Performance Degradation with Age
 

The other day I was riding a slight downhill, making a serious effort (not conversational!), and going quickly for me (over 20 mph). Then some ****** cruises by with maybe 4 mph in hand! (No, he undoubtedly was not a "******," he even said a friendly hello when he passed. It's just I was working so hard...)

But on a serious note, I noticed that my running took a nosedive around 50-55. I started cycling at 64, so I don't have much history to draw on there. In the subsequent 4+ years I have had my cycling performance affected by losing my initial insanity (4,700 miles in my first 7 months, riding with temperatures under 20), and 3 bouts of medical problems (prostate cancer & removal at 65, breast cancer & removal at 66, and then breaking my hip [while leading 70 riders] and getting it replaced. So even now my cycling history isn't too much help.

In general, I have gotten slower. I did two centuries in my fourth month, both 15.3 mph average on a somewhat hilly course. Most of my rides now are under 40 miles and under 15 mph. But I am still recovering from the new right hip and dealing with a left knee that needs replacement very soon. And I wonder if I were averaging 200 miles a week again if I would be just as "good" as I was that first year. But that's drivel.

The question I want to ask is if there are any decent studies on age and performance drop off. I am interested in general "rules," not those exceptional outlier cases. Although even articulating the question makes me realize that there is probably too much variability, and even that the overwhelming majority of cyclists and runners that are still active in their 60's are a pre-selected group. But I may as well ask.

Thanks.

PS - I am very lucky, I've had almost zero medical problems previously, no broken bones ever, etc. And I revel in the enjoyment I get from cycling (slowly) and my cycling groups. I even lead my own ride every year, but it's mostly older riders so my pace is not a problem.

Just look at race results by age:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Y2iCL3wjwS...ert+110210.jpg

Personally I remember being my most fit at 27.

Interesting chart, which appears, at least implicitly, to define "over the hill" at 50. On 20-mile and longer rides I have lost about 10% of my personal best speed. but so what? At "Beatles' Age" ("When I'm 64"), the game plan is simply to slow the inevitable rate of decline and to live my remaining years to the fullest.

As for speed, I have always been mainly interested in how fast I can climb, and I have never been fast on any sort of descent.

I used to be a regular runner until my early 50s when a knee injury made me stop. I know, because of timed runs over the years, that my speed dropped a lot in my 30s, 40s and 50s despite me putting the same effort in - but I still enjoyed running as much.

There is no doubt that performance reduces with age, including cycling performance, unless an older rider was just not any good in their younger years and has taken it more seriously later in life.

I'm not saying one cannot perform well in old age but IMO a good (or reasonably good) youngster will always beat a good old timer.

You lose fast twitch muscle fibers as you age. Not to mention overall loss of muscle mass and and other connective tissue changes with aging. The moral is " Keep on Truckin' " just like that poster from the the late 60's that inspired the Grateful Dead song.

Forget the "rules" and go be you. Last year at age 67 I crashed and broke my neck. Had to have C1&C2 fused. this year I am faster and better. Did a Metric Century with 4,000 ft. of climbing at 15.5 mph and then did 27 mi. at 17.4 mph. I'm not saying that faster needs to be your goal but I am saying it's possible, even with age. What's really important is getting exercise and having fun.

Perceived effort doesn't change. If you push hard, you might be slower than before, but working just as much. So if you like to suffer with your cycling, don't worry, you can always suffer.

Take a look at this New York Times piece: http://tiny.cc/lo7rlx. You'll see that you might be able to stay fit and reasonably fast for far longer than you might have imagined. Actually, you can skip the article, because it basically states that people who keep exercising throughout their lives stay reasonably strong, even into their 80s.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=404330

This 49 year old, Bernard Hopkins, will be defending his WBA and IBF lightheavyweight championship on Nov 8th (HBO televised) in a unification fight with WBO champion Sergey Kovalev.

He's known for doing 10 daily miles of roadwork whereas most fighters do 3 to 5. That couldn't have hurt him any although most fighters would cook themselves over-training at that along with everything else they do.

I once worked for a guy on a paving crew that didn't retire until he was almost 80.

The parallel with running is flawed. Cycling is easy on the joints and doesn't require the same elasticity - "bounce" - that, when lost, turns a runner into a plodder. In other words, cyclists need the engine, but don't put as much stress on the transmission.

Last year while racing I met a nice gentleman who was bemoaning the fact that the previous day he had performed poorly in a 40k time trial, having finished in 64 minutes. He was 75 years old.

I'm 66 and do a few triathlons each Summer. Each race, there are only a few of us old geezers that participate. If you look at the national triathlon performance statistics for each age group, the 55-59 age group is still very competitive. Slightly less so for the 60-64 group. Performance drops dramatically for the 65-69 group. If you than look at each disciple, swim, bike, run, it's the run that seems to slow down first.

I know from my own experience, I'm still improving my swim times since it's VERY technique dependent. I've been a life long cyclist so I still feel strong on the bike and do most of my passing on the ride. My running, no matter what I do doesn't seem to get better. If I run to much, I need additional rest days to recover.

The future according to the speakers at Eurobike in Germany is the E-bike. So no matter the age, you can still average 25 mph.

EUROBIKE Friedrichshafen ? Trendinterview (english) on Vimeo

Absolutely FABULOUS! This is why I ask questions in Bike Forums!

Although another poster has an excellent counterpoint. See below.

I was so delighted with the Marathon Chart! Such a beautiful answer to my question.

Then I read you and realize your point is well-taken. I myself am a former runner (miler, track team captain in HS, best marathon of 2:51:39 [at age 39]). My knee joints forced me to stop running. Your phrasing is absolutely perfect - elasticity and bounce​ - well done.

So where's the exact same chart for some huge cycling event?

At age 81 I have slowed down a bit. Not as fast, not as far, but still ride 6 days a week.
Spouse and tandem partner rides tandem with me every other day, but she is only 79.
Currently averaging 5,000 miles a year.
In the 'old days' averaged 10,000 miles a year for about 20 years. We do live in Arizona where we can ride 13 months out of the year . . .
Highest mileage year was just a tad over 13,000. We did most of that on a tandem bicycle with my wife as stoker.
After the high mileage year she asked . . . "now that we are grandparents, think we could back a bit on the miles??"

Several of you had comments about specific athletes who are spectacular. I find them in almost any endeavor, but I was really asking about general rules of thumb. And, I have read Cycling Past 50. But I found his focus too much on formal competition.

Several of you said essentially, just enjoy doing what you can do. I agree totally and utterly. Today's ride was joyous, despite being very slow and having to deal with a sticking rear brake. It is not as exhilarating at 14 mph as it is at 19, but it still is exhilarating! Talking to other riders I ran into was a joy. Stopping at the LBS and having the head mech diagnose the rear brake and toss me two spoke nipples for free made me all warm and fuzzy (my last visit he had me take his one-month-old personal bike out for a few miles so I could check out the electronic shifting and the latest brakes).

I just finished comparing my best ride of the last few weeks to the same ride when I was at my peak, 2 years ago. I had lost 30#, I was fit, I had just done a PR on a 51-mile group ride where I rode with the fast boys for the first 11 (flat) miles - over 19 mph average, and I took my share of leading. They disappeared with a smile when we hit the hills, but I ended up at 17.2 average for 51 miles (41' average ascent / mile). I was coming up on my 67th birthday. Stoked. Medical problems triggered weight gain, chemo didn't help my fitness, and then last year I broke my hip and needed a replacement.

The general rule is that healthy, athletic elders are about as rare as hen's teeth. So statistical studies are almosr meaningless.

But there is some applicable biology that gives an insight to what is happening to us. What no study has done or, in my opinion, can do, is tell us how rapidly changes occur. That is variable based on many factors impacting our mind and body in for the most part unknown ways, in detail.

We elders are already so far out of thegeneral population others don't quite know what to do about us.

So, keep up the good attitude; keep pushing hard and let others benefit from your leadership.

I agree with this and would only add that the process is not linear. Geriatricians are familiar with the fact that people's capacities don't decline gradually with age, but do so in a series of steps - they have a crisis, such as a fall or an acute illness, and although they do recover, they get back only, say, 80% of their full functionality (simplistic to reduce it to a percentage, but it illustrates the point) and then carry on at that lower level for a while, until the next crisis.

In my limiited experience it's the same with the older cyclist. As long as one can continue doing what one was doing, and train consistently, performance degradation is surprisingly small. But when, as in the OP's case, illness or injury intervenes, it is immensely difficult to get back into the same shape and one takes a step down.

Yup. Old people are meant to go gently into that goodnight. It's disconcerting to the young to see us pedalling past them on the climbs.

No huge cycling event. But here is a list of the UK national records for the ten mile time trial for veteran cyclists - "veteran", here, being 40 years old and up. I think you'll find it illuminating. Note that the 70 year-old record holder was about 17% slower than the 40 year-old.

What it doesn't tell you, of course, is how many are still competing in each age-group. Illness and injury will give rise to an attrition rate , so the further one goes up the age range the more likely it is that the guys who used to be the fastest are no longer in the field. Still the fact that Mr Brownhill was going under 30 minutes for the ten miles aged 91 is quite impressive, I think.

The 25 mile TT records are even more startling.

So the comparison (not parallel) with running is not so flawed. The running figures show a performance drop of approx 19% between 35-40 group and 65-70 group.

The two activities are different but both show that performance degrades with age after a certain point, probably at slightly different rates in different activities, although, as I said in my earlier reply, older riders can still perform well - just not as well.

If I can still ride at 91, never mind half as fast as Mr Brownhill, I'll definitely be a happy cyclist.

Some interesting raw data here.

The degradation seems seems rather acute to me in the cycling portions seen here:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h6-Geg4HZ3...unTriMedia.png

Gee. When you mentioned "performance" I was thinking of something completely different. Although some things now take me longer it only means that the enjoyment is prolonged.

You see this all the time with professional athletes who sustain an injury, the youngsters bounce right back, the veterans take longer to recover. The accumulation of injuries is usually what sends the pro into retirement. Avoiding injury is definitely advantageous, especially for the older athlete.

Works for me. Of course, exercise helps with attitude.

I like your allusion to leading by example, and I am happy to report that my sons, now aged 25 and 30, have picked up on the old man's commitment to a healthful lifestyle. I spent a few hours yesterday with the elder one, setting up his road bike -- my old Peugeot PKN-10 -- to be a reliable commuter.

It all depends on the person. Some of us are more lucky than others, and it makes a difference in how much you exercise. I for instance am 75 and my legs and muscle mass is great for my age. I usually ride somewhere between 2 and 3 thousand miles a year, all during the warm months, since I live in the snow belt.

The big point here is keep on doing as much as you can. If you set you rust. If you keep biking, your decline will be much slower.