djnzlab1

HI,
This study was done to measure the age-related decrements in cycling and running performance.
Its in PDf so I am having a heck of time uploading it.

(( recently it has been suggested that high-intensity and endurance running may damage the neuromuscular system, Mechanical disruption of muscle fibres caused by eccentric muscle activity has been proposed as a cause of exercised-associated muscle damage.
The importance finding of this study was that age-related decrements in performance began at an earlier age in runners compared to cyclists. Cyclist in general maintained performance levels until age 55 years.))
I will try and post a link if I can find it again.

https://ajol.info/index.php/sasma/article/view/31858


review the study in PDF format its very interesting, I am not surprised as a previous runner most of my adult life til about age 55, I ad to stop due to nerve problems in my legs. Running may actually cause muscle damage to increase in aging. Where cyclist may not see changes in ability much later in life.

John E

I think the culprit is running on concrete. Packed dirt or sand is a much more forgiving surface.

chadwebster

this is true, im in cross country and track and field in hs right now and we run on the grass/dirt whenever possible. the SHOCK from concrete is really hard on your body, not really the actual motion of running(though there is more stress on your body compared to cycling regardless of surface)

djnzlab1

HI,
Better read the PDF articile, they actually measured changes in muscles post training exercise using needle biopsy and found there was muscles being damaged by the day to day wear and tear of running weight bearing, not just on concrete It was the mechanical aspect of over use weight bearing.
where bicycle riding is non wieght bearing so theres much less changes in muscle tissue as we age and prevents changes to the muscles due to damage.
Rate of change or ability to perform occurs in a earlier age in ruuners, around 32 years old where the rate of decline in cycling dosen't start till around 55 years old.


Doug

akohekohe

No. The study didn't do any biopsies or any such thing, all they did was use You can see a plot of their entire data set in Figure 1. Obviously the fastest times for each age (the age categories they refer to are one year - ie. 18 is a category, 19, etc.) from a mass start race with over 10,000 participants comparing a 90 km foot race against a 103 km bicycle race is pretty limited in what you can say from it about the relative effects of aging for runners vs. cyclists and, in fact, the authors admit as much:

Duh

All the biopsies etc. were in the literature review of other studies but note that muscle damage is GOOD, not BAD. It is by breaking down muscle that you cause your body to rebuild it stronger than before. No pain no gain. So simply saying that there was a lot of muscle damage doesn't say anything unless we have the context over time and recovery.

Anyway, given the data set used in the article and its limitations there is really nothing at all you can say about the relative effects of aging on cycling versus running. Maybe you can say something about it based on the articles cited in the literature review but I would have to plow through them to figure out if the conclusions the authors are coming to from the literature review are warranted. I might add that since most of this literature seems aimed at "elite" athletes it tells us very little about aging for most of us 50+ ers (with a few notable exceptions).

Daspydyr 

That's an interesting read and I appreciate your posting it. I just started riding after having both hips replaced. I was a runner from age teens through 40ish. Concrete and pavement tore me down a lot. I should have put more time into cycling. I picked the bike back up last year (age 55) and am in a whole lot better overall shape tha I imagined I would be. I am a solid advocate of wheels.

worthlees

Don't forget that a lot of homes have concrete floors , do 99% of the work places . Even with carpet & other floor covetings
to cushion our steps they are not as flexable as the wood flooring of old.

Booger1

Humans are not built for running,look at any animal that runs for a living,their hind legs look nothing like ours.

The Weak Link

I shouldn't drag theology into this, but if you read the first chapter of Ezekiel, you'll note that the angelic divine creatures all had wheels and wings. Not one of them was wearing jogging shoes.

I think that settles that.

lhbernhardt

So the human body, after millions of years of evolution, is optimized not for running on soft dirt, but for riding a device that has been in existence for about 120 years? How convenient, how profound of Mother Nature to have foreseen such a serendipitous intersection of evolution and technology! I am truly impressed with the ingenuity of humans that they could invent such a wonderful device.

L.

The Weak Link

Wrong. Bicycles are part of the evolutionary process, like eyeballs and receding hairlines.

If Papa Darwin had meant us to run, we'd be born with stinky jogging shoes.