someone needs to look in a mirror

Did they have a weigh-in for Athena/Clydes (some races just weigh everyone)?

Also, while USAT has set Athenas at 150 and Clydes at 220, each race can set its own limits and some have it as low as 130 for Athenas and I've seen 180 for Clydes.

I'm not sure the minimum weights will get increased, but, like with Clydes, where in a number of races there are several Clydes categories, I think it'll be more common to add weight categories and/or (I've seen this already, too) separate Athenas by age.

I'm sorry, but are you saying the tall, thin people need to look in a mirror? Or that you and your boyfriend do? Cuz let's face it, the tall, thin people are the ones that are fulfilling the Clyde/Athena category intentions... 

And raising the weights, so fat people won't feel so bad about losing to people that aren't fat? Sorry, that sounds like a bad idea all around. 

What i'm saying is that there are people like me (plenty athletic, muscular bound, former power athlete, breasts a plenty) that think of themselves separately from those that easily fit into a pair of designer jeans. No im not fat, nor is he; we do keep meat on our bones though so we can do our job better. And since I i used to be, I find your tone insensitive. Nothing against tall people.

There was an athena at the HIM that I did last weekend that fits Athena for weight, but she was very fit and I there were some Clydes that probably were in the 7% or less body fat, but were probably at 200 lbs without too much problem and they have the right to be there just like I did at 265 lbs.  I was last of the clydes to finish but there were 14 others that didn't finish the swim, bike or run.

But, I am not competitive yet.  I just wanted to finish the HIM.  Each person will decide whether or not to choose the clydes/athen or rather compete in their A/G.

Feel better about yourself when you call other people fat?

And, I'd like to see documentation of the original intentions for the Clyde/Athena categories. I always see people like yourself claim that they weren't created for overweight (or fat, as you'd prefer) people, just the tall and the muscular, but I'd like to see proof. Not saying it isn't true. I just won't believe it until I see it.

I don't think you understand the intention of the Clyde/Athena category. Look at pictures of either a clydesdale horse or Athena and you won't see anything tall and thin. More likely the Clyde/Athena division is for more muscular competitors. The fact that tall, thin people do well in these divisions does not mean it was intended for them



I don't appreciate your comments here, and I would guess there are a lot of people who read the Athena & Clydesdale section of this forum that would be offended by what you just posted. There are a lot of us here who are very proud of the weight we've lost and the accomplishments we've made. While many of us may still have weight to lose, we do not need your negativity. I don't feel bad about anything, and I don't consider finishing any triathlon, regardless of my place, to be "losing." Please be a bit more thoughtful and considerate about what you say.

To address the question at hand, and it seems to have come up a few times in these forums, I really don't think changing weight limits will accomplish much. I think wherever your set the limit for the Athena/Clydes division there will always be tall and thin or tall and ripped athletes who will just barely meet the cutoff soaking wet and thus be at an advantage. Unless you happen to race right at the cutoff weight, it may seem unfair to you.

I would just like to remind anyone who thinks this is unfair of the progress you've made. Sure, winning a medal or trophy may be really nice, but the sense of accomplishment for a lot of us "heavier" folks is just amazing. I like the title of this thread because it gives most of us Clydes and Athenas a reminder of why we keep doing this. Look in the mirror, and what do you see? Are you happier now with how you look than you were X weeks, months, or years ago? Do you feel good because you can still complete triathlons while maintaining those curves that make you feel like a real woman? Do you get a sense of pride in seeing the reflection of a triathlete in the mirror in front of you? If the answer is yes, than who cares who gets the medals? I know we all feel some bit of jealousy about those skinny people that win the Clyde and Athena division, but we don't need to. We know what it's like to really struggle through this, and we can all see the progress we've made. I appreciate the fact that this situation bothers you; I just hope you don't listen to the opinion of anyone who thinks this is about "fat people" not feeling bad about "losing." You've already won just by doing what you've done.

 And, by the way, your curves make you look better than those skinny girls. You're amazing the way you are. Go you.



Edited by johnnyfulltime 2010-08-28 9:46 PM

I appreciate Johnny's post.

I would add that just because someone looks like they are barely and Athena or a Clyde doesn't mean they haven't worked weight off and maybe this is their lowest weight ever.  I race Athena, I have 5 children and am new to this sport so I identify more with Athenas then age groupers.  I am 5'9" and to some may not look like an Athena but can assure you I have always been clear of the cut off and don't need to be dripping wet.  We all carry weight differently.  I am at a low weight for me right now and the time may come when I am no longer an Athena and that day will be celebrated but it's honestly not something I am striving for.  If the weight comes off, great, if not that's ok too.  Look at what my body has done - carried and nourished 5 children and look what it does every single day swimming, biking, running always moving forward, slowly mind you, but forward.  So the next time you see somebody and wonder if they are a Clyde or Athena or think they have to be dripping wet to make weight stop to think of where they may have come from.

The OP stated the "someone needs to look in a mirror" and clearly meant that the "tall, slender and muscular" people that won at her race should not be in the A/C categories. That is incredibly judgmental and also NOT what the categories are for. Yes, Clydesdale horses are muscular, they are also TALL. And they are NOT carrying extra fat, they are a lot of muscle. So all the people that think the cats are for people that need/want to lose weight are wrong. Yes, it's great that people want to do triathlon while losing weight, but don't get bent out of shape because there are other people that are faster than you that are closer to the weight limit. And if you read the OP, that is what she was complaining about.

And I realized that my use of the word "fat" rather than "overweight" would ruffle some feathers, but they do mean the same thing. But some people get their panties in a bunch when they see the word. Yet they have no problem calling people "skinny" (which does not have positive connotations.) Sorry, if it's OK to call people skinny, then it's OK to call people fat. There are plenty of people here that refer to the "skinny people that need to eat a sandwich" (yes, I've seen that in the C/A forum) who forget that not everyone in the C/A cat needs to lose weight. But nevermind, I'll stick to racing AG and so will lots of other people and then you will have what you seem to want (even though many people here complain about it): you will have a category where the only people in it are the overweight racers, and it will be less competitive because of it.

Edited by lodewey 2010-08-29 9:01 AM

Let me get this straight. You justify purposely using derogatory language because other people have used it in the past? Is that what you teach (or will teach) your kids? That it's OK to use degrading and inflammatory words if A) It helps you make your point regardless of the insensitivity and rudeness, and B) Other people have called others names and mean things?

Go ahead and justify your rude behavior any way you'd like, if it makes you feel better when you look in the mirror. Personally, I believe you were trying to gain the upper ground and being a bully by putting down "fat people" who don't share the same viewpoint as you, and that is simply classless behavior -- especially in THIS forum.

And if it makes strong, muscular, tall, thin people feel better about themselves to win the Clydesdale/Athena categories, which obviously have a larger amount of overweight participants and fewer contenders, then all the more power to them. If fit people who weigh the proper amount to be in C/A races don't want to take on the challenge of going against those speedy, smaller quarter horses because of their size disadvantage, then they have every right to be in the "bigger" groups.

I personally race for myself and not against others.

Oh yeah, and here's a standing ovation for Johnny - great post!

Love it. Agreed

I think we all have our own idea about what a successful race is for us, and that idea changes over time as we change as athletes.
I also have had kids and have gained/loss a lot of weight. In the beginning, just running for 5 minutes without stopping was huge for me.

I currently race athena (I'm 5'4 & 163lbs) but I may go to AG if I get below 150lbs or if I consistantly start placing in Athena and want a more competitive group (both of the senerios may or may not happen).

The person who won the Athena may have been heavier in the past. This may have been her 1st win ever. She may have come a long way too. Or not. People race where they choose, for their own reasons. In the end, we all race against the clock.

Last October I completed my first tri at 290+ pounds, finished second to last in the Clyde division.  Now 65 pounds lighter, stronger, and healthier, I have had a great second season; three first place finishes, a second and a fifth, all in the Clyde division. At 6'5" 225 pounds, I may appear to be the "tall & skinny" type, but by rule qualify as a Clydesdale. If I had raced AG instead of Clyde, my best finish would have been 7th, my lowest 27th. Should I be ashamed to race and be successful as a Clyde?  Should I be forced to race AG because I am no longer obese? Should I stop being proud of what I see in the mirror?

Sorry, but I find this incredibly ironic looking at the title of this thread and your first post.
 

I just want to step off of my soap box and add one thing:

I'm really happy that triathlons include people of all shapes and sizes - from the uber-skinny guys to the muscular dudes to the chunkier ones like myself to people everywhere in between. Triathlons are truly a harmony of humanity.

It's awesome that this incredible sport can offer something to so many diverse body types, and that so many incredible people can offer something to this awesome sport.

Edited by mrwrite 2010-08-29 5:55 PM

Was thinking exactly the same thing. 

I would have to agree that it is disheartining to see a cly. win that is around 220 or less. I rememeber, even though it was years ago, weighing in at 225 and built like a brick #@!%house. I weigh 270 now and started at 280. Most people say "you don't look it" or its because "your so tall." Bull puckey. I find it rather uncomfortable to be at this weight and even insulting to be classified with this group. Many times, as a competitve edge, I look around and say, "I can beat that guy or that guy" And don't say most of you don't either. Your probably saying it about me. It is competitive nature.

My goal is to lose the weight and not be "fat". I have to much to lose to die from being "overweight".  I agree that the major reason I compete is for self-accomplishment, but there is that small desire to finish toward the top. I have finished last before and it sucked! I vowed I would never do that again. I guess what i'm saying is that I agree that its difficult to monitor the weight for c/a cat, perhaps if you compete in that cat. they should go by Body "fat" and measure it the day before. But if i ever get back to 225, I want the AG's.

Sorry If I offended anyone, but I grad. high school at 170 and was teased about it and now weigh 270 and still teased about it. I felt much better at 170. So I know where both of you are coming from.

And another thing,lol, you know what bothers me more? Races that charge extra for 2x shirt or ones that don't offer them at all. What is that telling its competitors? I won't participate in a race that does not offer me the same as the others.

Edited by crlarner 2010-08-29 6:49 PM

Honestly, I don't get the tone of this whole thread.

I don't understand people being upset because the person inside their weight class actually participated in that weight class. 
To me that is like saying - "she's not even 40 yet, she's technically 39" when it's an age grouper.

I know this is such a cliche but can't we all just get along???  Race where you feel most comfortable and do your best.  I run slow and I don't understand why women with as much experience/training and weight/age run much faster than I do but that is on ME, not THEM.

Most of the women I am competing against whether Athena or age group haven't had a bunch of kids like I have but I don't expect a category for being a Grand Multip = having given birth many times.

No matter how old you are or how much you weigh everyone that gets podium in this sport works their butt off and they DESERVE it!  Be happy for them.  Work hard on YOU.  Don't be a hater. 
I honestly do not understand people who have or had a weight issue judging people because they don't weigh enough???  Really??? Is that where you are???  So If I have worked my butt off to race at 160 and get podium that's not good enough because I ONLY weigh 160?  My goodness, that sounds so judgemental it makes me sad.

We are all at different places.  What if the guy that is barely a clyde at 220 used to weigh 320?  Then would it be OK? 

I love being an Athena I love my body for what it has done and what it continues to do.  If you are ashamed to race in the C/A category then maybe you shouldn't.

And the whole body fat test is ridiculous.  First of all they are notoriously wrong depending on who is giving the test and being a C/A isn't about how much body fat you have.  It is simply harder to move something that is bigger.



Edited by KeriKadi 2010-08-29 7:18 PM

I've been debating posting a reply to this thread for a while. 

I used to think the same way as the original poster and thought I wouldn't race athena once I got under 169 pounds (BMI of 25 at my height).  I was close at 173 when I did my half Ironman a few years ago.  I had won two athena races that year so far and was expecting to place again in the race.  I finished 4th.  The top three were the 150s  tall girls.  I was annoyed, but I think mostly because of my issues.  They met the weight requirements and did the race.

Truth is, someone who weighs more, regardless of hight has to expend more energy than someone who is littler.  I remember back in the 2004 olympics when Paula Radcliffe blew up in the marathon, the announcers declared that it was because she was bigger than the other athletes.  5'7" and in the 110s.  She was at a disadvantage and the women's marathon world record holder couldn't compete with the smaller racers because of the heat.

In the past year I have started training with a computrainer.  The power measurements that it takes depend on the weight of the rider.  The body composition and height are not a consideration, just the weight.  The same principal applies to running.  Work in a scientific sense is a body of weight moving with force over a certain distance.  Anyone over 150 (or 200 for clydes) has to move a similar amount of weight over the same distance.  The gals with more muscle mass just have the goods to get the job done faster.

BMI might not be accurate, but neither is stepping on the scale and saying, "well I think I weigh 225 today so I can stand on the podium because I can't beat the AG's."  I admit I look at the times for both divisions (cly and AG) and compare where I might have fallen in particular races and see the disparity between the two. I use the times to help set goals. In my mindset, if I stand at a podium for cly. it tells me I am to "overweight" (since we have to be politically correct) to compete in the other. I say this because the interpretation I got from others was the division was designed for "larger" competitors. But that is just one man's opinion and competitive nature. I never said you had to agree, just something to think about.

If I remember correctly, I entered a race a few years back that split the c/a division. 225-250 and 250 plus for cly. Can't remember for women. Perhaps that would be a better solution?

At the end of the day I want to look in the mirror and say, "Did you do your best?" and no matter what I will be critical and say probly not. One of my favorite quotes is,"Good enough is never good enough"

If that is your mindset, then you should not race Clyd (I say this seriously and in a kind tone). Like I said before, we all have our own goals and race our own race. A victory for someone is a disappointment for someone else. Know yourself and do what makes you comfortable.

KeriKadi- I've thought the same thing about a catagory for moms. I think I might kick butt in the "mom of multiple small children" catagory

IMO - the goal should not be to narrow the field as much as possible to either optimize one's chances of getting to the podium or make one feel better about his appearance relative to his group.  Finishing second in a field of four is not that impressive.  Not unimpressive, just not as impressive as finishing second in a field of 20.

People, just go out there and race your race.

Edited by roch1009 2010-08-30 6:46 AM

Can't we just get along?

Q:  What's the difference between Clydesdale and AG?

A:  The AGer doesnt complain when they get beat by someone who is in better shape.


The name Clydesdale should be enough to say that the category is for larger than normal as the Clydesdale is larger, muscular and generally not as fast as the average race horse.  Clydesdales arent determined by BMI - it's what they are.  And the very nature of a race, or any sporting event is to be in shape. so it seems like a logical conclusion that the C/A category was intended for the bigger athlete - not the ones looking for a weight loss category or a special advantage. It is proven that after 170#'s racing times diminish.  But believe it or not - there are ppl out there that are healthy and in shape over #200 and some that arent.  Terrell Owens vs Jason Alexander for example (I used this example in another thread) Both can race, but one will most likely beat the other in a race.

To Mrwrite:  I have mentioned this to you before in a couple threads, but you still dont believe it and still want 'proof'.  So I did your google search for you and here is the origin.





So there's your history lesson for today.

Can we finally put this debate to rest - Just go out there race your race and have a good time.  and if you beat someone, then kudos to you.  And dont you think that your accomplishment would be that much sweeter knowing you beat everyone in your cat and not in a handicapped category for slow and overweight ppl?


Edited by ratherbesnowboarding 2010-08-30 8:51 AM

Yup... or just do what it is you do.  I'm attempting Savageman in Sept.  After riding the bike course once, I can honestly say that just a finish is an accomplishment.  I really don't care about a podium.  I just want to beat the course.

I don't know if it is burnout from training or I'm just having anxiety about DFL-ing the event but for some reason I'm not excited about it.  All I could think about after riding the course was, "OMG, no way I am running a half marathon now."  LOL