Originally Posted by
DeadGrandpa
I will be hitting 63 in a couple months. The first of July I got a new bike (replacing the Safari which died an honorable death on the back of my Camry, which got rear-ended), and I've been training fairly strenuously, progressively longer rides but not fast: touring speed. Gradually I worked up to 52 mile rides (with 1900+ feet elevation gain, some really nice hills) which at first were followed by a nap and then a rest day. Since Aug 1, I've been riding 52 mile rides two days in a row, with a rest day next, followed by 2 more days of 52 miles, until this weekend when I've ridden 3 - 52 mile loops each day, Fri Sat Sun (total 360+ miles in 7 days of pedaling over 9 calendar days). I'm kinda tired this afternoon but not really dead yet. Feels good. If it is bad for me, I don't care. Gonna rest tomorrow, then ride 2 days, rest, then ride maybe 3 or 4 days in a row, depending how I feel. The loop takes about 4 hrs pedaling, at about 13mph, and I stop now and then to drink, eat, etc. My plan is to gain endurance (more days in a row) and then take some side roads on my route to extend the distance. Last fall I rode the Natchez Trace (450 miles) in 9 days of pedaling over 12 calendar days, and I felt better at the end than I have in years.
That's the spirit.
IMO, people read too much into these studies and take the anecdotes way too serious. Most of us are not jacking our heart rates up into the high 150's for 6 to 8 hours like these endurance riders. Even those of us who ride 3 to 6 hours doing half and full centuries are not really pushing our bodies to those limits.
Would I run a full marathon at age 50-plus? Probably not. Would I ride in a 150-mile endurance race at this age? No. But, would I challenge myself to do back to back centuries and/or a few 150-mile rides in a row? Absolutely.