Hermes

I have been working out at the gym, running, cycling and in line skating since 1977. Below is an article from the NYT about the effects of running on the aging process. One would think that the equivalent cycling would have the same or similar effect. One must keep in mind that running 50 miles per week is a tough standard to maintain.

How long are your Telomeres?

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...=me&ref=health

Allegheny Jet

I think this sumed it up nicely.

"The young never appreciate robust telomere length until they’ve lost it".

az_cyclist

What is a good conversion of running to cycling? 1:4? From the Ironman distances, could we assume a century (or 112 miles) is equivalent to a marathon?

ModeratedUser150120149

Not to be too picky; but from what the article says it would be more appropriate to say: "How to slow down cell aging." In the article the cells weren't kept young; their aging was slowed.

That aside, it is no secret that active life results in healthier life and in many cases longer life. Over the years many statistical surveys have pointed that out. What these studies do is show the molecular result of that life. But, my bias is that longer, healthier life starts with a person't attitude. People who live longer, healthier lives are more willing to be different from the rest of society. They are more willing to eat and live differently than those around them. By so doing they set themselves apart, and in some cases Really Apart, from society as a whole. This often has a significant price.

stapfam

Back in my early 20's- I was a competitive Cross Country runner.

I can tell you that 100 miles training each week played hell on your social life. And as I later found out- plays havoc with the knees.

Hasn't helped though. I now feel older than I look--A lot older after a hard day at work.

I have always reckoned that the cycling to running ratio is about 3 to 1. A good marathon time for non- professionals is around 3 hours. A very good time for a Metric is around 3 hours aswell on a cycle.(Depending on route- fitness of the rider and how many Pie stops)

Hermes

IMO, 3/1 is a good conversion of cycling to running. That assumes a mix of z2 and z3 constant level of effort for cycling.

az_cyclist

I need to bone up on the z2 and z3 levels..... most of the time I am just keeping track of miles, ave speed, and time

Hermes

100 miles per week of running is definitely pro / champion level - 14.28 miles per day. The top US marathoners were running 100 to 110 miles per week and now the Kenyans are running 140 to 160 miles per week which is almost a marathon per day.

Hermes

I do not think you need to worry about it unless you want to. My point was that running at any pace is hard so one needs some reasonable effort when cycling to make a meaningful conversion to running.

DnvrFox

I've always heard 1:4.

Allegheny Jet

I don't think there is any correlation in the different events. If so the time spent in each of the disciplines’ would be similar. The bike ride may take around 5 hrs, 3 hrs for the marathon and 50 minutes for the swim. Making any comparison would require adjusting the intensity to the same time duration.

Yen

This is the similar to the book Younger Next Year. I certainly do feel decades younger than I did 10 years ago.

With respect to keeping metrics and working more in z2 and z3 levels --- do whatever it takes to keep going.

Last week, I literally sprinted about 1/2 mile (including stairs) to meet some people at work to carpool to a restaurant for lunch --- I was running late and feared I'd already missed them (by chance, I was wearing my running shoes that day!). When I arrived at the meeting place, I was amazed that I was able to talk normally and was not out of breath. 1/2 mile is not far, but 10 years ago I would have been wheezing, my heart would have been racing, and I would have had trouble talking.

seedsbelize 

+1
And I too feel decades younger than I did 10 years ago.

gtragitt

I gleaned that maximization of aerobic capacity and efficiency was a significant factor. I think cycling is a better way of maximizing aerobic capacity. I would believe duration of extensive exertion is a more meaningful measure than miles.

BikeWNC

I bet those top marathon runners will not be running those weekly totals when they are older. Some of those guys suffer chronic fatigue like symptoms later in life, like they wore their body out. Running takes a toll on the orthopedic structure. No way could I run even 20 miles a week with my back, hips or knees they way they are. Cycling is about the only aerobic yearround activity I can do. Everything in moderation, but try to stay consistent in one's participation is a good goal to strive for.

Yen

Oh yeh - I forgot to mention that after that 1/2-mile sprint, my knee ached for a few days. My heart and lungs are in much better shape than my knees.

daveF

What I found interesting was the research by Larocca cited in the article where they found a strong correlation between VO(2)max & telomere length.

az_cyclist

Point well taken, and I agree. My running workouts about just under 30 minutes (5k). When I have enough light to ride before work (late May thru 1st week of Sept), I try to ride 11-13 miles and average 20+. That is more intense than the run workout.

Hermes

I thought the 50 miles per week was pretty robust. When I was running and cycling in my late 20s and early 30s, 30 miles of running was a tough week. When my wife was running marathons, she was doing 60 miles on a peak week. I think body type and mechanics has a lot to do with the ability to tolerate running.

I like the new running feet which look like feet and provide minimal protection. The theory is that landing on the heel with a straight leg hurts the knees and back where running barefoot or in these feet/shoes causes one to land mid sole with a slight bend in the knee to better absorb shock. I want a pair to wear around the gym and look cool.

az_cyclist

LOL Seriously, is there enough protection to wear those on asphalt, or on a trail?

Hermes

The point is that the foot does not require additional absorption proven by thousands of years of evolution. And runners in Africa do not have sophisticated running shoes and use nothing or minimal covering.

Who knows if the data is complete and how those runners without shoes fair over the years or for that matter whether our 10,000 year old ancestors suffered with joint problems due to running or died before it was a problem.

The head trainer at the gym wears them, loves them and runs in them a lot outside.

I think the framers of the constitution would not have worn them so I am pretty sure the Weak Link will think they are communist inspired.

az_cyclist

ROFL... and not to mention we wear lycra clothes to exercise! (and race and ride for enjoyment)

cyclinfool

Oh Gezzzz! - another thing on my body I've got to worry about the length of

One thing this article did not address or even speculate on was the creation of totally new cells, ofcourse this process goes on all the time but I suspect there is a correlation between totally new cell creation and activity. As I recall, we all produce stem cells in our bone marrow, the rate of exercise must also effect how those cells are created and distributed. Speculating even further one could hypothesize that as your metobolic rate increases so does cell destruction and production which would introduce new cells into the system, not just cells which have reproduced from older cells. There is so much we don't know, this article points out another possible marker for health and relative age.

rydabent

This thread brings 2 things to mind. First I think almost all us agree cycling is far easier on the body and its parts than running. Second further a recumbent is even easier on the body than a DF bike. On a bent you can ride all day without pain. IMHO pain is not good and runs down the body.

Hermes

Size matters.

Great point on stem cells. There was a time in our history we thought the world was flat. We did not have the mechanization, tools or technology to see we lived on a sphere.