41–50 of 68 posts
On a 5 hr bike ride your body is going to go into a similar state as intermittent fasting with all your glycogen being burned off. Similar to fasting this frees up energy and allows the garbage in your system to be burned off.
> garbage in your system What precisely is this?
- is it correlation or causation? - could the causation be in the other direction? You always need to ask these questions. Perhaps senior people who have immune systems as 20-year olds, are much more likely to cycle in old age. Or there is some other reason that causes both.
Does it matter that much? Just be active for as long as possible and reap the benefits of fit muscles and a stronger heart. Purely anecdotal: My grandfather is nearing 90 and still jumps on his indoor bike every day. Last winter he fell (due to ice) and got away with a few bruises. For other people his age this kind of fall could have meant a broken hip. He had two heart attacks when he was around 60 and a life long…
On a 5 hr bike ride your body is going to go into a similar state as intermittent fasting with all your glycogen being burned off. Similar to fasting this frees up energy and allows the garbage in your system to be burned off.
I do a ~24 hour fast weekly, and a LOT of sites go into this "burning off garbage" or "toxin cleaning" rhetoric which always puts me in "bullshit warning" mode. Is there actual science behind these claims?
A 24-hour fast is different; your body will burn fat at sufficient rate to avoid glycogen depletion (it's pretty simple; the harder you exercise the less energy comes from fat and more from 'carbs').
From a weight-less perspective though all that matters is calories out exceed calories in - it's quite possible though that fasts end up making you less hungry than hard exercise does.
Long-distance cyclists don't worry about any of this though - the approach is actually pretty simple:-
Press food to face.
Suck.
Repeat.
Edit: formatting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a saying: You don't stop running when you become old. You become old when you stop running. Of course, "running" can be substituted with any other exercise
Not only a saying: science. As long as you can walk 1.36 m/s (about 5 km/hour), the grim reaper will never catch up with you. 0.82 m/s (about 3km/hour) already makes you mostly safe ( http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7679 )
I'd be curious to know if similar effects are observed in orthogonal types of physical activity from cycling, e.g. strength training.
I'm also interested in a listing of publications comparing different physical activities for their fitness related to improving health overall and anti-aging concretely. ?
Saying exercise prevents decline normalizes being sedentary. I prefer considering exercise normal and saying its lack accelerates decline. Anyone is free to call normal what they want, but I find my way leads me to live more healthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it matter that much? Just be active for as long as possible and reap the benefits of fit muscles and a stronger heart. Purely anecdotal: My grandfather is nearing 90 and still jumps on his indoor bike every day. Last winter he fell (due to ice) and got away with a few bruises. For other people his age this kind of fall could have meant a broken hip. He had two heart attacks when he was around 60 and a life long…
Of course it matters. If the old cyclists are just genetically superior, then prescribing 100 mile bike rides to frail old people might be damaging, rather than transforming them into disease-resistant superhumans.
Saying exercise prevents decline normalizes being sedentary. I prefer considering exercise normal and saying its lack accelerates decline. Anyone is free to call normal what they want, but I find my way leads me to live more healthy.
On a 5 hr bike ride your body is going to go into a similar state as intermittent fasting with all your glycogen being burned off. Similar to fasting this frees up energy and allows the garbage in your system to be burned off.