ambodach wrote:Chronological age has little to do with how you cycle really. You may cycle more after retirement and thus be fitter than before. Luck has more to do with what you do. We cannot necessarily control the functions of our body machinery and some wear out faster than others so just try to keep healthy tho’ fate is sometimes against us.
Age has an awful to do with how we cycle. Otherwise the average 90 year old would be as able as the average 30 something. Of course, we are all different, but we can be certain, however unpalatable the truth, that age will weary us.
But you are right: try to keep healthy. We might slow the process and meanwhile have more fun.
flat tyre wrote:Certainly my experience is that since having retired 4 years ago at 61, I've got a lot fitter and faster. Cycling mileage has gone up 3x to about 7,500 miles per year and I've lost 2 stone. I think the weight loss has helped cycling performance as I'm much faster up hill than I used to be.
Plus One I still cycle to work through town, I go quite slowly for reasons of safety When I retire I shall cycle in the country and shall doubtless speed up
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120 Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
I dont need to cycle any more miles at 61 .... i just need to lose 18kg .... and i will ..... not having to carry that 18kg of mass up hills will improve my cycling experience immeasurably .. i expect ...
“Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot.”
Be more Mike.
The road goes on forever.
I think a lot depends on whether you have any underlying health issues. I’m 60 and feel as fit as I did at 40. I can easily average 17-18 mph on a club ride and I can do 20-21 mph on the chain gang, though it makes me feel tired for a couple of days.
I have friends who are in their early, mid and late 70’s and some are as fit as me. The ones who struggle are those with heart problems such as atrial fibrillation. I see a definite slowing down in the late 70’s and early 80’s to the extent that they are needing e-bikes to keep up even on gentle club rides.
I met a man on an audax who is 72 and said he has never been or felt fitter. I think being retired and having more time to ride can give you a fitness boost in later life. I’ve only been retired for 3 months and I’m already reeping the benefits.
i turned 49 a few days ago. i honestly still feel the same on the bike as when i was ,say, 25. down to good luck i suppose.
popped into my LBS last weekend. asked after the owner's father who is a well known local cyclist of many years standing. he's still doing an hour on the roads sometimes. still does an hour a day on an indoor bike. he's 94.
In 2004 I rode from Paris to Athens with an organised group, averaging over 100 miles a day. I'd seized the opportunity, thinking that, at the age of 62, I ought to do it before I got too old. I was amazed to find that one of the participants, at 84yo, was old enough to be my father. And he rode every kilometre of the route, some of it quite mountainous.
While you do need to 'use it or lose it', none of us should feel smug. As others have said, luck - and choosing the right parents - are just as important.
Keep pedalling . . . .
Ray The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt - Bertrand Russell
Thankfully not there yet, but some of my friends seem to be slowing up from 70+. Fighting back from a major op, am hoping this isn't the beginning of the slow down for myself.
I stand and rejoice everytime I see a woman ride by on a wheel the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood. HG Wells
Take a leaf out of this guy's book. Age slows one down, eh?
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity. Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments... --- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Audax67 wrote:I find that the best measure of decrepitude is rate of vertical climb (RVC) without luggage. My RVC in 2007, when I was 60, was around 12-13 metres/minute, and I did the Tourmalet at 9 m/min after riding 1000 km. These days I can still occasionally muster 9 m/min when I'm fresh, but 6 - 7.5 is more likely and I don't attack such big hills, either.
Mind you, I had two minor heart attacks in 2016.
I haven't the inclination orthe measuring devices to do what you have recorded but as a 1942 model I am ok on the flat but really slow on the hills.
Audax67 wrote:I find that the best measure of decrepitude is rate of vertical climb (RVC) without luggage. My RVC in 2007, when I was 60, was around 12-13 metres/minute, and I did the Tourmalet at 9 m/min after riding 1000 km. These days I can still occasionally muster 9 m/min when I'm fresh, but 6 - 7.5 is more likely and I don't attack such big hills, either.
Mind you, I had two minor heart attacks in 2016.
sounds like a load of humblebrag, I averaged 6m/min at 42 with 11mph average speed with 1500m of altitude gain over a shortish route (110ft/mile) you're saying you're twice as fast over the same course? I'm not fast for sure going uphill but a decent descender you'd be over 22mph over 600 hilly miles!
Also many descents get nowhere near paying you back for your uphill efforts compared to others that do so if that's based on overall time then that can be massively distorted.
Not bragging at all, I was never a great climber. Luz St. Sauveur > Col du Tourmalet is a climb through 1404 metres, and I managed it in 2h35 minutes. That is just over 9 metres/minute. My speed on the tarmac was 8.2 kph. Plenty were faster than me.
Nowadays I can hit that rate of climb for short distances, but usually I'm much slower; that's all I was saying. No need for the insult.
Cycling Time Trials has a 'Target Times' standard for various distances and ages. For a 10-mile time trial, the target time for a 40-year-old is 25 minutes. For a 60-year-old it's just under 29 minutes, so a reduction of about 12 seconds per year. https://www.cyclingtimetrials.org.uk/documents/download/58
