Winter Cycling - When do shorts become unhealthy?

Is there a temperature below which I absolutely mustn't cycle in shorts, even if it's going to warm up later? I don't really like wearing trousers (though I'm cycling in them now, because it is below freezing at night and only upper-mid 30's during the day), e.g. if it's 40 degrees, can I cycle to college (1.5 miles) in shorts, if it will be 55 on the return trip, or do I need to be a bit more patient?

I wouldn't cycle in shorts anything below 50 degrees, and even that is probably on the low end of reasonableness.

Why take the risk with your knees?

If you're feeling kinda Homer Simpson though ("Don't you hate pants??"), invest in some leg warmers for those ~50 degree days and quality tights for when its colder.

Standard wisdom that I've always heard is that you should cover your knees at anything below 60 degrees. I'm not sure where that originated, but you see it in a lot of articles. The reasoning behind it is that all the ligaments and tendons in your knee are so close to the surface that they are easily impacted by the cold and become more susceptible to injury.

The bottom line for me is that I would prefer to be warm than cold, so I tend to overdress when the temps are "between" cold and hot.

Standard wisdom that I've always heard is that you should cover your knees at anything below 60 degrees. I'm not sure where that originated, but you see it in a lot of articles. The reasoning behind it is that all the ligaments and tendons in your knee are so close to the surface that they are easily impacted by the cold and become more susceptible to injury.

The bottom line for me is that I would prefer to be warm than cold, so I tend to overdress when the temps are "between" cold and hot.

I'm not sure how true this is. It's one of those things that's been around a long time but I haven't seen any studies or proof. Cycling is filled with old tales like that.

Personally I just do what's comfortable. The faster you go, the more calories you burn in your legs. Offsetting that is the increase in wind speed that cools. Whatever feels good is what Isay.

you should cover your knees when temp is 'in the 50 degrees'. so yes below 60, should cover
it up.

no matter who says what, do it.

this will ensure your legs and nerve endings will last as long as you do, whet
you get old. if you try to cheat (like I see a lot of idiots running shorts in the 40's
and even 30's) those people will get deep vein thrombosis and other nasty leg
problems when they get old.

cover them early and cover them often

I wouldn't cycle in shorts anything below 50 degrees, and even that is probably on the low end of reasonableness.

Why take the risk with your knees?

If you're feeling kinda Homer Simpson though ("Don't you hate pants??"), invest in some leg warmers for those ~50 degree days and quality tights for when its colder.

I'll go a little cooler than that- high 40s maybe. One of the honchos in my bike club is always on me about protecting my knees, but I don't think he bares is legs at anything less than 65. Wimp.

leg warmers. Problem solved.

I've heard that 65 degrees is the cut-off point for wearing shorts alone vs wearing tights or leg warmers with your shorts.

Dave, why not try leg warmers?

Using the 60 threshhold would mean I hardly ever get to wear shorts. The average July temperatures where I live are 56 for the low and 72 for the high, although the sun rises very early, so it will probably be warm enough by the time I get out. That rule would restrict shorts for every day wear to July/ August, with the range extended to June-September for an afternoon jaunt. The May high is 63, but there's be too much risk it wasn't above 60 all day. Personally, I would feel thoroughly miserable and hot cycling in a pair of trousers at 59 degrees.
Aren't the legs also where the heat powerhouse is? They're doing all the work. 60 is barely below room temperature, so combined with vigorous exercise will generate a lot of heat. Also surely sweat soaked trousers will remove heat more quickly than dry air thus increasing damage Please don't tell me the damage I did that morning I cycled in shorts at 35-40, because it would be 50-55 later.
Sorry to offend anyone on here, but 60 is nowhere near the region I was looking at when I posed the question. Can I have some more realistic answers please?

Can I have some more realistic answers please?

Wear shorts everyday--regardless of conditions or even if you're on your bike--and let the world bask in the awesomeness of your bare legs.

DD: Don't ask a question and, when people give you their honest answers, come back with "Can I have some more realistic answers please?" If you're trying to justify a position to yourself or others, fine. But this is a question without a definitive answer, so just take opinions for what they are.

dd: Don't ask a question and, when people give you their honest answers, come back with "can i have some more realistic answers please?" if you're trying to justify a position to yourself or others, fine. But this is a question without a definitive answer, so just take opinions for what they are.

+1

Using the 60 threshhold would mean I hardly ever get to wear shorts. ... Personally, I would feel thoroughly miserable and hot cycling in a pair of trousers at 59 degrees.
... Sorry to offend anyone on here, but 60 is nowhere near the region I was looking at when I posed the question. Can I have some more realistic answers please?

Actually 65 might be a more realistic answer.

Where I live, I rarely wear just shorts. I almost always wear leg warmers or tights. But that's the thing ... we're also not suggesting you wear "trousers" ... get yourself a pair of knee warmers, leg warmers or tights.

Like these, for example:
http://www.mec.ca/Products/product_detail.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524442241461&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302692411&bmUID=1230931278385

Or these:
http://www.mec.ca/Products/product_detail.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524442618312&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302692411&bmUID=1230931278383

Using the 60 threshhold would mean I hardly ever get to wear shorts. The average July temperatures where I live are 56 for the low and 72 for the high, although the sun rises very early, so it will probably be warm enough by the time I get out. That rule would restrict shorts for every day wear to July/ August, with the range extended to June-September for an afternoon jaunt. The May high is 63, but there's be too much risk it wasn't above 60 all day. Personally, I would feel thoroughly miserable and hot cycling in a pair of trousers at 59 degrees.
Aren't the legs also where the heat powerhouse is? They're doing all the work. 60 is barely below room temperature, so combined with vigorous exercise will generate a lot of heat. Also surely sweat soaked trousers will remove heat more quickly than dry air thus increasing damage Please don't tell me the damage I did that morning I cycled in shorts at 35-40, because it would be 50-55 later.
Sorry to offend anyone on here, but 60 is nowhere near the region I was looking at when I posed the question. Can I have some more realistic answers please?

I've heard the 65 degree cut off before and my first reaction was exactly like yours. The theory behind the number is that the workings of your knee are not well insulated from cold and that the air movement generated by both pedaling and forward motion doesn't allow your knee to warm up properly in cooler temps.

I've also heard that some cycling coaches require that knees be covered in anything below 70 !

Now is it something backed by science or just a myth started by cyclists who lived in a climate where 65 is genuinely considered cold?

I've seen conflicting information so I don't know.

To me 65 is pretty close to an ideal temp as far as strenuous outdoor activity is concerned so I'm a little skeptical. I can't imagine for example starting a marathon at 8:00 am wearing leg warmers when the temp is 60. That just seems ludicrous. Of course running is different than cycling but does the cooling effect of moving at 15 to 20 mph make that much difference at 60 ?

"You're not just telling us what we want to hear?"
"No, sir, no way."
"Cause we just want to hear the truth."
"Well, then I guess I am telling you what you want to hear."
"Boy, didn't we just tell you not to do that?"

"You're not just telling us what we want to hear?"
"No, sir, no way."
"Cause we just want to hear the truth."
"Well, then I guess I am telling you what you want to hear."
"Boy, didn't we just tell you not to do that?"

I don't know if it's quite that.

He's from an area where I'm guessing people routinely wear shorts for physical activity when temps are below 60. Take football or "soccer" for example. To say that wearing shorts below 60 is bad for one's knees runs counter to his experience, -not just his wishes.

Okay just to throw my 2 pennies, cents, whatever in on this. It does go against what I would:
a)like to hear. the 65 threshhold means I can almost never wear shorts as it gets below that first thing in the morning and hasn't passed 65 by the time I go out to college.
b)It seems to throw common sense right to the winds and beyond. I have been treated for dehydration, with headache and vomiting on a day where the MAXIMUM temperature was 65. I'd set off into 45 in shorts and t shirt that morning. I had the same again (but slightly less severe) after a long ride where the MAXIMUM was 61, let alone the 45 odd when I set off. If I'm having to be treated for dehydration after wearing shorts and t shirt on a day the HIGH barely scraped 60, and drank 2 litres of fluids during the day, what good is wearing trousers going to do. I thought trying not to sweat was important too. Is it some kind of sado-machistic machoism to see how long you can physically bear to be in long trousers, or do you all live in places where the overnight winter low is in the 50's during a cold snap. Sorry to disappoint you all, but the answers are way off what I would have expected. What I really want to know is when they become dangerously unhealthy, eg. putting myself at risk of getting sick, becoming hypothermic, etc.
Sorry to be so blunt but I have a mild ASD, so shorts, versus trousers is a sensory issue and the thought of having to wear long trousers all year is horrifying. I would look stupid coming into college with knee warmers, just because it was warm instead of hot and sunny in the morning, so jeans instead of shorts would be the only way.

Okay just to throw my 2 pennies, cents, whatever in on this. It does go against what I would:
a)like to hear. the 65 threshhold means I can almost never wear shorts as it gets below that first thing in the morning and hasn't passed 65 by the time I go out to college.


Yeah, so? Join the club.




b)It seems to throw common sense right to the winds and beyond. I have been treated for dehydration, with headache and vomiting on a day where the MAXIMUM temperature was 65.

Yeah, so? That just means you didn't drink enough WATER ... perhaps too much alcohol the night before?

Wearing leg warmers or tights has nothing to do with dehydration ... it has to do with protecting the ligaments in your knees.



I would look stupid coming into college with knee warmers, just because it was warm instead of hot and sunny in the morning, so jeans instead of shorts would be the only way.

Well, if looks are what matter to you rather than your health .....


And you can remove knee warmers and put them in your pocket.

Shpantz

http://www.swobo.com/catalog/product_info_m.php?cPath=1162&products_id=790

Standard wisdom that I've always heard is that you should cover your knees at anything below 60 degrees. I'm not sure where that originated, but you see it in a lot of articles. The reasoning behind it is that all the ligaments and tendons in your knee are so close to the surface that they are easily impacted by the cold and become more susceptible to injury.

The bottom line for me is that I would prefer to be warm than cold, so I tend to overdress when the temps are "between" cold and hot.

This comes from the sports medicine people so I am inclined to think that it is a good idea. But for short durations it is probably not so critical.

Your body secretes a fluid in the joint for lubrication called bursa. When it is cold this process does not work as well so during extensive exercise in the cold the joint will actually wear out faster because it gets less lubrication. There are not a lot of muscles surrounding the knee joint to keep it warm. Most of the muscle mass is above or below the knee so it may be more vulnerable to the cold.

Just asked my brother who's a doctor and he says runners can safely wear shorts down to 40 and cyclists to 45. Suspected it must be in that area. When hiking, the temperature feels 20F warmer than standing, and cycling is more vigorous still, so probably more like a 25-30 degree difference running across, so 45 would feel like 70-75.
Sorry to disappoint you guys but I've talked with a qualified doctor, and the little "60-65" joke's over. I'd thought this was meant to be a sensible forum.

lol


I find that my knees are more comfortable covered up around 60F. Whether it is proper or not I do not care. Whatever a random doctor says matters not to me. What matters is how my legs feel.

My rough guide. It changes with the wind and how energetic I feel.

60F: knee warmers
50F: Leg warmers
40F: Lite tights
32F: Lite tights with leg warmers
25F: Heavyweight tights
10F: Heavyweight tights with long johns. I rarely ride at this temp.

Common sense has been evident in the posts that responded to Dangerous Dave. In initiating the question, he was seeking a precise measure, "... a temperature below which I absolutely ...". There is no precise measure which is why there is a variability in responses including that of Dangerous Dave's brother/doctor. Along with air temperature, consideration must also be given to wind, hence wind chill. The posters who suggested knee and leg warmers are obviously accustomed to the concept of layering of clothes. When temperatures vary greatly during a day, the prepared cyclist/commuter will have a layer of clothes to respond to the situation. Pictures of cyclists together during cool/cold temperatures invariably reveal a variety of clothes for reasons that individuals react subjectively and differently to the weather.

There seems to be a bit of a cultural element in this. Runners and cyclists have significantly different cut-off points. I'd say there are some cyclists here who cover their knees at 60 F, most do by 55 F and pretty much all by 50 F. But for runners, the same things probably happen at 50, 45 and 40.

For what it's worth, if I get to select a "perfect" temperature for strenuous outdoor activities, I'd go for something between 55-60. 65 is hot. :D

Just asked my brother who's a doctor and he says runners can safely wear shorts down to 40 and cyclists to 45. Suspected it must be in that area. When hiking, the temperature feels 20F warmer than standing, and cycling is more vigorous still, so probably more like a 25-30 degree difference running across, so 45 would feel like 70-75.
Sorry to disappoint you guys but I've talked with a qualified doctor, and the little "60-65" joke's over. I'd thought this was meant to be a sensible forum.

Your brother was talking about runners who typically travel a long slower than cyclists. Factor wind chill into the equation and you might discover that 60F is closer to the right zone, not the 45 he indicated. Of course, I would subscribe to the "whatever works for you" theory... but in my case it's about 60F.

55 degrees for me. Sometimes I roll out in just shorts when it's only 50 or so in the morning.

My knees have made it to the ripe old age of 40 and endured tons of skateboarding and bikeriding with nary a problem.

I'm guessing there is some variance from person to person as to what would be the danger zone.

I can't imagine sub 45 being good for anyone on the planet.

Your brother was talking about runners who typically travel a long slower than cyclists. Factor wind chill into the equation and you might discover that 60F is closer to the right zone, not the 45 he indicated. Of course, I would subscribe to the "whatever works for you" theory... but in my case it's about 60F.

+1

And ... when you're running, the knees aren't sticking out into the wind like they are when you're cycling.



Dave is very young ... he doesn't know knee problems yet, and doesn't understand the importance of protecting the knees. Just wait till he gets into his 40s and 50s.

When you ride in cold temperatures maintaining a steady core temperature is crucial... whereas your legs are generally well insulated your knees are not and like your head, feet, and hands... is a place that one can lose body heat very quickly.

If you cannot keep your knees warm it is also very bad for the joint, muscles, and tendons.

I was riding in shorts until early December when the temperatures were in the 5C / 40F range but have some nice knee warmers and carry shell pants and additional leggings should the weather become too cold or if my activity level drops.

At 18C / 65F I don't feel any need to wear knee warmers.

One of the honchos in my bike club is always on me about protecting my knees, but I don't think he bares is legs at anything less than 65. Wimp.

I verified that this morning. Here he is putting on his leg warmers.... temps in the mid 60s.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e341/Doohickie/09BreakfastRide/100_3331.jpg

Just asked my brother who's a doctor and he says runners can safely wear shorts down to 40 and cyclists to 45. Suspected it must be in that area. When hiking, the temperature feels 20F warmer than standing, and cycling is more vigorous still, so probably more like a 25-30 degree difference running across, so 45 would feel like 70-75.
Sorry to disappoint you guys but I've talked with a qualified doctor, and the little "60-65" joke's over. I'd thought this was meant to be a sensible forum.

Dave,

Depending on the type of doctor your brother is he may not have an advanced knowledge in bio-mechanics and related issues. Most doctors are taught to diagnose pathology and are not experts in sports medicine type of issues unless they are a specialist which overlaps this field.

Also, as was probably stated in prior posts there is some variability here. For instance cyclist do exert much more stress on the knee and use it over a longer angular magnitude than do runners (unless they are sprinting, which is short duration). I have seen some recreational cyclist who are fine riding for an hour or so in shorts at 45 degrees. Others will experience pain in this condition and must have some kind of insulation on the knee at around 60 F. When you factor in time and wind chill on a bike the knees can become quite cold after an hour when it is below 60 degrees. This is what is generally recommended for professional cyclists who are often on a bike for 4-5 hours.

Now in your case where you are only on the bike for a few minutes it is probably not a big deal to wear shorts at 45 F as long as it doesn't cause you any problems or discomfort. However, if you are riding fast to school and doing some short sprints it can be hard on the knees if they are not warmed up first. But you are young which means that your body is more capable of dealing with this stress. I would not worry too much for the short time you are on the bike. Just use some common sense and you will be OK.

My mother dated a bike messenger who apparently wore shorts all year round in Denver.
I'm assuming he wore knickers in the winter though.

. Can I have some more realistic answers please?

cant beleive i just read that... some guy posts a 'when should i wear shorts' question on the winter bike forum IN the middle of winter AND wants realistic answers! if you can just think of wearing shorts now: you are on the wrong forum.
ok, ok. my realistic answer is: in 4 months from now.
but wait, i wore shorts today! (over polar pants and insulated tights)

well if you want a realistic answer. if its above 35'F i consider shorts. its also cold as **** here. depending on where you call home the answer is always different. florida=60'f northern uinted states/canada= above freezing

It seems there's such a variety of answers from the minute it gets above freezing up to 70. There will always be differing opinions. If I go with when it causes knee pain to ride in shorts, that would set my lower limit at 40-45. i have ridden in them when it's been quite cold before for several hours and not had any knee pain at all. A lot of cyclists I've spoken to in England seem to think 45. Yesterday's high was only 36 and last night, it got down to 17 (abnormally cold for where I live, and the coldest all year). It's still in the 20's, so I won't be wearing shorts for a while.
That said, I do have long cargo shorts which partially cover the knee. Sometimes, I have tried feeling under the knee. There's perspiration, so even the joint must be getting warm.

depending on where you call home the answer is always different. florida=60'f northern uinted states/canada= above freezing

I'm from Canada (the cold side of the prairies), and my answer is above 65F. Yes, I wear tights, leg warmers, or knee warmers most of the year.

45F. That's my final cutoff.

i have ridden in them when it's been quite cold before for several hours and not had any knee pain at all.

I'm sure people with lung cancer didn't feel the pain when they started smoking either. Just because you don't feel pain does not mean you are not doing damage.

Anyways, it doesn't appear you came here for an answer, you already had your mind made up, and just wanted confirmation, which pretty much everyone who responded disagreed with your assessment. But go ahead and wear shorts till you feel pain, then stop. Its a simple concept and I'm sure will serve you well.

Here's a nice chart on wind chill:
http://www.weather.gov/os/windchill/index.shtml

At 40F, a 20mph wind feels like 30F. factoring that into your brother/doctors comment, I'd say 45-50F is a reasonable cutoff for shorts on a bike. From my experience, low 50's in a bib (which is minimal warmth) was chilly when stopped and I would have preferred something a little warmer (especially in the crotch). If your shorts are a warmer material, that could make a big difference. Maybe a knicker that goes past the knee is a good idea.

I did some googling and looked in my exercise physiology book and found ZERO support that knees need to be covered in cool temperatures. I even found one study that suggested that keeping hard working knees COOL may be beneficial. (reduces negative enzymatic activity)

Found one 'bike expert' site that said he had heard the idea but it was baseless.

This whole idea really took me by surprise as I've been reading about many other sports for 30+yrs and never seen this concept. I believe this is bike-specific folklore that came from one unsubstantiated authoritative statement from a high-influence coach. I could be proven wrong by one good pubmed reference, though.

Analogy to cigarrette smoking or whatever are nonsense unless the cold knee hypothesis is supported by the same immense body of evidence as the tobacco-cancer connection is.

My answer to the OP is stop wearing shorts when your bare skin HURTS from the windchill.

Thanks bcbcbc for your sense talk. I have had enough joke posts on here to make me rather annoyed :crash:
I will work on preventing "negative enzymatic activity"

Thanks bcbcbc for your sense talk. I have had enough joke posts on here to make me rather annoyed :crash:
I will work on preventing "negative enzymatic activity"

Well, I certainly DO NOT share your attitude toward the other posters. I didn't see a post that I thought was not well intentioned and based on honest belief, logical thinking or admitted personal opinion. I'm happy to be exposed to this new idea and will keep an open mind toward any objective scientific evidence I may have missed in a brief search.

There is no "one size fits all" answer to this question. It definetly depends a lot on your ability to tolerate cold and being able to tolerate cold is both genetic and adaptive. I've spent a lot of time cycling through very cold winters and have worked in the field in northern Alberta, Nunavut and NWT in the winter and during that time, I've seen a huge variance in what people can tolerate (for example, I worked with one Inuit dude who didn't need a toque (hat) when it was -20c, said it made him way too hot).

I don't even need to think about goggles/balaclavas above -15c, but I know people who can't function without them below 5c. When it comes to shorts, depending on what I've been doing all winter, sometimes I feel I need knee warmers when its 10c and sometimes I can survive without them at lower temps than 10c. Its all about what you feel you're comfortable with.

I did some googling and looked in my exercise physiology book and found ZERO support that knees need to be covered in cool temperatures. I even found one study that suggested that keeping hard working knees COOL may be beneficial. (reduces negative enzymatic activity)

Found one 'bike expert' site that said he had heard the idea but it was baseless.

This whole idea really took me by surprise as I've been reading about many other sports for 30+yrs and never seen this concept. I believe this is bike-specific folklore that came from one unsubstantiated authoritative statement from a high-influence coach. I could be proven wrong by one good pubmed reference, though.

Analogy to cigarrette smoking or whatever are nonsense unless the cold knee hypothesis is supported by the same immense body of evidence as the tobacco-cancer connection is.

My answer to the OP is stop wearing shorts when your bare skin HURTS from the windchill.


I know info found on the Internet can't be taken as gospel, but I haven't been able to find much scientific info one way or the other. There are plenty of references to cycling coaches and such recommending cyclists cover their knees below 65 or 70. One reference said there was a German coach who did this back in the 1960's which leads me to believe this recommendation doesn't come from the field of sports medicine.

There are a few reasons I'm skeptical. Has anyone actually studied the temperature difference underneath the skin while cycling without leg warmers at 50 degrees and cycling with leg warmers? My guess is that it ain't much. If a little lycra can make the surface of your skin feel warmer at 50, your skin is probably enough to keep the working bits of your knee warm, especially since there's warm blood circulating through there.

Further, has anyone studied how the mechanisms of the knee react to temperature changes between riding with leg warmers and without at 50?

Thanks bcbcbc for your sense talk. I have had enough joke posts on here to make me rather annoyed :crash:
I will work on preventing "negative enzymatic activity"


I have read most of the posts in this thread and haven't noticed any "joke posts". If that's the way you feel, perhaps you had better not post here.

Is there a temperature below which I absolutely mustn't cycle in shorts, even if it's going to warm up later? I don't really like wearing trousers (though I'm cycling in them now, because it is below freezing at night and only upper-mid 30's during the day), e.g. if it's 40 degrees, can I cycle to college (1.5 miles) in shorts, if it will be 55 on the return trip, or do I need to be a bit more patient?

Get a pair of fleece pants http://www.hudsontrail.com/viewSearchItem/10420/fleece%20pant/Any/Any/200/0/

They are like gym pants. I will wear a pair of athletic shorts under them. I will also wear a pair of wool socks, a t-shirt, sweater, reflective jacket and, ski gloves.

Just asked my brother who's a doctor and he says runners can safely wear shorts down to 40 and cyclists to 45. Suspected it must be in that area. When hiking, the temperature feels 20F warmer than standing, and cycling is more vigorous still, so probably more like a 25-30 degree difference running across, so 45 would feel like 70-75.
Sorry to disappoint you guys but I've talked with a qualified doctor, and the little "60-65" joke's over. I'd thought this was meant to be a sensible forum.

Speaking of sensible, whatever happened to plain common sense? If you are comfortable, wear shorts. If you are uncomfortable wear something warmer.