KraneXL

Adult athletes burn out all the time, and suffer the (sometime debilitation) consequences later on in life. Kids can spring back, but that doesn't mean they're immune to burnout.

This is where the parent or coach comes in and applies some guardian wisdom to make sure they don't over do it. Of course, we can only speculate here since we don't have any of the details. But generally speaking, I see this as a parenting issue more than anything else.

WizardOfBoz

Did he injure himself running?

Do some research and speak to his parents. It seems to me that there is a path to optimal progress, and over training while you growth plates are still developing could do a lot of damage.

Something like "Wow, Buford is really motivated! It seems like he wants to be a competitive racer. You may want to check with a trainer and his physician (or a sports oriented physician) to make sure that his training is optimal and he doesn't overtrain and do permanent damage while his bone structure is still maturing."

livedarklions

SO basically, he should "spontaneously" conform to some sort of normal behavior?

"Normal kid" is an artificial construct not found in the real world.

Does this sort of hilarious nonsense come naturally to you?

wolfchild

Sure lets just bubble wrap them and keep them safe in the basement in front a TV and let them play with Barbie dolls....13 is not exactly a kid anymore, it's a perfect time to start building a foundation of fitness and athleticism. Our modern kids and teenagers in todays world are overprotected and desensitized from reality of physical hardships...Physical hardship and hard intense exercise is a good thing, it develops self-discipline, develops determination, builds strong mind and strong body.

ridelikeaturtle

It's an area that is completely understudied and needs a lot of research; fortunately it's starting to get some attention, as kids - children - are having a lot of chronic injuries seen in adult athletes. Knees, shoulders, backs, etc. - across a range of sports, such as American football, rugby, baseball, and soccer.

I would doubt that coaches at high-school level have the competence to understand what is appropriate for developing athletes. I would suspect their motives are more related to short-term athletic success, than to the long-term health of participants.

caloso

My 14-year old son races bikes and plays competitive U-16 soccer (he's playing up a year in age). A couple of things: some 13-year olds are still little kids and others are pretty grown. So it's difficult to say whether 100 miles is too much for this particular 13-year old. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. Depends on the kid.

I've taken my kid on the local B ride many times: usually more than 50 miles, most of it at race pace. I've no doubt that he could do a century with a group at a reasonable pace. It couldn't be as tiring as 120 minutes at wingback, which he did Saturday in a tournament.

DGoodrow

From a parental point of view, I would be more concerned about a thirteen year old being potentially fifty miles away from the house.

KraneXL

As an adult you have the choice to be an anarchist. A kid of 13 still needs adult guidance. Perhaps you might want to consider what that's like? Those are your words, not mine. In any event, I've never said there's anything wrong with physical exercise at that age, as long as its within reason.

Rock71

I say good for him. When I was a kid we rode our bikes everywhere, Mom and Dad didn't run us into town, we rode our bikes. If we were coming home after dark they came in and picked us and our bikes up. I never remember a hill being to hard or to long at 13.

Flip Flop Rider

I'm thinking the same way

livedarklions

I've raised 2 kids, never said they don't need guidance. You, on the other hand, are going way beyond that and prescribing what is right for all kids, and doing so based on a rationale that's self-contradictory--i.e., you're going to stop them from what they want to do so they can be spontaneous like a "normal kid". If you''re having trouble figuring out the contradiction, maybe you should look up the word "spontaneous".

I think the notion that you can prescribe the right level of activity for all kids as if they were the same is precisely the same kind of absurd one-size-fits-all nonsense you're always posting, and your reference to a "normal kid" tells me you probably have little to no experience parenting or you'd know there ain't no such animal.

The OP wasn't asking about his/her own kid, BTW. As there isn't any child endangerment or abuse going on here, it's literally none of yours or my business what the kid's parents allow him to do. Only someone with a "wannabee guru complex" such as yourself would weigh in like that with such a blanket pronouncement.

livedarklions

I'm thinking that if the kid is having a good time, and the parents see no reason for concern, I totally agree with you.

No one would think about this twice if this kid was playing basketball with his friends all day. Second-guessing parents is too popular in this era.

wphamilton

My initial reaction was that 100 miles isn't all that extreme for a kid, unless it's every day or something like that, and it's up to the kid's parents and/or coach to decide what's appropriate. However, I think it raises a good question. Could that much time on a bike, day in and day out, be otherwise harmful to a kid at that stage of physical development? Specifically since it's non-load bearing exercise with restricted motion, and he's not physically fully developed yet. I don't know, but if it were my kid I'd be strongly inclined to insist on frequent alternative exercise.

caloso

I think that's absolutely right. Kids need a variety of activities. My son is soccer crazy and would play year round if we let him, so cycling is actually his other activity. We're also encouraging him to look at track or rugby in the spring.

Rock71

Fewer and fewer multi sport athletes today. Kids that really want to excel figure out where their strengths are and then go for it. I have a cousin that has a 12 year old son that played 90 little league games last summer. Gymnasts start as early as 3 or 4, wrestlers and young golfers the same.

livedarklions

Well, presumably, the kid also walks when he's not on the bike, so I doubt he's suffering any ill effects from time engaging in non-load bearing exercises.

As people have stated, I doubt there's any real data on this, and the "dangers" seem too speculative to be taken seriously.

This kid could bike for a 100 miles and not incur one tenth the danger he'd experience in one down of a football game.

wphamilton

Long term cyclists do suffer from low bone density, even though they also presumably walk when off the bike.

There is data, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230645/ enough that it's a realistic concern. The meta-study also raised the concern about development among junior cyclists. I'll just quote that section:

burnthesheep

Reading the book by Graeme Obree, he did a lot of long distance touring at a young age. Pretty sure around that age.

I would stay longer distance stuff wouldn't be the concern, but the gasping intervals. Or, a kid's maturity around cars.

Kids play soccer. By 13 we were doing wind sprints and running a 5k at practice by that age. Not including on-the-field drills.

I don't think riding for 50mi "touring" is any harder than a really tough 1 hour soccer practice.

Shoot, by 14 summer soccer camp was 2-a-day practices and conditioning.

Rock71

I agree. I would be more worried with contact sports

livedarklions

So looking at that, what I'm seeing is they have data that show that adolescent female cyclists aren't getting better bone density than sedentary youth, not that large amounts of cycling is harmful, and that even small amounts of higher impact activity are associated with higher bone density. So, the worst you can say about biking 100 miles based on that is it doesn't benefit bone mass. Let the kid bike as much as he wants, then have him take a brisk walk or do jumping jacks.

Given that the odds of a woman developing osteoporosis is about 4 times that of a man, I'd also question whether this study has any relevance for the risks to a boy.

wphamilton

That was my inclination also. I'd be strongly inclined to insist that the kid does additional, alternative exercise.

The study wasn't about women. That section was almost parenthetical.

livedarklions

Specifically, it mentioned a study of adolescent female cyclists. I should have transitioned from the meta to the specific, but it really was the only cycling study they discussed.

Agree with the alternate exercises, but you know they hit 14 1/2 and completely ignore your coaching, right?

aclinjury

Osteoporosis in adolescent girls...IS... or SHOULD BE... cause for health concern.

aclinjury

These articles discuss the general effects of extreme endurance exercise and its effect on the heart
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5331299/
https://www.drjohnm.org/2011/03/cw-that-exercise-has-an-upper-limit-makes-perfect-sense/

While is no one study that specifically uses 13-yr old boys, there is evidence that extreme endurance activities may in fact be bad for the heart and body. And there are some anecdotes of marathon runners collapsing due to a cardiac arrest during the competition. How much is too much? Well this seems to be the $1 million dollar question that science has yet to pin down. But to completely ignore the evidence like most in here is just completely stupid.

livedarklions

Which would have been a good point if the OP hadn't been about a boy.

Still think you get the same conclusion for a girl, though, which is the biking isn't going to hurt them, but they would need to do some jumping jacks or the like if they want to promote bone mass.