How does Age affect performance

drlodge

Just wondering...I'm 45 years young and am at a reasonable level of fitness (did 68 miles yesterday without a problem). I notice my performance especially up hill performance, is waaaayyy off those who are in their 20s. How much does performance drop off when you get older? Say going from 25 to 45 to 65 years old?

danowat

Yes, hence the need for Vet's standards.

Zoomer37

There are probably real stats as to what happens to your body as you get older, but personally I think if your putting in good miles each week then performance shouldn't dip that much as your getting older.

One of the guys at our club started back racing this year after a 20 year break. In 8 months he's gone from a 4th cat to Elite. He's 46 and will tear the legs off most riders half his age.

Cannock Chase

Well I'm 61 and I can tell you my performance has dropped off in more ways than one..!!
However, going back to cycling.
It took me a long time to accept that my cycling performance was possibly related to my ageing years. Hills which weren't too much of a problem in my younger days certainly are now. Lower gears are the key. At 45 though I think cycling wise your performance shouldn't have deteriorated much from when you were younger. Perhaps speed may have slowed a little but not endurance capacity. Of course how fit are you now compared to when you were in your 20's? Are you heavier? How heavy are the young racing snakes you are out with? Extra pounds on the waist mean extra effort up the hills. This link below is interesting:
http://www.cyclecommunity.co.uk/?p=293

rolf_f

drlodge wrote:

Just wondering...I'm 45 years young and am at a reasonable level of fitness (did 68 miles yesterday without a problem). I notice my performance especially up hill performance, is waaaayyy off those who are in their 20s. How much does performance drop off when you get older? Say going from 25 to 45 to 65 years old?

I'm 45 and my uphill performance is waaayyy better than most who are in their 20s. But that's not because of my age or "talent" but mostly because of my weight.

And I'm not really very fast on the flat.......

cougie

How long have you been cycling ? Theres guys in their 60s in my club that kick the ass of most youngsters.

Graydawg

^ +1 to cougie's post.....

Henry Allingham (at one time the worlds oldest man and one of the last surviving tommies of WW1) was riding his bike up until he was in his early 100's! I'm sure he wasn't putting in 60miles a day though, but as long as you're enjoying it who cares?

Yes as you age you los muscle mass and this could affect performance, but if you keep in shape there is no reason why you wouldn't be able to smoke people half your age.....

Sir Chris Hoy was 36 at this years Olympics - and he won Gold against people 10-14 years his junior!

drlodge

Thanks all. I've been cycling since my teens, but had a long lay off then been cycling more than ever since April this year. I think alot has to do with weight - down to 78kg now, I was 70kg/11 stone in my early 20s so that's alot of extra lbs to lug up the hills. 2 bikes in fact extra on my back if a bike weighs 9kg!!

Guess I keep working to get the weight off!!

Mikey23

Muscle mass and tone is lost. In the running community it is statistically proved that there is a 1% deterioration in performance per year over 40. I assume cycling is similar. There are exceptions, you can train to minimise it but I haven't figured out the secret

BowtomePhil

Age affects me, it now takes me all night to do what I used to do all night.

Cycling wise, I have only been cycling for the last 2 years, well road bike. I used to go with the kids to the park on my mountain bike.

I have been keeping stats in the last 8 weeks and as my weight has plummeted, my times have also. I guess muscle power in my thighs has strenghtened and I can also go faster for longer. Wish that was the same in other areas.

farrina

This what you are looking for (or am I ageing you to rapidly)

.... Well you are almost there!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0880117370/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00

Regards

Alan

Lucky Douglas

farrina wrote:

This what you are looking for (or am I ageing you to rapidly)

.... Well you are almost there!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0880117370/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00

Regards

Alan

If you do read it you'll be told that the performance does drop off, but capacity for long distance, stamina type stuff can be retained more easily than short distance high intensity type capacity. I'm 59 and sometimes ride with fit people in their 30s and early 40s - I can keep going for just as long as them, but hills / sprints are another story.

jgsi

All is not lost for those in their 40s if you study the various times and ages in this hill climb
http://www.velouk.net/2011/09/29/hill-c ... valley-cc-‘cat-and-fiddle’/
but you may have to work very hard for it!
Essentially it is the 'zip factor' in the legs thats goes... in my case never ever to return.

mike6

I am told it is muscle mass that is affected more by aging. Apparently aerobic capacity drops but not much. Personally I believe it is weight gain during aging that is the main reason for slowing down. A guy in our club who is 78 years old always rides with the A group and we never have to wait for him, probably cos he is not only fit but he has maintained his small lean build. If I can ride like him when I am that old I will be delighted.

Keep cycling, and keep the weight down if you want to maintain that speed/climbing ability.

plowmar

I think a lot depends on when you started cycling on a reasonably regular basis and the level that you attained.

Someone that started at mid teens and/or achieved a good standard of riding then the mentioned fall off is from a better standard than some one, like me, who started regular riding in early fifties - age not decade- and didn't get to a high level of fitness.

But, hey, I like biking average 15 - 16 mph on 50-60 mile rides, can do 20% hills for a short time just wish I could do better. Just do what you do and enjoy it.

careful

I'm not an expert but I dont think there can be much doubt that cycling performance does deteriorate with age. I cant think of any physical sport where the top performars are mostly aged 45+. The exceptions just prove the rule. Nobody says; "there is a 25 year old in our club who can beat some of the 60 year olds"! I am retired now and, not having much else to do, I train more often and with with more effort than I ever did in my 20s & 30s but cannot get even close to the speeds I used to (not that I was ever that fast). Reasons for deterioration?

My weight is right in the middle of my BMI and exactly what it was at aged 20 - 30, so not that; I have read that Vo2 max decreases at about 1% for every year over 25; I also understand that muscle development and repair also decreases significantly; Many injusies (eg wear and tear on the spine) are cumulative; many older riders suffer back pain which affects climbing with a result that granny gears and spinning are needed. Of course, as an old geezer I can still ride further and faster than many unfit younger guys, but frankly, any young rider that cant beat me is either no good or not really trying! I will carry on riding and even training, for no particular purpose than to be as fit as I can be. I am younger today than I will ever be again.

rolf_f

plowmar wrote:

I think a lot depends on when you started cycling on a reasonably regular basis and the level that you attained.

Someone that started at mid teens and/or achieved a good standard of riding then the mentioned fall off is from a better standard than some one, like me, who started regular riding in early fifties - age not decade- and didn't get to a high level of fitness.

I'm not totally convinced about this. Obviously, if age means you are getting fat then that will have a big impact. In my case, I'm 45 and have been cycling for less than 4 years. I have never been really unfit but I am now fitter than I ever have been. I weigh exactly the same as I did when I was 20 and have been the same weight all my adult life.

I tend to find that I plateau - no doubt if I had started riding as I do know, 20-25 years ago I would be better but probably not significantly so. I reckon it will be a while before I've got as good as I'll ever get.

plowmar

Sorry misled you there. All I was saying was that depending at what age you start the level of fitness achieved will not nescesarily transfer into performance.

If I was as fit at 18 as I am now then I would expect to have improvements on the figures I gave in my post.

As far as weight goes there was a previous post concerning percentage of general population that was greater than your weight relating to age groups and using that I was in the lower 20% for 30/40 year olds when im in the 60/70 year old age bracket.

7 years ago I was 17.5 stone and am now 11.5 stone and looking to lose atleast 1/2 a stone a year.

I am in no way exceptionable just that all the training I do does not convert to faster speeds/ steeper hills just longer rides and bigger annual mileage.

Monty Dog

Generally, if you keep a healthy lifestyle throughout then the performance drop-off with age is reduced. Whilst you do lose a bit of top-end with age, stamina improves to compensate - go out with the young guys and they're jumping all over the place to start with but after a few hours they tend to run out of puff. Guys like John Woodburn are still knocking out the miles at 85 years old.

Cycle Community

Hi all,

Thanks for the links to my website above, and for looking at my over 6o's article. I have to admit to not particullaly catering to the "older" rider on my site thus far, but it would be great if I could hear a few of your commuting or tour stories as I am sure some of my younger subscribers could benefit from your wisdom and will be inspired.

Thanks again for looking at the site and I would love to hear from you,

Dean

http://www.cyclecommunity.co.uk

Connecting cyclists, everywhere!

diy

In terms of getting the oxygen rich blood round your body to feed your muscles you are about 20% down at max performance assuming you are tip top condition.

I was pretty fit in my 20s, but my resting heart rate is lower now that in was then (now 41). sits resting around 40bpm if I haven't had any coffee, was about 45bpm back then. wont go above 175~bpm now, but I used to get it over 195~ in my 20s.

see: http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm

but my max heart rate is about 30bpm down, which is quite a bit in performance terms.

wheezee

I was middle-aged and not at all well when I started. Sometimes, I consider myself fortunate that I didn't cycle in my twenties and thirties, because I've only ever seen improvement in my abilities.

TBH, at this rate I see no reason why I shouldn't be turning pro sometime in the next 15 to 20 years.

mamba80

Strangly, when i raced in my 20s i thought it was £xx$ing hard work and now in my 40s i still think its hard work
i believe that in amateur racing - at cat 2/3/4 level, for most guys it is a hobby and therefore they are not performing at their peak - so if you are older, you have to be more focused, train harder (and better) and be more prepared to suffer - trouble is, as you get older, so the motivation to do all this gets harder but hey look at Malcom Elliot? winning national std races into his late 40s against pro racers in their 20s.

Melter

diy wrote:

In terms of getting the oxygen rich blood round your body to feed your muscles you are about 20% down at max performance assuming you are tip top condition.

I was pretty fit in my 20s, but my resting heart rate is lower now that in was then (now 41). sits resting around 40bpm if I haven't had any coffee, was about 45bpm back then. wont go above 175~bpm now, but I used to get it over 195~ in my 20s.

see: http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm

but my max heart rate is about 30bpm down, which is quite a bit in performance terms.

This is interesting to me, I spend a lot of my time watching my heart rate while running and cycling and - with running especially - I train to certain heart rates most of the time.
When I cycled in my 20s I too could have my pulse in the high 190s and now will top out 173 (I'm 48). My resting pulse is mid 40s however which is a lot lower than when I was in my twenties (I put that down to doing a lot of endurance type training in recent times).

And I wonder whether the difference between topping out at 173, and topping out at 200 25 years ago, is a linear decline in top end performance - or whether being "fitter" now with a lower top end HR is not actually as restricting as it appears at first.
Would an extra 27 bpms allow me a 14% increase in "fitness" and the climbing prowess of my youth?

*NB: 173 bpms feels like the end of the world, I wouldn't like to know what I would feel like at 200 now :shock:

I somehow think that if I was suddenly gifted the ability to get to 200 bpm again, I would be out performing my younger self at 200 bpms (if you get my convoluted meaning)

diy

Melter wrote:

*NB: 173 bpms feels like the end of the world, I wouldn't like to know what I would feel like at 200 now :shock:

One of two scenarios I guess:
1. waking up in hospital with burns on your chest and a pain in the leg
2. you wouldn't need to worry about it.

bobinski

This is interesting...

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/

SiCole

There is hope for all over 45's if a 100 year old can do an hour in the velodrome........

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/1 ... ark-33217/