![]() |
Originally Posted by Machka
The jury is still out on the effect cycling is having on my heart ...... and I know quite a few endurance athletes (marathon runners and ultra-distance cyclists) who have died of heart failure in their 50s and 60s in the middle of training rides/runs, etc. ..... so I couldn't say for sure that cycling is, indeed, good for my heart.
The thing it does do for me is to keep my weight down, my cholesterol level down, and my blood pressure down ......... plus it is something I really enjoy, so if I'm going to keel over in the middle of a ride, at some point, from heart failure at least I'll go doing something I love! :) And I'll go without regrets! :) :) I used to worry about getting killed suddenly on my bicycle. No longer. I would die happy. That may sound morbid, but it's more like a zen fatalism that lets me accept the risks involved. Which doesn't seem too different to me than Machka's take on riding with a heart condition. And I'd guess that in all liklihood instead of killing her it will extend her life and mitigate the negative impact of her condition. I suppose that's what we all hope and pray of course. |
Sorry. Yet ANOTHER double post caused by a Bike Forum Server brain fart...
|
Originally Posted by patentcad
I did add the qualifier that I was being facetious. Those are my personal fitness goals. They're not particularly reasonable.
And that whole 'I can bench press 300 lbs. so I'm fit' thing is an interesting potential debate. I wonder. Does your heart know the difference between 50 extra pounds of muscle vs. fat? I was under the impression that extra weight loads up your heart whether you're Arnold S. or Roseanne. Particularly as you advance past age 40-50. As for the extra weight being a drain on the heart, I'm not even so sure of that either, right now. My personal experience has shown that focusing on excess weight as a proxy for lack of fitness is an exercise in frustration, and I think it eventually leads to failure down the road for those who believe that the two are equivalent. By the medical definitions, I am morbidly obese. I am over 100 lbs overweight(yes, it's fat). Yet, I bike around 70 miles/week, I bench press 180 with dumbells, shoulder press 140 with same, and I have completed multiple rides over 40 miles and a metric century, and I'll probably do a regular century in the next week or two(my goal for this summer is a 3-4 day 240 mile round trip to VT). If a doc looked at my current BMI(43) there is no way he would think that I could exercise at the level I currently perform. I know for a fact that most people who have a "normal" weight can't do what I do daily. But by using BMI as a proxy for fitness, I would be considered extremely out of shape--and that just ain't so. |
>>If a doc looked at my current BMI(43) there is no way he would think that I could exercise at the level I currently perform. I know for a fact that most people who have a "normal" weight can't do what I do daily. But by using BMI as a proxy for fitness, I would be considered extremely out of shape--and that just ain't so<<
It's likely that as usual, the truth lies somewhere between. Your fitness activities DO enhance your overall fitness - which probably reduces the probability of heart disease - while the overweight aspect of your physique would increase those chances. I've read studies that showed that 'reasonable fitness' conferred surprising benefits of lower heart disease rates even to morbidly obese subjects. Is it possible to be that overweight and still be somewhat 'fit'? Apparently so. Which would not help you on the Nyack ride however : ). |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:20 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.