111–114 of 114 posts
You don't stop cycling because you get old, you get old because you stop cycling! :)
Data fails to support your conjecture. Marchand is one of the oldest people on earth and he cycles. :)
Really? Which data would that be then?
Because at least some data seems to indicate inactivity (a lack of cycling) increases age related degeneration. :)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/jphysiol.2014.282...
I'd like to point out that he is riding upright on a standard road bike with virtually no aero equipment (except his loose skin suit). I imagine at his age a time trial position would destroy his back and neck after an hour (if he could even get in the position) so, to me, that makes his distance that much more impressive. I bet he could tack on 1-2 more miles if were fully decked out in TT equipment, maybe even more…
I know this isn't Reddit, but the term "loose skin suit" left me giggling
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cycling takes a long time, so it burns a lot of calories. It's no coincidence that a common club ride destination will be a nice cake shop and that half the riders will be skinny older guys. Get on a bike, son! :)
I do have one and I enjoy my daily commutes on it :) But, given the negligible effect it's had on my health, I want to refine my original comment to make it clear that I don't imply causation between cycling and burning calories. Clearly, I need to make additional changes.
If you're doing HIIT-type stuff, I'd recommend finding a serious lung-buster of a hilly loop near you and playing cat and mouse with your mates. One person at the bottom, give a head start of a certain distance (based on your respective abilities) to the rest of the group, and then hit the climb. The leaders need to get to the top of the hill without being caught by the chasers (not beaten to the top, just caught). The caught leaders join the chasers for the next hill and so on, until you can go no more. Kinda helps to break the monotony of riding the same (albeit convenient) routes over and over and helps everyone push each other forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Double a really small number is still a really small number. From that link, I get 9.2 fatalities per 100 million person trips for a car, 13.7 fatalities per 100 million person trips for walking and 21.0 fatalities per 100 million person trips for cycling. If you ride your bike 3 times a day, every day for 70 years, you have about a 1.6% chance of dying. This is not unduly dangerous.
Comparing fatalities based on distance traveled obscures the real risks, especially if you do that country-wide: Highways and other long-distances roads are a comparatively safe environment for cars. Accidents are comparatively rare, but often fatal. City traffic differs: speed is in general lower ( Injuries for cyclists thus are far more likely. Even collisions at lower speed that basically leave a car dented and th…