Texas6 I can't recall being beaten in a tournament by anybody heavier than I am. If there was a Clydesdale division I think I would do pretty good.
    Mark Shaffer
    SkiJaybrody
  • webbdawg99webbdawg99 Posts: 1,067 Mega Baller
    edited June 2013
    I believe Rossi wrote an article a few years ago about something similar. He was talking about his ideal body fat %....not exactly weight, but similar concept. He was saying that if his BF% was too low, he would feel weak and tired. If it was too high, he'd just be carrying extra weight. I think he concluded that his ideal % was in the 6-7% range. And let me tell you.....that is VERY difficult to achieve.

    Ideally, I'd want to be as light as possible without giving up strength. The best way to do this is with a low body fat %. For me, it was around 192 lbs, 7.2% bf. I stand just under 6'4". I haven't seen that in a couple years. I got there with a strict combination of crossfit, bikram yoga, and diet.
    TylerR
  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 6,056 Mega Baller
    BF percentage does depend on muscle mass. There are big guys with lots of muscle ad BF of 7% and lean guys with BF of 7%. While BF % is a good measuring point it isn't the only one.
    Mark Shaffer
  • ralral Posts: 1,791 Mega Baller
    @Chef23, you have not been against Juan Carlos Cuglievan, who is around 6'4 and 230 lbs...
    Rodrigo Andai
    Churchy
  • KlundellKlundell Posts: 432 Open or Level 9 Skier
    I've been experimenting with my body weight a bit this season. Last year I was 6'0" 158lbs. This off season I went on a very purposeful mass gain and I'm up to 173lbs. I monitored my strength to weight ratio very closely. I actually gained a few pull-ups and muscle-ups with the added weight and of course my barbell lifts went through the roof. As for how I'm performing on the water. First tournament was two days ago and I got 1.5 at 39 that's a good score for me especially this early in the season. I'm ahead of where I was last year at this point. I look feel and perform better at this weight and that is answer enough for me. My two cents... lean is good but too lean will cost you some strength.
    Than_Bogan
  • webbdawg99webbdawg99 Posts: 1,067 Mega Baller
    edited June 2013
    @Chef23 Maybe a combo of bf% and bmi would yield a good result. A big muscular guy as you describe with a low bf% would still have a high bmi....showing him as "overweight". I think if you can get your BMI in the "normal weight" range (18.5-24.9) AND keep your bf% below 10.....you would be in a great place to be a slalom skier.
    TylerRscotchipman
  • BCMBCM Posts: 260 Baller
    Im 5'10" 160 and think it works well. I find that my level of cardio conditioning is more important that strength training. If all I have been doing the past 6 months is running and cycling I will ski better than if all I have been doing is lifting weights. But that's me. There are way to many variables to narrow it down to one or two measurements.

    The scientist in me is intrigued by this. If there was a spread sheet with skier data (i.e. height, weight, age, years skiing, PB, waste size, body fat, primary workout type, etc.) it would be real easy to run some statistical analysis and come up with a scientific answer, assuming the data makes sense. Maybe some sort of logistic or multi-variate regression?
    KlundellThan_Bogan
  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 6,056 Mega Baller
    @ral you are right I don't know Cuglievan I am only talking about the tournaments I ski in the eastern region of the US. I can run into mid 35 and I have yet to be beaten by someone heavier than I am. Not that is anything great to be proud of I need to get lighter if I want to continue to improve.

    @webbdawg99 I think some combination beyond bf% might make sense. Some of it does depend on your frame though. Given the way I am built it is going to be tough to get much under 190-200. At 190 pounds my BMI would be 25.8 which is technically overweight. At my current weight my BMI is 29.8 which is borderline obese and while I am not small I would say I am not obese so I think there are issues with the BMI calculators.
    Mark Shaffer
  • webbdawg99webbdawg99 Posts: 1,067 Mega Baller
    There are definitely issues with the BMI calculator....just like with the BF% calculation. Thats why I mentioned that a combination of the 2, within a certain range, could yield a pretty measurable and attainable goal.
    Texas6TylerR
  • ralral Posts: 1,791 Mega Baller
    @Chef23, Juan Carlos is a big guy that can go into deep 39. His daughter is the current U21 world champion.
    Rodrigo Andai
  • Texas6Texas6 Posts: 2,197
    edited June 2013
    I can say this about my personal experience with strength and weight. I ski'd last two seasons at 5'11 & 160. I have been working out rigourously 5 days a week with Jenny LB for almost two full years now. I have gained a good ten pounds of lean muscle mass but I am still lean at 170. I have improved considerably over the past two seasons and I truly believe it is the difference in strength. For me, I feel I ski my very best when I'm as strong as I can be while maintaining a lean athletic build. My balance is better lean, my quickness, and my general athleticism seem to carry me further which helps because I am not the best athlete on earth naturally.
    Daryn Dean - Lakes of Katy, TX
    ***Robbed out of Hundreds of Panda Worthy Posts***
    A_BKlundell
  • WaternutWaternut Posts: 1,511 Crazy Baller
    Forget BMI, BF%, and all of that crap. Since we are all different, the most important thing to keep in mind is the lighter you are the better you provided you have the strength and muscle to hang on to the rope. Obviously, better technique requires less muscle and strength too.

    I don't know what Nate Smith weighs but I'm guessing he's one of the lightest guys if not the lightest guy skiing open class and it shows. Stopping and kicking a volleyball is easier than a basketball or soccer ball even thought they are similar in size.
  • KlundellKlundell Posts: 432 Open or Level 9 Skier
    edited July 2013
    I think we can just throw Nate out as an outlier the guy is a freak of nature. We can learn things from his technique but I don't think everyone should try to emulate his body type.
  • Than_BoganThan_Bogan Posts: 6,808 Mega Baller
    It's BMI tirade time!

    BMI was developed for population estimation more than a 100 years ago. It uses an exponent of less than 3 because the typical taller person also tended to be thinner and it was trying to predict that.

    The idea of using it as some kind of indicator for an individual is ludicrous. It's extra ludicrous for athletes and especially tall athletes.

    Case in point: At 6'2" 170 (or less), I am best described as "scrawny." But my BMI is about 22, supposedly putting me toward the fat half of the "healthy" range. Iirc, Paul Pierce is in the "obese" category...

    To the original question, my feeling is that at this time of year, reducing weight is more important than adding muscle. In the off-season, reverse that.

    I think my theoretical ideal weight would be about 185, but I'd have to make radical changes to be able to get there with muscle. As my musculature stands now, my best skiing weight is between 165 and 170. Less than that I start to feel weak; more than that is just being multiplied by 3 behind the boat!
    Nathaniel Bogan -- GUT Padawan
    WaternutKlundell
  • WaternutWaternut Posts: 1,511 Crazy Baller
    I think @than_bogan hit the nail on the head. Wish I was better at putting my thoughts into words like this...
  • webbdawg99webbdawg99 Posts: 1,067 Mega Baller
    The original poster was asking about power to weight ratio. Well, weight only tells a small part of the story. BMI is also a flawed measure, as I have already highlighted more than once. But in the spirit of trying to hone in on some type of answer to the original question, I went there.

    I still stand by my original statement. If you fall in the normal weight range AND have a body fat % of less than 10, you're probably in a pretty good window for optimal slalom performance. Is this a theory? Yes. Am I going to conduct an experiment with statistical data to verify it? No. But it does come from my own personal experience.

    The inability to take things at face value and constant over analysis are sometimes detrimental to the spirit of the original post.
    TylerR
  • DustyDusty Posts: 315 Baller
    IIRC- the ludicrous Federal height/weight standards are/were based on the BMI values. I think another thing to consider as well, is that high performance skis are not generally built in sizes appropriate for us heavier skiers- whatever their muscle mass. The course dimensions being a constant- longer skis/bigger turns are probably not be ideal for running the course as efficiently as can an equally lean skier on say a 67" board...?
  • Than_BoganThan_Bogan Posts: 6,808 Mega Baller
    edited June 2013
    @webbdawg99 Your general point is right on. My apologies if I came off as disagreeing at a high level. I'd just ask you to go there without BMI, because flawed is a big understatement for that measure. I have a personal vendetta against the total misuse of this metric.
    Nathaniel Bogan -- GUT Padawan
  • A_BA_B Posts: 4,287 Mega Baller
    All different body types have done well, muscular like Roberge, lean and mean like Mapple, brute force Lapoint, lean Nate, and average build Rodgers. I skied with a guy who is no longer with us, that looked like a very non-athletic person, and he probably couldn't have hit a beachball with a bat, but that guy could turn a ski and ran into 35 off regularly.
  • Razorskier1Razorskier1 Posts: 3,425 Mega Baller
    I think key is understanding what your body type implies about how you should ski. For example, I've often heard it said that Nate says he gives it 110% as he is approaching the wakes. That's great for a guy that weighs 160. When I give it my all approaching the wakes bad things happen, like ropes and handles break. At 6ft and 193 I am pretty lean with big chest, back and shoulders. For me, I know that I need to simply resist against the line to create equivalent load to a lighter skier giving it all they've got. As long as I stick to that, works great.

    In short, I think body type (assuming an average degree of fitness) affects how you ski, but doesn't mean you will be a better or worse skier than someone else.

    To some of the earlier posts about up or down, I find that at around 190-195 I have endless power and energy and can literally ski as long as I want to -- which I like! If I drop too much below 190, I start to feel more tired and less powerful, and skiing longer sets gets tougher.
    Jim Ross
  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 6,056 Mega Baller
    Are pull-ups a good indication of power to weight?
    Mark Shaffer
  • ralral Posts: 1,791 Mega Baller
    @Chef23, pull-ups suck! I hate them.
    Rodrigo Andai
  • ozskiozski Posts: 1,706
    edited November 2014
    For anyone locked out of this thread http://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/9400/weight-and-short-line-38-and-shorter in advanced topics. We can have our own lower level discussion about it in this thread I started more than a year ago...
    'Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.'' 2021 MC As soon as it lands Ski - KD Platinum

  • skier2788skier2788 Posts: 793 Crazy Baller
    My weight moves around a lot. Have done some of my best skiing at 6'2 220. If I am starving trying to drop weight I feel tired with low energy. Have been trying to drop weight all winter and then when I start skiing I eat what I want and try to feel the best I can.
    Travis Torley
  • mwetskiermwetskier Posts: 1,337 Mega Baller
    ' If I weighed 190, I would be running 38 or darn close ' @A_B -or you might be featured on the next ' help feed the children ' commercial.
  • A_BA_B Posts: 4,287 Mega Baller
    @mwetskier‌ - they wouldn't want some old fat guy doing a feed the children commercial...
  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 6,056 Mega Baller
    @skier2788 if are starving you need to change what you are eating. You should be able to get enough food in for fuel and drop weight but you need to think about what you put in your mouth. When I eat right I can shed weight and not be hungry. When I don't think about what I eat I am no more full I just get fat.
    Mark Shaffer
Sign In or Register to comment.