Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Fifty Plus (50+) (https://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=220)
-   -   Yes! Study shows that for those over 50, the more you ride, the longer you'll live (https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=1183969)

TiHabanero 09-20-19 06:13 PM

Not really interested in longevity, more interested in quality to the end. Middle age should be a straight line on the chart, with minimal ups and downs, and then at the "old age" mark the line goes straight down to the end.

Interpreted as "live a healthy problem free life and then simply die." That is my goal. A life lived to the very end.

TakingMyTime 09-20-19 07:26 PM

Yes! Study shows that for those over 50, the more you ride, the longer you'll live

His grasp of the painfully obvious is incredible

Carbonfiberboy 09-20-19 11:08 PM


Originally Posted by TakingMyTime (Post 21131434)
Yes! Study shows that for those over 50, the more you ride, the longer you'll live

His grasp of the painfully obvious is incredible

It's really more interesting that that. It shows that those who had the highest VO2max values at 48 lived longer. No followup except for death dates. I was running with the ball after the buzzer there, just for fun. You must not have clicked. Replying to studies you haven't read isn't always the best idea. They authors' opinion seems to be that by 48 the genetic component falls off and VO2max numbers better reflect those who've continued working hard in their sport and less those who were just born with it. Or not? Is longevity more inherited or worked for? The study does not pretend to answer that question. Nature/nurture. Personal experience of many readers seems to indicate a belief that it becomes more nurture. Perhaps that is true. Certainly TdF GC winners and high placers are long lived, We don't really know. My doctor seems to think that by my age it's more nurture, as do I, being one who wasn't born with a high VO2max and at 48 had not been aerobically active for a couple decades.

In any case, it's good to be among the few who grasp the painfully obvious. Little people come out of my ears and wave flags. I'm just glad I'm no younger.

OldsCOOL 09-21-19 06:57 AM


Originally Posted by horatio (Post 21129843)
Especially gravel bikes...

And mountain biking. Cycling in general, even at a casual pace tends to work most of the muscle structure. Add to that an aggressive single track or rutty gravel grind or steep hills and the next day you get the feeling of a very good workout.

TakingMyTime 09-21-19 07:31 AM


Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy (Post 21131653)
It's really more interesting that that. It shows that those who had the highest VO2max values at 48 lived longer. No followup except for death dates. I was running with the ball after the buzzer there, just for fun. You must not have clicked. Replying to studies you haven't read isn't always the best idea. They authors' opinion seems to be that by 48 the genetic component falls off and VO2max numbers better reflect those who've continued working hard in their sport and less those who were just born with it. Or not? Is longevity more inherited or worked for? The study does not pretend to answer that question. Nature/nurture. Personal experience of many readers seems to indicate a belief that it becomes more nurture. Perhaps that is true. Certainly TdF GC winners and high placers are long lived, We don't really know. My doctor seems to think that by my age it's more nurture, as do I, being one who wasn't born with a high VO2max and at 48 had not been aerobically active for a couple decades.

In any case, it's good to be among the few who grasp the painfully obvious. Little people come out of my ears and wave flags. I'm just glad I'm no younger.

You got me on that one. I did not read the article and was responding only to the headline.

Lemond1985 09-21-19 07:52 AM


Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy (Post 21131653)
It's really more interesting that that. It shows that those who had the highest VO2max values at 48 lived longer. No followup except for death dates. I was running with the ball after the buzzer there, just for fun. You must not have clicked. Replying to studies you haven't read isn't always the best idea. They authors' opinion seems to be that by 48 the genetic component falls off and VO2max numbers better reflect those who've continued working hard in their sport and less those who were just born with it. Or not? Is longevity more inherited or worked for? The study does not pretend to answer that question. Nature/nurture. Personal experience of many readers seems to indicate a belief that it becomes more nurture. Perhaps that is true. Certainly TdF GC winners and high placers are long lived, We don't really know. My doctor seems to think that by my age it's more nurture, as do I, being one who wasn't born with a high VO2max and at 48 had not been aerobically active for a couple decades.

In any case, it's good to be among the few who grasp the painfully obvious. Little people come out of my ears and wave flags. I'm just glad I'm no younger.

Middle-aged athletes seem to be a new phenomenon, when I was a kid, no one exercised past 30. So our generation is really breaking some new ground. Does working out increase lifespan? I guess we'll find out as the years go by. I would not be surprised to find out that each of us are born with a genetic age limit, which no amount of good food or exercise will ever be able to increase.

It's undeniable though that exercise improves the quality of life. Whether it increases the quantity beyond maybe an extra 3-5 years on average, who knows? But to a dying man, ask what he'd pay to live one more day, much less 3-5 years. Probably everything he had, so I think it's worth the effort to try to get those extra years, even though they may not seem like a lot right now.

Carbonfiberboy 09-21-19 05:19 PM


Originally Posted by Lemond1985 (Post 21131872)
Middle-aged athletes seem to be a new phenomenon, when I was a kid, no one exercised past 30. So our generation is really breaking some new ground. Does working out increase lifespan? I guess we'll find out as the years go by. I would not be surprised to find out that each of us are born with a genetic age limit, which no amount of good food or exercise will ever be able to increase.

It's undeniable though that exercise improves the quality of life. Whether it increases the quantity beyond maybe an extra 3-5 years on average, who knows? But to a dying man, ask what he'd pay to live one more day, much less 3-5 years. Probably everything he had, so I think it's worth the effort to try to get those extra years, even though they may not seem like a lot right now.

I had a doctor who told me that "We'll be studying you and those like you for 20 years. You're the tip of the spear and we know nothing about how this'll turn out."

My message of the day: A missed workout cannot be made up. Like a sunny day, it's gone forever.

Lemond1985 09-22-19 08:10 AM

I have to admit I'm nervous though, regarding the existence of a predetermined human lifespan limit. Just look at the life of Beryl Burton, the so-called "female Eddy Merckx". Seven world titles, 90 domestic championships and numerous world records. Dead at 58, while on a bike delivering invitations to her 59th birthday party.

While she did have a history of heart problems, it's at least arguable that all of that very intense cycling added not a single second to her life.

http://i1.wp.com/ciclismopassion.com...ycle-sport.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Burton

I'm cautiously hopeful I'm wrong. It's just that when you're struggling up a 12% grade, it's difficult to believe it's not making the body stronger and tougher than some sedentary person with a bad diet. But I try to keep my rides fun, just in case. And I don't push myself too hard to ride, on days when I just do not feel like it. I consider days off as part of "listening to my body".

terrymorse 09-22-19 08:25 AM

The latest findings from the American College of Cardiology:

• Exercise reduces the incidence and risk of death from cardiovascular disease:

"the event rate for active individuals is still significantly lower than those with more sedentary habits"
"death from myocardial injury occurs more often in those with less robust habitual exercise routines"

• But even the most active athletes are not immune from coronary problems:

Although athletes have a lower event rate, they are not immune to coronary disease, even in the masters athlete cohort.

• All masters athletes should be screened for coronary artery disease:

"Screening for coronary artery disease in masters athletes should include a detailed history, physical and electrocardiogram."

The Athlete With Cardiovascular Disease: CAD and Master Athletes

bikejrff 09-23-19 11:24 AM

I recently experienced a very unexpected and serious pulmonary embolism. The pulmonologists were convinced that cycling had saved my life by strengthening my heart and lungs. Age 61

Rollfast 09-23-19 11:27 AM

Simply put, if you are alive, you aren't dead.

JoeKahno 09-23-19 12:27 PM


Originally Posted by bobwysiwyg (Post 21129757)
I don't consider anyone "beneath" me.

Been there. In retrospect, the most wonderful day of my life was the one where I finally realized that doing *anything* was going to improve my situation. When you get beaten far enough down, there is no such thing as failure.

making 09-23-19 12:37 PM

I am going to retire in 67 days. Think I will get started riding again.

mr_bill 09-23-19 01:08 PM

Related, for a helmet-free but high-stress activity, grandmaster chess tournaments.

And for the helmeted gear heads, Solo.

-mr. bill

CyclingBK 09-23-19 07:55 PM

So, this is weird. Iíve only been riding a couple of months but Iím pretty sure that since I started, this old faded scar I had on my shin had almost completely disappeared.

I could be imagining it or my memory is incorrect but to me itís very noticable.

So, who knows what cool stuff happens to our bodies when we treat them right.


Koyote 09-24-19 08:25 AM

The article kind of lost me with the opening sentence:

"Middle-aged athletes Ė men and women Ė are used to facing criticism or skepticism from our sedentary peers. Itís a midlife crisis, vanity, an attempt to recapture our youth, a way of denying that weíre getting older, and the list goes on."

I've never (to my recollection) been criticized by peers for having an active lifestyle; to the contrary, most seem admiring and envious.

Beyond that, the article basically says that people with better cardio fitness tend to live longer, on average. Well, no kidding. That's just shocking.

Lemond1985 09-24-19 08:41 AM

Yes, but the $64,000 question is, "When middle-aged people exercise, does the exercise itself make them any healthier, or were they just healthier to begin with, and we are merely looking at selection bias?"

Koyote 09-24-19 08:56 AM


Originally Posted by Lemond1985 (Post 21136073)
Yes, but the $64,000 question is, "When middle-aged people exercise, does the exercise itself make them any healthier, or were they just healthier to begin with, and we are merely looking at selection bias?"

Bingo.

I didn't read the whole study -- just the abstract and first couple paragraphs of the methodology section. From what I saw, I think they didn't control for your question -- which would be rather difficult, but not impossible, in such a study.

Carbonfiberboy 09-24-19 11:36 AM


Originally Posted by Lemond1985 (Post 21136073)
Yes, but the $64,000 question is, "When middle-aged people exercise, does the exercise itself make them any healthier, or were they just healthier to begin with, and we are merely looking at selection bias?"

Really? Well, there's my 87 y.o. aunt whom we begged for 30 years to join a gym. She finally did, at 81 IIRC. Her goal was to get strong enough to be able to walk enough to shop in the local mall (she could hardly walk). She joined a gym, hired a personal trainer twice a week, lost 30 lbs, deadlifted 90 lbs, heaves tires, has walked a mile several times, etc. She's still at it with the same trainer. My PCP says that if he could prescribe one thing for all his patients, it would be exercise.

At 74, all I have to do is look around me. Yes, it works. No, one doesn't need to be talented. In my teens I was healthy, but it was all I could do to run an 8 minute mile. It's all just persistence.

Lemond1985 09-24-19 04:11 PM

I'm mainly playing devil's advocate, because I had someone make that argument to me recently, a sedentary 65 y/o woman with bad knees. And while I don't totally buy into it, there may be some truth to it. Maybe if I were to refine her argument a bit, I would phrase it, "Doesn't a person need to be in reasonably good health to begin with, in order to be able to get optimal benefits from an exercise program, and aren't the benefits obtained directly proportional to how healthy the subject was before beginning the program?"

That would be difficult to disagree with. And even though it's still no excuse for not exercising, I think it's at least logically-sound.

My own view is that you take the first step, whatever condition you are in, ride a bike 20 feet if that's all you can do. And you keep building on that base, all the while improving the state of your health. Improved health allows greater and greater exertions, which boost health, allowing greater efforts, and so on. It's a synergistic process, so to say "only people who were already healthy exercise" really misses the point somewhat.

Lab4Us 09-24-19 04:24 PM


Originally Posted by Lemond1985 (Post 21136758)
I'm mainly playing devil's advocate, because I had someone make that argument to me recently, a sedentary 65 y/o woman with bad knees. And while I don't totally buy into it, there may be some truth to it. Maybe if I were to refine her argument a bit, I would phrase it, "Doesn't a person need to be in reasonably good health to begin with, in order to be able to get optimal benefits from an exercise program, and aren't the benefits obtained directly proportional to how healthy the subject was before beginning the program?"

That would be difficult to disagree with. And even though it's still no excuse for not exercising, I think it's at least logically-sound.

My own view is that you take the first step, whatever condition you are in, ride a bike 20 feet if that's all you can do. And you keep building on that base, all the while improving the state of your health. Improved health allows greater and greater exertions, which boost health, allowing greater efforts, and so on. It's a synergistic process, so to say "only people who were already healthy exercise" really misses the point somewhat.

My personal experience has been the opposite. I always make my quickest weight loss or fastest gains in fitness when I first start a program. As I get closer to goal weight, the weight cones off much slower. As I get fitter, the additional fitness gains are slower and take additional steps to be successful.

I have three heart stents. My wife has an inoperable clot in her leg, a propensity for additional clots, and has a filter in place to prevent embolisms. She has also fell directly on both knees in the past, on hard linoleum floors (about 20 years ago).

Iím 61, sheís 60, and we ride a few miles or walk every day. Sometimes both. Unless someone is physically disabled, they are not prevented from exercise. And even then, there are other types of exercise, both anaerobic and aerobic. Check any VA hospital rehabbing Americaís military heroes.

big john 09-24-19 04:57 PM


Originally Posted by Lemond1985 (Post 21136758)
I'm mainly playing devil's advocate, because I had someone make that argument to me recently, a sedentary 65 y/o woman with bad knees. And while I don't totally buy into it, there may be some truth to it. Maybe if I were to refine her argument a bit, I would phrase it, "Doesn't a person need to be in reasonably good health to begin with, in order to be able to get optimal benefits from an exercise program, and aren't the benefits obtained directly proportional to how healthy the subject was before beginning the program?".

A friend has been a quadraplegic since 1977 and has been in a wheelchair for years, he could walk with a cane earlier but has almost no use of one leg and one arm. I think about 10 years ago he was up close to 300 pounds and smoking cigarettes when he was diagnosed with congestive heart failure. The therapists got him exercising with a hand crank device, like a stationary hand recumbent. He lost 50 pounds and is much healthier.

Carbonfiberboy 09-24-19 05:59 PM


Originally Posted by Lemond1985 (Post 21136758)
I'm mainly playing devil's advocate, because I had someone make that argument to me recently, a sedentary 65 y/o woman with bad knees. And while I don't totally buy into it, there may be some truth to it. Maybe if I were to refine her argument a bit, I would phrase it, "Doesn't a person need to be in reasonably good health to begin with, in order to be able to get optimal benefits from an exercise program, and aren't the benefits obtained directly proportional to how healthy the subject was before beginning the program?"

That would be difficult to disagree with. And even though it's still no excuse for not exercising, I think it's at least logically-sound.

My own view is that you take the first step, whatever condition you are in, ride a bike 20 feet if that's all you can do. And you keep building on that base, all the while improving the state of your health. Improved health allows greater and greater exertions, which boost health, allowing greater efforts, and so on. It's a synergistic process, so to say "only people who were already healthy exercise" really misses the point somewhat.

My aunt's case argues for a synthesis of viewpoints. She was in terrible health and getting worse fast. Her gains started slow, but gathered impetus as her health improved. It took her maybe 3 years to reach the point where additional gains started to come much harder. Increasing age has made it difficult for her to stay even, much less make more strength and agility gains. Nonetheless, she still has her trainer, she still works out, she's still way ahead of where she would have been had she not chosen health over comfort. Now she has both.

So no, one doesn't need to be in good health to start exercising and if anything, the benefits are greater for those in ill health. Those already in good health would find it impossible to make percentage gains as great as was done by my aunt.

I think that what's really hard for those who are, shall we say, "lifestyle unhealthy," is to make the profound changes which would bring better health. My aunt struggled with that a lot. She had the advantage of liking her trainer personally and allowed her to hold my aunt accountable. That made all the difference. We've been gym members since 1979. We always laugh about the new joins in January whom we will not see again come March. It's not easy, or as it's said, everyone would do it. It took us 30 years to sell it to our aunt.

To your point, there was a very, very heavy guy on BF a few years ago. We advised him on how to get a bike which would hold his weight. He got the bike, rode it around the block once. Then twice, then 3 times, etc. and started losing weight riding further and was OK.

Koyote 09-25-19 05:52 AM

Everyone is posting comments about friends, relatives, acquaintances, etc.

Remember that "fact" is not the plural form of the word "anecdote." Hence academics do large studies like the one cited by the OP -- complete with their limitations and caveats.

berner 09-25-19 06:20 AM

Do as much as you can as long as you can.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:51 AM.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.