I'm interested in opinions on where the boundary between clydesdaledom and non-clydesdaldom lies.

Here's the skinny (so to speak). As of last June I had been sedentary for three years because of medical issues and certainly qualified: 5'10", 250. Now, post knee replacement, I'm back on the bike and 210. Should I stop wearing the Anheuser-Busch stable blanket at night?

I'm interested in opinions on where the boundary between clydesdaledom and non-clydesdaldom lies.

Here's the skinny (so to speak). As of last June I had been sedentary for three years because of medical issues and certainly qualified: 5'10", 250. Now, post knee replacement, I'm back on the bike and 210. Should I stop wearing the Anheuser-Busch stable blanket at night?

I'd say 200lb is the cutoff. So keep the A-B blanket, and keep drinking their beer if you want to stay amongst us. (JUST KIDDING!!)

- Forbes B-Black
6'6", 250lb

... especially if your stall is particularly cold.

I also currently weigh 210, distributed over a chassis that's two inches longer than yours, and since I'm quite a bit more, ah, substantial than the guys I regularly ride with I do consider myself a Clydesdale. (Not saying I'm PROUD to be one, you understand, but if the horse blanket fits ...)

... especially if your stall is particularly cold.

I also currently weigh 210, distributed over a chassis that's two inches longer than yours, and since I'm quite a bit more, ah, substantial than the guys I regularly ride with I do consider myself a Clydesdale. (Not saying I'm PROUD to be one, you understand, but if the horse blanket fits ...)

A sports doctor once told me I have the legs of someone 5'8" and the torso of someone 6'2" so I ain't never gonna be skinny. Have to use 46 cm bars and wear a size 46 jacket. No Italian jerseys for me!

That's a good question...
I am also 5'10" and just (and I mean JUST) under that 200 lb. mark due to a season filled with unexpected illness and injury. So much illness and injury that my 7500 miles a season minimum is still about 6500 miles away.... As such, I'm obviously not the svelt 175 that I would like to be come october, but my question is this:

Someone already mentioned that there is a 200 lb. limit and in their opinion anyone over that would be considered Clydestale... OK.. Cool.
How does that apply to someone who is 6'4" or taller? A 200 lb guy at 6'4" is still a fairly well proportioned person... Just curious to get everyone's opinion.... Also, what in your opinion is the optimum weight for someone 5'10" who is an all-round rider and not just a pure climber (weighing 150 lbs) or a sprinter (225 lbs. with thighs like concrete)...???

I'm thinking that a 175 lbs. at 5'10" would be a fairly good balance between power and weight... Any opinions???

That's a good question...
I am also 5'10" and just (and I mean JUST) under that 200 lb. mark due to a season filled with unexpected illness and injury. So much illness and injury that my 7500 miles a season minimum is still about 6500 miles away.... As such, I'm obviously not the svelt 175 that I would like to be come october, but my question is this:

Someone already mentioned that there is a 200 lb. limit and in their opinion anyone over that would be considered Clydestale... OK.. Cool.
How does that apply to someone who is 6'4" or taller? A 200 lb guy at 6'4" is still a fairly well proportioned person... Just curious to get everyone's opinion.... Also, what in your opinion is the optimum weight for someone 5'10" who is an all-round rider and not just a pure climber (weighing 150 lbs) or a sprinter (225 lbs. with thighs like concrete)...???

I'm thinking that a 175 lbs. at 5'10" would be a fairly good balance between power and weight... Any opinions???

I never thought of Clydesdales as being neccesarily fat, just big. When I was racing in the 80s, there were four of us who used to break away from the pack in the "B" race (ie: the "not as fast as the A race") of the local practice crit on Sundays (in Newton MA - do those crits still happen?). We were all over 6', but I only weighed 180lbs at that time. Still, they called us "the Clydesdales," even though we were not fat. I never heard that term again until a year-or-so ago. I wonder if we coined it?

So, I still don't think you have to be fat to be a Clydesdale, just large. Take my 200lb suggestion with a grain of salt.

I'm thinking that a 175 lbs. at 5'10" would be a fairly good balance between power and weight... Any opinions???


You're probably right as a general rule but bodies vary so much. As I mentioned, I have a very large upper body for my height. I did hit 175 (with 5% body fat) for a while but the only way I could hold it was riding at least 175 or more miles a week. Since my normal workday is 5:30 to 5:30, that just isn't going to happen.

I long for the day when I will no longer be a Clyde. I'm 5'11 and 230. Goal is to get back down in the 160-170 range that I was 6 years ago.

I think if you can be considered clinically overweight, you are a clyde. So for all people below 6'1 or so, i'd bet that 200# is overweight (excepting of course the bodybuilder types).

If you're 200lb or more, you're a clyde. The terms has nothing to do with being fat or overweight, it just means you're a big guy. 6'6" and 220lbs is a bug guy even though he's not overweight, same with a 200lb guy whose 6' - both of these folks would be considered clydes...

If you're 200lb or more, you're a clyde. The terms has nothing to do with being fat or overweight, it just means you're a big guy. 6'6" and 220lbs is a bug guy even though he's not overweight, same with a 200lb guy whose 6' - both of these folks would be considered clydes...

Exactly. Doesn't matter if 50 pounds of it is fat, or if you're a 200-lb muscle machine, you still gotta drag 200 lbs up the hill while the little 140 lbs guys spin merrily on their way.

I'm 6'4" and about 240, and I used to laugh when I read about "monster" cyclists who were 5'10 and 175 pounds. I was bigger than that when I was 15 years old. Bicycling magazine used to do stories occasionally about where "Clydesdales" could find jerseys and shoes, and it was all for guys with 42-inch chests, 32-inch waists and size 12 feet. Not much use when you wear size 15 shoes....
Anyway, you're getting down to mammalian proportions, but a lot of riders I know think anybody over 180, certainly 200, is a Clyde.

count me in i think also

was 6'3 240 in july, been riding hard im now 210 but my legs are still the same size

im trying to get in the 190's but time will tell, all those years of lifting and being huge are now down the drain