I'm surprised that you rephrased a comment that I began with the word "Anecdotally..." and then stated "Hardly scientific". Does that qualify as redundant on your part?
I am making comments and observations based on my experience. I have no desire, or need, to "defend" cycling or "criticize" running. I don't understand the uproar.
Originally Posted by
FrenchFit
LOL, all the knee replacement buddies I can think of are or were cyclists. hardly scientific, but I know of no runners that have more than the periodic aches and pains. But truth be told, marketing and media got a lot of runners injured young by promoting bad practices and techniques. I think those of us that run, some running competitively in our 60s, somehow survived decades of indoctrination into stupid, stupid, stupid. (And, it's still out there.)
What, pray tell, is a "pure cyclist"? Do you really think that the number of triathletes "dwarfs" the number of cyclists who neither run nor swim on a regular basis? REALLY? I thought triathletes were a rather small segment of athletes compared to those who 1. primarily run 2. primarily cycle 3. primarily swim 4. primarily play tennis, golf, soccer <insert your sport here>
Originally Posted by
wphamilton
Are there more older cyclists than older runners, I don't know. But whenever numbers of cyclists comes up I tend to step back and consider triathletes - who are ALSO cyclists and whose numbers dwarf those of pure cyclists. So I'm a little skeptical that there are fewer older runners.