Someone quite rightly pointed out in another thread there is some evidence that continuing high level training into middle and old age may be detrimental to health and longevity. As an endurance athlete since 1973 I do not dismiss these observations out of hand because they make sense in the respect that our bodies have a mechanical aspect to them and our organs are wear items that are not designed to last forever.

But the observations are not supported by evidence of an epidemic of older endurance athletes dropping dead in races or in training. There is however an epidemic of early deaths among sedentary populations in developed countries particularly highly developed countries like the United States.

We must consider an array of variables that need to be taken into account when comparisons are made between active, vigorous individuals and the static lifestyles of general populations. Endurance athletes are far less likely to use tobacco or abuse alcohol and drugs. They are also less likely to be obese or diabetic. So they exist in a bubble of protection just by virtue of these differences.

This is not to say that there is no credence in warnings that excessive taxation on the heart and respiratory tract could produce symptoms that herald the onset of sudden death. This can occur in athletes of all ages but it is a concern among older adults simply because they have a lot more mileage on their bodies. Atrial Fibrillation is more common in older people and it is likely undiagnosed in staggering proportions. But AF is rarely a cause of death in endurance competitions.

Until I see compelling evidence that high level training will shorten or deteriorate quality of life I will continue to use it because I feel good doing it. And if this is really such a problem then we all might as well just hang up our bikes and go bowling.

Thanks for letting us know.

It's not surprising that no one wants to respond to this because the reaction is probably the same as I had when I first became aware that exercise can have a down side. I do know that for years skeptics have been trying to find evidence that exercise is bad for you. And it can be. I know of a whole crowd of individuals I used to run with back in the 80's that are all hobbling around on artificial hips because they were so enamored with marathons that they kept running through pain that was trying to tell them something. I went to the bicycle right after my second stress fracture. Tonight at about 5:30 I'm going to ride with people most of whom are 30-40 years younger than I am and the pace will be quick with hills. I don't have too many riding companions who are boomers. Is that because they are smarter than I am?

I think no one wants to respond because it's a complex topic most of us don't have any real expertise in, so we don't have anything of value to add.

The evidence suggests that it's not simply riding a lot that can damage the heart with time. Rather it's repeatedly taking it to the limit on long endurance events or doing as many intervals as recovery allows for many years. Or fartlek, that sort of thing. I have 3 friends who can no longer go hard due to Afib. They are poster boys for the mentioned practices. They still ride, but slower. I had a cardiologist who'd worked with cycling teams really give me the lecture about 15 years ago. Going hard is fine. Riding a lot is fine. But constantly going hard may not be fine. The running story is an analogue. As much as the OP is riding, it's probably not an issue for him.

You can do as much as you want, i am doing 400-500 miles a week and feel great.

I read the article and did some additional research. The key takeaway is that the older you get, the more rest you need. Most of the example cases cited in the article where people who kept trying to train/race at the same level they did earlier in life. Rest and recovery are critical, as is knowing how far to push your body (or how far not to push it, as the case may be).

The article worried me at first, but I think I'm in a lower risk group than those mentioned who were affected. I ride around half the number of miles that I used to (and even at my max I was nowhere near those people), I don't have an unusually low RHR (most of the affected people did), I have more down time than them, and I have negligible caffeine intake (high intake is also an apparent risk factor).

But I'm still making changes. A few years ago I was on a long climb, and I hit 185bpm. For whatever reason, I felt like I could push that, so I made it to 197. These are the kinds of things I won't be doing anymore. It's unnecessary, especially being alone on the road and not in any sort of race. I started to wonder if Strava was going to kill me as I chased stupid KOMs I have no chance at, so I turned off segment warnings.

Overall it was a good article, and it's up to everyone how they use the information.

I'm sure these things are true, but I don't think the OP adds anything either. Perhaps a link was left out.

There was an interesting article in Velo Magazine recently. Scary.

Is there an article? Where?

I certainly think it is not healthy to run hard 7 days a week. But, there is less evidence that running a few days a week is unhealthy. Moderate "impact" may still be good.

The same is probably true with bicycles. Ride hard some, rest some.

Even the young top-tier athletes on the TDF complain about riding hard every day. Now, as an octogenarian, one might not be riding like the TDF, but a mix of activities, and rest is still reasonable.

I was unable to find a link that encourages high level sports activity in seniors

That's never stopped us before.

Good post. I'm starting up again after a lay off and thinking it might be time to talk to a cardiologist. I have been using a heart rate monitor and try not to go too hard but sometimes it's hard not too, .

I was once told that you only get so many heart beats in a life time.

I think this is the link to the article that would be relevant to this thread:
Cycling to extremes - VeloNews.com

It was with this thread in the 50+ forum:
https://www.bikeforums.net/fifty-plus...rry-about.html

You mean like you can only sharpen a pencil so many times? Now you're getting my attention.

If that's correct then I'm good to go. My HR has dropped as a result of my one hour daily average ride. So while my HR rises for 1 hour a day, it drops for the other 23 so my life is now extended. Yay.

Apparently. Lol

This. I posted the link to the Velo News article in the other thread he started about bird bones. It really does seem that all evidence of these heart issues and scarring/damage are specific to people who continue to do regular racing and interval training into their 50s/60s with huge volume and little recovery. Even as a 29 year old I'm nowhere near that level of intensity, so it seems like this warning would only apply to a very, very select portion of the cycling population.

Some of the things in that article did alarm me a little as far as risk factors. I do have a very low resting HR (first thing in the morning it's around 43, normally it'll be about 52-55 sitting at my desk), and I do occasionally (once every few months) feel a "hiccup" which according to that article is an early contraction and isn't a health risk, but is a sign of potential issues later on with continued training.

Luckily, I'm going to my doc this week for a checkup and he's an avid cyclist/racer, so I'd love to ask him his opinion on all this. Not a cardiologist, but he's probably done some research into the matter for his own curiosity.

Good subject OP. I’m 61 and ride everyday and so something I think about as do many older riders. I probably average 20-30 miles a day. Rode a lot more a couple of years ago. It is always a question of how hard to push oneself. Unknowable. I am quite fit…also swim everyday. So I do probably 2-3 hrs of cardio everyday. I push my HR higher on the bike than in the pool. Lately I have been riding with a lower HR and less intensity. My LTHR is high for my age…about 175…and only certain group rides or riding with fast people in town do I hold that heartrate for a period of time and distance.
I have read the articles about prolonged intensity not being good for older riders. I believe that because each of us are so genetically different and have different levels of fitness with a given set of genetics, its pretty hard to extrapolate a given long term exercise intensity with helping or hurting longevity.
I do believe its quite possible however that prolonged high intensity training among older riders isn’t good for the heart. Not even diminishing return but rather not good for the heart. So a bit less intensity is better perhaps for overall health. Kind of like not running an older higher mileage race engine so close to redline which was less detrimental when the engine was newer.

Everything in moderation.

Do you have a job? Or are you retired? Riding for 3 hrs per day / 5 days a week only gets me around 250 miles. And that's a part time job already (15 hours a week not including weekends). Maybe could put on another 100 miles if I have the weekend but thats reserved for the family for now.

A friend of mine who does orthopedic surgery has patients of all ages, from old ladies hip replacements, to young sub-30's knee replacements for serious athletes...His point:

If you don't exercise and move, your joints will break down.

If you do exercise and move, your joints will break down. but you'll be healthier, so go for it, just use common sense.

I read this article last week in Velo News and it really shook me up. I'm in my 50's, have been running or cycling regularly for 35 years and push myself several times a week. I will do 3-4 cyclocross races a year. I went in for my annual physical and my doctor, who is a marathon runner and exercise fanatic, noticed that my EKG showed--to anyone unfamiliar with my athletic background--that it appeared I was having a heart attack. He said it was because a portion of my heart was extremely strong. He sent me to a cardiologist for an echocardiogram to make sure everything was OK, which the cardiologist confirmed. He recommended that I shrink down my EKG and get it plastic coated and carry with me everywhere I go because if I am ever brought into an emergency room unconscious, the first thing that they will do after giving me an EKG is treat me for a heart attack. I haven't followed his advice yet, but with friends (and myself) getting into regular cycling accidents and the risk of developing AFib out on the road, maybe it would be a good idea. This is all scary stuff!

What's "high" intake? A triple-shot espresso most mornings is ok, I hope?