I wrote up ^^^ that I was just using Matt Fitzgeralds method to finding a target weight which uses BF% as one of the variables baked into the equation to come up with a ballpark idea of a optimal performance weight.
36.1%
According to my Salter scales. 
Like FTP I regard it as a baseline for myself not for comparison as everyone uses incomparable values. I used more advanced scales three years ago and went from 19.5% to 35.1% by switching scales. These are probably more accurate, but how can I know.
I’d like to be like a similar build pro triathlete +5kg. More realistically I’d just be happy to lose 5kg and keep it off, but that’s aesthetic and not going to win me races.
@KorbenDallas
One thing to note (I’m late 40s) is that as nice as it would be to have the perfect BF% as I’ve gained an avg 2Kg per year over the last x years, I have also been getting significantly faster. So, beware chasing a Fitzgerald’s number for performance (and health) reasons.
1 Like
Ah must’ve missed that post. Makes a ton more sense that way to me. Forget I posted and carry on 
1 Like
At 5’9", I was in 132 lbs when I was 23 @ about 7.5% body fat (I was completing at Cross Country and Track at the time). I’m now 56 and would love to get back to 150. In fact, that’s my goal.
2 Likes
I’m 54 and have been lifting weights hard for the last year and I’m up to 190 pounds at 5’10". Back when I last raced XC and was winning I was age 51 and weighed between 165 and 170 pounds. I haven’t raced since February 2020 and have let my weight go but I’m stronger now from the lifting and I still ride 3 to 5 days per week…just a little slower up long climbs.
2 Likes
Interesting thread. I’m 44, 5’10 170# @ 14% BF. My diet is average at best. I have it in my head that 160-165 would be great for improving performance on the climbs. I do a good amount of races with considerable climbing. Am I being crazy to try to shed 10#s? I’m attempting at carrying small calorie deficit to get it done. I fuel rides properly.
1 Like
Excellent well thought out response Oreo. Judging by Landis’s response to your post, I don’t think he is getting it. His arbitrary choice of 10% is an even worse goal than the highlighted numbers in the chart for all the reasons you stated.
1 Like
I may have missed it but why try and make these decisions based on unreliable data? Go get a Dexa scan. They are easy to find and not expensive. Depending on where you live it will run about $100, less if you find a package. I have used scan data to track current body weight vs lean muscle mass which is crucial to me ( I am older than you).
Still trying to figure out why you think 10% BF is at all reasonable given the data in Matt’s table.
1 Like
Do you have an off-season? If so, the time to lose the weight is then. If you try to diet during your competition phase of the season it could lead to poor recovery from hard workouts or races. At 5’10" also and carrying lots of upper body muscle, I never could sustain less than 165 pounds because of poor recovery and feeling like crap. I probably could have done it better with a nutritionist to help me dial in my diet.
1 Like
I’m 53. Same height. BF about 15%. 160lbs and very slowly dropping from 165 back in February. Gradually ramped the volume up to 450 to 500 TSS per wk. Strength work twice or once a week, depending on riding workload.
Fuelled the work on the bike with btwn 30 and 90 grams of sugary water per hour depending on intensity and duration. My wife says I eat like a horse, but a relatively healthy one. 
Do the work. Fuel the work. Avoid excessive binges. Go to bed just very slightly hungry. See where you end up. That’s what I’ve done.
4 Likes
A short off-season around the holidays… I agree, I’ve had such a positive season fueling the work and not caring too much about diet that Im hesitant to push the envelope. But I do have extra around waist that definitely affects my potential. I like the going to bed hungry advice, that’s when I snack…
There is no reason anyone needs to gain fat and lose muscle as we age, the fact that most people do doesn’t mean it’s inevitable nor a reason to accept lower standards than those for 18‐25 y/o
3 Likes
If you’re too hungry to go without entirely it can become counterproductive and affect your sleep and/or just make you miserable. A little bit of something that’s mostly protein about 30 minutes before bedtime works well.
I eat basically the same food (outside of ride fuel) every day. I figure I’m probably in a slight surplus on recovery days and a very slightly larger deficit on riding days.
1 Like
I just changed the title which was misleading. As to getting it read below…
I’m really just following what Matt suggests in the first two chapters of his book. He talks about BF scales being acceptable ways to find BF%. Not being a BF scale engineer/expert I thought it would be an easy way to get a close enough BF% to plug into his formula to find ones optimal performance weight. I posted that up the thread somewhere or buy Matt’s book and read about it there.
Now, having been at 165 for years and years and as low as 147 ten years ago I was just curious (being 175) what weight might be a good target weight for me. In Matt’s book and something I did not bring up, he talks about weight and body composition sort of interchangeably. Meaning, you could be at a low weight and relatively high body fat% and vice versa. Neither of these metrics means shit if you can’t perform. So, I thought it obvious that where ever you settle BF% and weight wise those are indirect indicators of performance. You have to go out and test test test to verify. Something I’ve been doing with power since 2007.
If the Tanita scale is close me being 16% at 175# yields 10% at 165#. Again 165 is where I’ve been for years and years w/o really trying. 147# puts me at 99.99%. I was pretty vascular back then at 147 but, no where close to the top 1%.
Now that I know all this it’s easy to say, hey dumb ass just go get a Dexa. Maybe I will but, I don’t think it’s necessary. Given my history and performance, as I wrote about somewhere, 155-160 is probably a really good weight for best performance. I will climb ok for a bigger guy and still punish on the flats and most importantly I know durability and repeatability will improve.
And finally, the Tanita BF scale data I got was the reason for starting the thread. I think it’s reading close to 5% low and I was simply curious where other people fell on the spectrum. This is just a forum. I’m not trying to defend my position. I’m not trying to prove a point. I’m not trying to convince readers this is a good way to find a racing weight.
Not sure if that qualifies for getting it but, as you can read BF was never the goal. A specific weight was more the goal but, not with out understanding composition. Way back in the day when I was coached the concern was always about getting leaner and leaner with improving performance. Weight and especially BF% we didn’t focus on. Especially BF%.
To those who get what I was asking in the op thanks. Super interesting to read where you all fall and I appreciate the anecdotes/stories you share.
3 Likes
Just like most metrics, you want to look at bf% as part of the big picture. I think it’s a valuable metric and most folks have no idea what their true number is. I agree that striving for 10% or lower may not be appropriate for many athletes, but I’d bet that very few are anywhere close to those numbers. The scales can be a decent reference point once you have an accurate baseline, but you really need to get a dexa scan if you want to know what your bf% is. I know people that look ripped that are 20% or higher on a dexa. defined muscles and veins everywhere can be misleading and you can still be carrying a bunch of fat. it’s certainly up for debate what an ideal bf% is for any given person, but lower is generally better for performance until you get into the rare air (that most amateurs are nowhere close to). I’m not saying there aren’t amateurs at or under 10%, but it’s probably a tiny, tiny fraction of the people who believe they are at 10%. Using a scale to establish bf% is better than nothing, but it’s kind of like estimating power with an old school dumb wheel-on trainer.
3 Likes
If in doubt, perhaps getting a Dexa scan will validate the Tanita scales, or at least give you an idea of the real accuracy and a ratio to apply to the Tanita results.
Edit - someone else already said the same
3 Likes
I just got a scan in a gym, with impedance scales which are claimed to be at a 2% error relative to a Dexa scan.
I am 1’83 meters (s ft) tall. I have been at 88 kg or thereabouts for years, and I am now at 95. The scan says I am at 17’5% of fat. I cannot really believe that, because that would mean that I was at about 10/11% when I was at 88 kilos. 10/11% is vascular and showing a six-pack , right? I never got there. So I can only guess, the impedance scales at the gym are way off. I would hazard a guess, they must be off by about 5% fat.
I’m 5’10”, age 57 and muscular build. My best performances racing XCO MTB was around 165 pounds. If I dropped below that weight I did not recover well and it was not sustainable.