|
|
CYCLING PERFORMANCE TIPS |
|
|
|
CYCLING PERFORMANCE TIPS |
|
This study compared elite runners to cyclists. Even though the cyclists included weight lifting in their off season training, it did not compensate for the lack of a "jarring" activity. The result? The cyclists, as a group, all had thinner bones than the runners, and more than half of them met medical criteria for low bone mineral density in some portion of their skeleton.
So if you do not regularly cross train, consider adding regular bone-stressing activities to your weekly routine:
As to diet, this blog suggests drinking an extra glass of milk a day isn't the answer and a better strategy might be an increase in the non dairy, high calcium foods in your diet.
One study of men, 60 to 72, training with standard muscle resistance exercises, demonstrated strength improvement equal to young adults. Another revealed that a group of 70 year olds who had regularly trained from age 50, had a muscle mass (cross sectional area) equivalent to a group of 28 year old students.
I thought this NYT article was a nice summary of options and strategies. It shows you can turn things around within 3 months on a 3 times per week resistance training program that includes adequate dietary protein.
Proper technique is critical to getting the desired results without incurring an injury. And you should use your perceived level of exertion to determine the amount of resistance to use. Do 2 reps. Judge your effort. It should be "somewhat hard". (More on using a "feeling scale" to set resistance training levels.) Do 8 to 12 reps at this level of exertion - which should bring you to the point at which you would normally stop from fatigue.
And don't forget to review you daily protein intake as your muscles need adequate protein to respond to the resistance training. We know that older people absorb protein less effectively, so you will need at least 0.54 grams of protein per pound of ideal body weight, an amount well above what older people typically consume.
There is a third factor that has been speculated to be playing a role in the weakness of aging, a decrease in the contractile force each muscle fiber can develop.
This study compared the force of individual muscle cell contraction across 3 groups - 80 year old master athletes, a cohort of sedentary peers (also 80 y/o), and a third group of 23 year olds. Although it has been speculated that the regular training of master athletes blunts aging's effects on individual muscle cell performance, the data showed otherwise. "... when contractile force was normalized to cross sectional area ...both older (masters aged) groups did not differ, and the MA (masters) and NA (sedentary) were both approximately 45% weaker compared with younger volunteers."
So how can regular exercise blunt this inexorable decrease in individual muscle cell function?
Regular exercise minimizes the expected loss of "motor units" (MU), the basic contractile unit in an intact muscle, with aging. The motor unit is a single motor neuron and the several muscle fibers that respond when it is "fired". A single neuron can innervate several muscle cells, so a motor unit is not necessarily limited to a single nerve/muscle fiber but can be a single nerve/multiple cell unit.
This 2010 study revealed that the number of functioning motor units in the tibialis anterior of masters runners (approximately 65 y/o) was comparable to the values in recreationally active young volunteers (approximately 25 y/o), and significantly greater than healthy age-matched controls (approximately 65 y/o). "The estimated number of MU did not differ between masters runners and young, but MU number estimates were lower in the older sedentary group (91 +/- 22 MU) compared with the masters runners (140 +/- 53 MU) and young (150 +/- 43 MU)."
It confirmed that a ".....greater preservation of the number of motor units rather than individual contractile muscle cell function may be the reason for the Master Athlete's exceptional athletic performance. Additionally, fewer denervated muscle fibers (thus, a greater maintenance of muscle fiber number) and the ability of the MA (master athletes) to activate their muscle to a greater extent than NA (non-athletes) may influence EC-coupling and Ca2+ kinetics ..."
Although the impact of aging on individual cells cannot be stopped, regular exercise provides us a tool to compensate by both maintaining more active muscle motor units and maximizing the size of individual muscle cells. So keep up those intervals and that weight work at the gym.
If you are worried about dementia (another disease more common with aging), regular exercise decreases the risk. This blog post from Dr. Mirkin provides details as well as references. A few excerpts:
As summarized by Dr. Mirkin "T-cells recognize foreign proteins on the surface of invading germs and cancers and engage the immune system ....to make antibodies to attach to and kill invading germs and cancer cells. Chemicals called cytokines activate T-cells to remove germs and cancer cells from your body."
He speculates that the weakening of the aging immune system is related to a reduction in thymic activity and the production of T cells, an effect that is blunted in regular cyclists."
The reasons behind the decreases in performance are a combination of 2 factors:
This graph (from The Journal of Applied Physiology) supports both the
"You can slow the loss of muscle fibers with aging, and can enlarge the remaining muscle fibers, by regular resistance exercise, but you cannot replace fibers once they are lost. In one study, older men gained more muscle strength by spending more time (more reps) lifting lighter weights, whereas younger men gained more muscle strength by lifting heavier weights through fewer reps. In younger men, doubling exercise volume (reps x weight per rep) by spending more time lifting weights produced limited added muscle enlargement. In older men, it resulted in much larger muscles and far more strength."
Regular training, stressing the CV and muscular systems will blunt the performance effects of aging and help keep you ahead of your peers.
Even though we have overwhelming data to support the longevity benefits of exercise, a recent study suggested that no more than 20% (and more likely less than 10%) of adults in the US exercise enough to have a measurable impact on their health and fitness levels.
A dedicated training program effect is so effective that the aging process may be held at bay for up to a decade or more. For any specific age grouping, regular riders are 150% less like to die from all causes than their more sedentary peers.
Why is exercise so effective in blunting the effects of aging? Here are multiple possibilities.
To quote from a NYT comment on the paper. Scientists ... "decided ....to complete a full census of almost every molecule that (might) change when we work out. Study participants were "asked ....to complete a standard treadmill endurance test, running at an increasing intensity until exhaustion, usually after about nine or 10 minutes of exercise." Blood was drawn at time 0, immediately after this exertion, and again 15, 30 and 60 minutes later.
The scientists "...measured the levels of 17,662 different molecules. Of these, (the concentrations of) 9,815 - or more than half - changed after exercise, compared to their levels before the workout. Some increased. Others declined. Some gushed immediately after the exercise, then fell away, while others lingered in heightened or lowered amounts for an hour after the workout. The types of molecules ....ranged widely, with some involved in fueling and metabolism, others in immune response, tissue repair or appetite."
The explanation of positive health effects is almost certainly buried in this collection of 9815 organic molecules.
This process of aging is common to all cells, thus any strategy that delays (or better yet, reverses) the telomere shortening process will extend cell life. This study suggests that aerobic training does just that.
A recent study suggests that aerobic exercise may not only delay telomere shortening, but reverse it!! A real fountain of youth! The study began with 124 non exercisers who were randomized to 4 groups.
To quote: "Researchers ....discovered that an enzyme called SIRT3 that is located inside mitochondria may protect mice brains from loss of their energy supply (Cell Metabolism, November 19, 2015). Normal mice who ran on a spinning wheel increased their levels of SIRT3 in nerve cells, maintained brain function with aging ..... A special group of mice that were genetically engineered to be unable to produce SIRT3 gained no benefit from running on a spinning wheel..... This implies that SIRT3 strengthens brains and that blocking SIRT3 prevents exercise from benefiting brain function."
This paper reviewed a number of studies correlating "steps per day" with a positive health outcome. There was (image/graph a break point (diminishing returns/better health) as steps increased beyond 6000 - 8000 a day. To quote: "...a progressively decreasing risk of mortality among adults aged 60 years and older with increasing number of steps per day until 6000 - 8000 steps per day and among adults younger than 60 years until 8000 - 10 000 steps per day." According to the author (quoted in the NYT article): 7000 - 8000 steps a day translates to approximately 150 minutes a week.
Protein needs of older athletes increases with age. The US Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for protein intake is 0.8 g/kg/day for adults. This may be on the low side for an athlete and was likely developed from nitrogen-balance studies in the "average" young adult. And it is probably too low for older adults who are less efficient in their protein digestion and absorption. It has been speculated that too little dietary protein with a resulting relative protein deficiency, may be an aggravating factor in the loss of muscle mass that accompanies aging.
Taking both aging and activity level into account, this international panel of experts recommended protein intakes of 1.0 - 1.2 g/kg/day for adults 65 years or older, with even higher intakes for those who are more physically active. So for all of us who are riding regularly - even if just with friends on the weekend - it is important to keep an eye on the protein content of our diets.
I have never been a fan of the over response of the paleo diets as the excess red meat protein comes packaged with a significant amount of undesirable fat. There are plenty of non meat sources of protein to add to your diet.
As we age there is also less latitude to skipping a pre-event carbohydrate meal along with an increased sensitivity to major fluid shifts from sweating and inadequate replacement. But aside from these two caveats and a slightly higher daily protein requirement, the general principles of nutrition are exactly the same for all age groups - including vitamin, mineral, and electrolyte replacement as well as the use of ergogenic aids such as diet supplements and unusual food products.
This article is jargon heavy, but suggests using an RPE type scale (called the FS or "feeling scale") is the best intensity guide for resistance and aerobic training. A regular exercise program involves discomfort. Too much discomfort and commitment can quickly wanes. And this is more of a risk as you age.
For aerobic exercise we have the RPE scale based the perception of how hard we "feel" we are exerting. It correlates well with the objective measures of heart rate or power meter readings. And the study validated using a similar Feeling Scale (FS) (originally described as spanning -5 (I feel very bad) to +5 (I feel very good) with 0 being neutral) to self-regulate exercise intensity.
For resistance exercise, it has been suggested that we aim for an intensity (weight stress) of between 55% and 85% of our personal 1 repetition maximum (1RM). How does that translate into a FS rating for resistance exercise? Using a group of non exercisers, exerting to a level between feeling "good" (+3) to "fairly bad" (-1) matched up with resistance intensity between 55% to 85% of the 1RM.
For aerobic training, the same general relationship applies. An inensity between "good" (+3) and/or "fairly good" (+1) led to cardiovascular improvement.
This table shows the relationship between a traditional 10 point RPE scale and how you feel (although not the specific FS number scale referred to above).
Generally, we assume that taking some time off from aerobic activity, and the resulting impact on our metabolism is reversible when we get back to the gym or on the bike. This study suggests it's not so, especially for older adults.
So the old adage "use it or lose it" takes on a new level of significance for older adults in that once they lose it, it may be gone forever no matter what they do. So on that business trip, or family vacation, it is worth taking the time for a 30 to 60 minute daily walk or other activity that will boost your heart rate.
Original NYT article.
These strategies were reinforced in a recent Outside blog article, "Age is irrelevant when it comes to fitness." Several quotes I enjoyed:
But even if you slacked off on those intervals, just keeping to a routine which includes regular aerobic activity will pay off with huge anti-aging dividends. How big? This recently published study provides some insight.
A.If you don't stress the CV system, you will lose aerobic capacity over time. But you can minimize that loss by regular riding - and by pushing yourself. I would consider doing intervals once or twice a week as one part of a program (if you are not now). And that means getting your heart rate up into Zone 4 for you. As to the knees, make sure you have a good fit on the bike, pedals (if you have clips) with good play (like frogs/speedplay), and then keep that RPM between 90 and 100. Don't lug on the hills, or spin too fast - it plays havoc with the knees.
Q. I am 69 years old, female. I ride about 130 miles a week and am
working on interval training and sprinting to get stronger and faster. I ride
a minimum of 20 miles a day. I have osteoarthritis in my back and hands. I don't
take anything for the osteoarthritis and find that cycling is my key to living
with OA and hopefully preventing it from getting worse. Today, I did 4
intervals of 1/2 mile. From a dead start, I was able to ride 18.8 on the 2nd
interval and 18.7 on the 4th. My goal is to ride the 5K and 10K in the
Senior Games in October at 18 mph. On a dead start, I can sprint up to 23 mph
in the first few seconds, but it poops me out quicker and I ride slower, on
the 1/2 mile interval, i.e., 17.7. My question involves maximum heart rate. I
have noticed that my heart rate number is going higher, before I get exhausted,
than a couple of months ago.
A.This question suggested that you may have fallen into a deadly trap in training, the "if a little is good, a lot is better" approach. It is really important to warm up before you do the intervals. If you are not doing so (5 miles or so at a modest pace) you risk injury and, as the CV system is not yet into its rhythm, you won't get maximum benefit from the intervals before feeling fatigued.
I don't see any advantage to a 23 MPH sprint for a few seconds - the whole interval should be at a steady pace you pick. If you can't hold 23 for the full interval, either decrease the interval duration or the speed.
It is really important to take off a few days a week off the bike. I'm not sure what to say about "your MHR going higher" but it is possible this is a sign of overtraining, not ideal training.
And finally, I did get the following question which raises a point I'd like to reemphasize:
Q.It seems your website is mostly designed for much stronger riders than I. Perhaps, you will see the benefit of gearing part of it to someone on my level, although there is a really small percentage of women my age, who have the drive to "push their limits." Presently, I know only one other female with that drive.
A.As to age, if you key your training to your personal max heart rate (less as you age) the general approach to a training program (how you divide up the rides during a week)should be age independent.
