tofu

I was reading about Gilberto Simoni talking about his chances to win the Giro d'Italia at age 34 and how it may not be realistic but he is going to try anyway (he won it as late as 2003). How much of a physical drop off is there from 31 to 34? From what I have read, the oldest TdF winner ever was 36, but if I recall correctly that was back in the 1920's. Could someone like Lance win the TdF at 36 given he continued his training regimen? How far can training overcome age?

On a similar note, after what ages is it unfeasible for someone with the right genetics to start competive cycling and have the potential to get achieve milestones such as becoming a cat-1, national or pro level rider?

jur

The only thing that seems to reduce with age is max heart rate. All the rest can be maintained with regular exercise. From age 60 onwards there is also a decline in muscle mass. So if at age 30 you can just win a stage, you mightn't win it at say 35 because you are now working against a reduced MHR. Assuming everything else is the same.

Pat

We do know that past certain ages, you do not see people active in certain sports at the top level.

But I have never seen anything that gives a good physiological explanation for this. Generally, it is assumed to be the effects of age. The notion here is that everyone declines a certain amount each year.

However, there are other possible explanations. For pro level atheletes, as they get older, perhaps they get sick and tired of going out and training round the clock. I would think the motivation to keep doing what you have already achieved would get less and there are those younger guys who have not proved themselves.

Another thing could be a slow build up of minor injuries. Or is that just another word for aging? Curiously enough, we do not have a really good understanding of the biochemistry and physiology of aging.

Roody

Pat -- Good analysis.

Keep in mind that in top level competitions (any sport), the difference in athletic ability between the winner and the last place finisher is probably only one or two per cent. You lose that tiny advantage, and you quit winning. There's no point in competing if you know you can't win (or place high enough to win money). Lance Armstrong at 40 (or even 50) would still be a better cyclist than 99.9% of 25 year olds, just not good enough to win the TdF.

WoodyUpstate

Ekimov is 40 this year, and is still a valued domestique, but isn't expected to win races. Andre Tschmil was a stud at 40 and still factored in the one-day classics, and Tinker Juarez is still a stud on the MTB marathon/24 hour circuit.

Professional athletes have, generally, been competing since their early teens, or even earlier. By 35 - I think - most are burned out, have young children, and are ready to try something new in life. And, as was said, the cumulative affect of injuries takes its toll, too.

WarrenG

Wow! What a load of junk. First of all, MHR has absolutely no influence on a person's ability at any age. MHR is virtually never a limiter of performance, especially considering how rarely a performance is done near MHR. The strength of the contractions of the heart may well decrease with age and this will reduce the heart's stroke volume and blood supply to working muscles.

Second, you can find countless studies and articles that will confirm that VO2max declines approximately 1 point per year (that is greater than a 1% decrease in the uptake of oxygen lost per year) after around the age of 35 years old. Even if you train continuously at a world-class level the dropoff will still approach this level.

Third, as we age there is a measurable decrease in several hormones that enable recovery from training, so training must allow for relatively more recovery time as we age. At the national and world-class level motivation to train as hard as possible is often as high as it ever was but recovery from training is always the main obstacle for maintaining and improving one's performance.

You can look at the times for the top few riders in events at the masters National and World Championships and see a fairly linear decline in performance for each ascending 5-year age group after age 30.

Enthalpic

Your first and 2nd points are conflicting...

You first talk about how MHR values don't matter at any age than you begin talking about VO2 max. Either you think maximal values matter or they don't, not both.

Even if the persons LT remained the same over many years eventually they will have a LT very close to the MHR and it will become a limiter. Especially during attacks or sprints when they do use some above LT efforts.

jur

OK I bow to your superior knowledge.

I got my detailed knowledge from MAPP. Perhaps I missed something or misread something. That site seems to carry the necessary credentials for me to trust the content.

WarrenG

A person's MHR and VO2max are not linked. For one thing, when you do a VO2max test you do not reach your MHR. Maybe 90-95% of it. Your MHR is virtually always unimportant for cycling performance. VO2max is one of a few important aspects of performance in cycling.

The amount of blood you can move in a minute is mostly determined by your stroke volume and the stroke volume may change a little depending on your HR at that minute. Your stroke volume is never really limited by your MHR. In fact, your stroke volume probably decreases when you are near your MHR.

Most athletes have a LTHR around 80-85% of MHR (if you choose to define LT as being close to 4mmol/l of blood lactate). That leaves 30-40 bpm or so of room for changes in MHR and LTHR.

WarrenG

Stephen's website is one I recommend-it's very good. Some sports scientists will disagree with a few of his opinions but not many.

Stephen thinks... "Maximal oxygen consumption declines about 10% per decade after age 25. However, if body composition is maintained and physical activity levels are kept constant, the decline in VO2max due to aging is only about 5% per decade. Prior to age 50, this decline may even be less, perhaps 1-2% per decade in hard training masters athletes. Ultimately, cardiovascular capacity is reduced however, due to the unavoidable decline in maximal heart rate."

He does not explain this opinion but he does acknowledge previously that stroke volume can decline (heart muscle get a little weaker and there is more peripheral resistance to blood flow). It's probably confusing that he put his comments about VO2max and MHR in the same paragraph because they are not actually closely linked. VO2max is a result/summation of many things and MHR is a relatively minor factor, if it even is a factor.

It is also important to remember that while exercise physiologists like to evaluate exercise performance based on VO2max, bike racers know that VO2max is just one of several factors affecting performance. For one, even if training does not increase your VO2max (the amount of oxygen you can utilize) you can still be increasing your performance by increasing the power you can produce with that same amount of oxygen.

For MHR's part in the decline, this is where there can be some disagreement, but if you are concerned about your performance falling simply because of a decline in MHR as Stephen thinks then you will not be as fast during all those periods when you are racing at your MHR. How often will that be?

Now, if you can improve your strength and efficiency and power at any given HR then you can perform even better than previously at many HR ranges including HR's around your MHR. You can also train to perform longer at high percentages of your MHR.

FWIW, I have been training and racing for the last 30 years and during that time my MHR has declined by 7bpm. I have done races recently when I was peaking for the Masters World Championships where I was within 4bpm of MHR for 5 minutes continuously, 8bpm of MHR for around 10 minutes continuously, and 20 minutes continuously within 13bpm of MHR. Others can do similarly. This is because of training.

So, is your MHR really the reason you're not as fast as you used to be?

Enthalpic

MHR and VO2 max are linked for elite athletes; only in moderately trained individuals does the muscular system limit performance and thus VO2max. Maximal cardiac output limits elite athletes; which is the product of stroke volume and max HR.

Even you admit you are doing efforts at MHR – 4bpm… you are being limited by your MHR already.

oldspark

This type of post just kills me-do some research and find out the facts for your self, no need to argue on a forum when all the info is out there for any one to read.

WarrenG

VO2max is reached in elite cyclists before they are near their MHR. MHR is not a differentiator for performance comparisons between individuals because most events are decided at HR's well below MHR. The athletes are usually limited by other factors long before they get near their MHR.

It is widely accepted that the single most important indicator of performance in endurance cycling events is power at lactate threshold, a level of exertion that is both far below MHR, and as a percentage of an individual's MHR, highly variable from one individual to another. IOW, you can have two athletes with the same MHR, but one rider's LT could be at 85% of MHR, and the other at 90% of MHR, and even if their MHR and LTHR was the same percentage of MHR they can still have significantly different power outputs at identical HR's, or conversely, the same power at LT even though their LTHR's are different.

How do you know MHR is the limiter for me in that case? You don't. Could be that stroke volume is not high enough. Could be muscle fatigue or a number of other performance limiters. At the end of many races I am at MHR during the final sprint, but the sprint is not limited by MHR. The sprint is limited by other things. MHR happens during the sprint not so much because of the effort or the body's requirements, but because of adrenalin. This can be confirmed by measuring oxygen consumption/debit/deficit, muscle ph, depletion of creatine phosphate, and other performance limiters.

My own performance (measured in sustainable power and in how long I can sustain a given HR) above 190bpm's has improved significantly during the last 3 years even though my MHR has dropped from 201 down to 199.

jur

OK, as far as I understand, assuming everything else is the same as I stated in my first post, if your MHR reduces with age, then working at 80% of MHR different blood volumes will be pumped at age 25 compared to age 45. Hence you will be slower since less oxygen is getting to the muscles.

So the answer must be yes. Assuming everything else is the same. Perhaps that assumption is unrealistic.

As for my original statement which you called junk, here is the figure (in the summaryat the end) that supports it.

oldspark

In a nutshell
Lower heart rate
Lung capacity decreases
Muscle mass and strength loss
Decresed blood flow to the brain so reaction time is reduced.
Add these all up and you get slower as you age but with high intensity training you can slow the process up significantly

Al.canoe

I would think that there is an almost imperceptible drop-off in endurance cycling performance from 31 to 34. The problem is that it may be enough to make one non-competitive because the difference between world-class athletes is so small. But, there are so many factors in winning a team sport that those who pay attention to and excel in all the factors/details win. This is the major reason for Armstrong's winning streak and the lack of wins by Jan Ulrich. Ulrich has even resisted adopting the more modern, structured training regimes.

There is a curve in the latest edition of Bicycle Science which shows 40 mile time-trial results for top-level athletes as a function of age. There is no drop-off until after about 40 if I remember correctly. I can't check it as the book is at another house. Even after 40, the slope of the drop-off is surprisingly small.

Al

WarrenG

That assumption is unrealistic, and that is the "junk" part of your earlier statement. MHR is not even close to being the only important factor in the decline of age-related performances among consistently training cyclists. I have already listed several factors. Read the article you quoted for some of the other factors.

One of your other assumptions seems to be that performance is related to a percentage of one's MHR. Google on "lactate threshold exercise" or "lactate threshold cycling" to learn more about why MHR is almost completely irrelevant for performance, and why nearly all good coaches ignore MHR for the vast majority of training and racing.

Also, that article was only looking at one aspect of performance. Look at the results from the Masters World and National Championships (timed events, road and track) and the correlation in declining performances, and know that nearly all of those performances are not done near the person's MHR and many are not determined largely by a person's ability around VO2max. Observations from the real world are the ultimate test of an opinion.

Enthalpic

If you like the MAPP try reading it.

https://home.hia.no/~stephens/vo2max.htm

"In the well-trained, oxygen delivery limits VO2 max
In the untrained, skeletal muscle capacity can be limiting

When we perform VO2 max tests on untrained persons, we often see that they stop at a at a time point in the test when their VO2 max seems to still be on the way up. The problem is that they just do not have the aerobic capacity in their working muscles and become fatigued locally prior to fully exploiting their cardiovascular capacity. In contrast, when we test athletes, they will usually show a nice flattening out of VO2 despite increasing intensity towards the end of the test. Heart rate peaks out, VO2 maxes out, and even though some of the best trained can hold out at VO2 max for several minutes, max is max and they eventually hit a wall due to the accumulation of protons and other changes at the muscular level that inhibit muscular force production and bring on exhaustion."

jur

Did you even look at the figure I referred to???? That makes that assumption perfectly valid. Blue shaded areas are those that can be kept to a minimum or even eliminated with exercise, red is decline. there is only one red area - MHR.

Over to you.

WarrenG

Yes, HR "peaks out" but the peak is NOT at MHR. In my VO2max tests my HR peaks around 10bpm BELOW my MHR. This is common.

WarrenG

You need to read that conclusion much more closely. You have skipped over many of his comments, run some of them together, and some of his comments provide more detail than the drawing. The drawing is merely a list of things that can decline because of age and he thinks that decline in MHR can't be eliminated with exercise. Well, some experts disagree with him about that. My own MHR has only decreased about 1/3 of expected during the last 20+ years I've been training. Real world vs. his opinions...

His OPINION about VO2max declining as a correlation with MHR is a stretch because VO2max does NOT occur at MHR, nor does it occur at a fixed percentage of MHR. He does mention a number of factors that usually decline with age that also contribute to one's VO2max, so, MHR is not close to being the only, or even the most important factor for a decline in VO2max. I know one person in particular who has seen his MHR decline 15+bpm over a period of ~20 years, yet his VO2max is still exceptionally high, close to what it was 20 years ago, because of training.

Consider this, training will not increase your MHR by more than 1-2 bpm, but training can increase your VO2max significantly. IOW, your VO2max can increase without any correlating increase in your MHR. It can also be INCREASED when MHR is declining. My own lab tests show this.

Also, even if your lab-measured VO2max does not change significantly with training, or declines with age, the power you can produce at your VO2max might still be improved significantly. Put another way, you go get your VO2max tested in a lab and they tell you your VO2max is x, and x means you are able to process and use 1 gallon of oxygen per minute. They also tell you that when you reached that point in the test you were riding the equivalent of 24mph. Then you go do some training to improve your power at VO2max. You go back and they tell you that you are still only able to process 1 gallon of oxygen per minute but now you can ride at 26mph when you are doing that.

Also, the article is concerned with " Maximal performance of short duration (i.e. 30 - 120 sec)". VO2max should not be closely tied to performance over this short duration. Most cyclists will perform well ABOVE their VO2max for such a short period of duration. One's VO2max is only partially responsible for performance for such short duration- he thinks it is about 40% for efforts near 120 seconds, and virtually irrelevant for efforts closer to 30 seconds. Anaerobic work capacity is more important, and in many cases, neuromuscular strength is too.

jur

Phew. That's a lot of info.

Unfortunately I can't take part in this debate with much sense - I am at 45 a novice cyclist and only just beginning to get into the fitness theory after 18 months of riding.

On the MHR with age decline - I understood this info is from many studies, not from Stephens.

And your 3rd paragraph says the same what I said - Other factors (such as VO2max) can be improved (or kept steady) with exercise despite increasing age, but not MHR. Your MHR decline is probably anomalous since it is below average decline? That makes perfect sense to me, all people are slightly different. So what are you actually saying that is different from what I said initially?

* goes back to the MAPP to study some more *

Enthalpic

Sorry dude you are not elite.. the op was talking about people at the level of Gilberto Simoni etc. Your condition is mentioned above.. you fail to reach true max.

WarrenG

Elites as you define them do not reach their MHR during VO2max tests unless they choose to continue riding PAST the point of reaching VO2max. My coach used to be a coach at Mapei, Asics, Motorola, 7-11.

WarrenG

Basically what I'm saying is that MHR is not really a major limiter for your performance. There are several/many other factors affecting your performance that will decline with age, even if you are always training. Results at Masters championships segregated by age confirm this clearly-including many events where the riders are never close to their MHR.

However, don't let your age become your excuse for not performing well, because smart training can at least minimize your expected decline in performance due to your getting older. There can be great satisfaction in knowing you are fitter now than you were 10 years ago.