« Back to Archive

Cycling keeps you young

Just in case you were wondering how to do it.®ion=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region "As it turned out, the cyclists did not show their age. On almost all measures, their physical functioning remained fairly stable across the decades and was much closer to that of young adults than of people their age. As a group, even the oldest cyclists had younger people’s levels of balance, reflexes, metabolic health and memory ability." BTW the test they used for fitness was 100K in 6.5 hours, i.e., same as a Populaire, for the men. But only 50K for women (with the same time). Guess they come from some place other than here.
2015-01-07 14:22:27
I'm still old.
2015-01-07 14:37:33
Yep, I saw that. Cars, however, can age a cyclist far faster than a sedentary driver...
2015-01-07 15:02:55
hm. Let me check the mirror first.
2015-01-07 16:36:14
I did a Merlin when I hit 50 and started going backwards...
2015-01-07 19:11:05
I was once chided by a well meaning but very ignorant member of my extended family who said... look, maybe you're getting away with it now, but you can't keep doing this when you're 40. I responded that I intend to keep doing this into my 70s and hope to keep doing it into my 80s. The look was precious.
2015-01-07 19:22:21
I hope I never get to a point where it takes me 5 1/2 hours to go 37 miles.
2015-01-07 20:00:06
Just to keep things in perspective, search "cycling time to do 100km". Most of the hits are along the lines of "How To Train for a 100km Ride". (I should train for this? Who knew.) And there's this earnest discussion among body builders: One dude offers the following guide (note the double-digit precision): -- Elite pro road racer 24-26 mph / 39-42 kph. About 2.50 hours. -- Casual recreational rider 12-15 mph / 19-24 kph. About 4.6 hours. -- Average semi fit recreational rider 15-18 mph / 24-29 kph. About 3.75 hours. -- Local very fit athletic casual racer primarily recreational cyclist 18-22 mph / 29-35 kph. About 3.00 hours. Then he wanders off into a complicated discussion about watts. Naturally, subsequent posts all declare something along the lines of "hah! I can do it much faster." Are message boards fun, or what? And, yes, the consensus is that hills somehow mess things up.
2015-01-07 21:05:05
Just to be clear, my current priority is to just get to 70... If there's a bike there, that will be a bonus.
2015-01-07 21:15:15
Just to be clear, my current priority is to just get to 70… If there’s a bike there, that will be a bonus.
Two Barbs and Earl (PMTCC members) have combined age above 220. :) They rode "Tour de Red Bell" without problem and latter S18th, Virginia, Grand View (the one I've marked for participants of "Bicycle Conference" :)). You have all chances.
2015-01-08 02:27:51
I seem to be aging well, and cycling seems to be a big part of that.
2015-01-08 07:15:38
My friend and colleague Walter Goldberg, who is an emeritus professor of Physics at Pitt, commuted to Pitt from Squirrel Hill regularly into his early 90s. He did not go all that quickly up Schenley Drive, but up he went. I believe he stopped riding a year or two ago.
2015-01-08 08:01:14
2015-01-08 11:31:46
The prospect of slowing down so dramatically is not at all appealing. If it were to happen to me today it would drive me nuts and I'd probably give up and ride the bus. But, unless I become roadkill I do anticipate my speed will tail of slowly over a long time, and then more quickly as I go from kinda old to really old... whatever really old happens to mean given my genome. And I hope by then I will have the maturity I lack now about not being kinda a little bit fast (at least given the crap bikes I ride out of habit and that form the basis of my excuse making when I'm passed by someone truly fast (like StefB)).
2015-01-08 12:33:21
My genetics, not my genome. Hopefully I'm human and so are my kids.
2015-01-08 12:46:04