Cycling UK Forum

How easy is it to overdo things? Very easy indeed.

The bit that I’m still mystified about is what constitutes “overdoing it”?

I fully understand that that depends heavily on the individual, but I think we’ve seen from the information linked to that once one goes beyond the NICE guidelines (150 minutes per week “moderate”, which seems to translate into steady cycling on the flat, or 75 minutes per week “vigorous”, which seems to translate into “fast or uphill”) then the rate of return in terms of physical benefit quite quickly flattens, then at some point turns negative.

So, where does it turn negative for “typical” people at different ages?

Apologies if I should already know this from what’s been said/shown already!

After a dose of viral laryngitis a couple of weeks ago, my body's been unequivocal about letting me know when I've been overdoing it. The kilos of food (10 kilo trays & 25 kilo bags) I used to throw about with fairly gay abandon at the food share project leave me sweating, heart thudding and feeling weak, as does attempting the short sharp hill up to my home... phew! I hope to get back to normal soonish.

Nearholmer wrote: ↑13 Apr 2023, 4:22pm The bit that I’m still mystified about is what constitutes “overdoing it”?

I fully understand that that depends heavily on the individual, but I think we’ve seen from the information linked to that once one goes beyond the NICE guidelines (150 minutes per week “moderate”, which seems to translate into steady cycling on the flat, or 75 minutes per week “vigorous”, which seems to translate into “fast or uphill”) then the rate of return in terms of physical benefit quite quickly flattens, then at some point turns negative.

So, where does it turn negative for “typical” people at different ages?

I guess my 15-18 hours a week on the bike plus @ 3-4 hours of walking exceeds the NICE guidelines

foxyrider wrote: ↑13 Apr 2023, 7:22pm

Nearholmer wrote: ↑13 Apr 2023, 4:22pm The bit that I’m still mystified about is what constitutes “overdoing it”?

I fully understand that that depends heavily on the individual, but I think we’ve seen from the information linked to that once one goes beyond the NICE guidelines (150 minutes per week “moderate”, which seems to translate into steady cycling on the flat, or 75 minutes per week “vigorous”, which seems to translate into “fast or uphill”) then the rate of return in terms of physical benefit quite quickly flattens, then at some point turns negative.

So, where does it turn negative for “typical” people at different ages?

I guess my 15-18 hours a week on the bike plus @ 3-4 hours of walking exceeds the NICE guidelines

Yep- my Fitbit says I did 213 minutes on Saturday and I didn’t do that much (a decent length dog walk and a session at the gym), it has some sort of system to equalise your minutes to zone minutes (which must be moderate minutes) but overall I’m pretty sure that most of us here massively exceed it. I’ve only done a short dog walk today and got to 23 minutes (presumably that’s moderate), I might take him out again now, at least it will get me over my 10000 steps. The dog and the Fitbit spend lots of time congratulating me/showing me approval for my efforts.

foxyrider wrote: ↑13 Apr 2023, 7:22pm

Nearholmer wrote: ↑13 Apr 2023, 4:22pm The bit that I’m still mystified about is what constitutes “overdoing it”?

I fully understand that that depends heavily on the individual, but I think we’ve seen from the information linked to that once one goes beyond the NICE guidelines (150 minutes per week “moderate”, which seems to translate into steady cycling on the flat, or 75 minutes per week “vigorous”, which seems to translate into “fast or uphill”) then the rate of return in terms of physical benefit quite quickly flattens, then at some point turns negative.

So, where does it turn negative for “typical” people at different ages?

I guess my 15-18 hours a week on the bike plus @ 3-4 hours of walking exceeds the NICE guidelines

Which NICE guideline has a recommended upper limit for time spent exercising?

Thanks

Jonathan

None that I have seen, which is why I’m asking.

The premise of this thread is that it is possible to “overdo it”, and there seemed to be some suggestion back up thread that more than “a certain number” of Met.hours per week caused a negative affect on wellbeing.

I guess we all know that bashing away at too high a rate for too long leaves one feeling depleted the next day, but it’s more the point where long term dis-benefit kicks-in that I’m fishing for.

TBH, there isn’t any chance I’m anywhere close to it, so this is more out of curiosity than anything else.

You can granularise it as much as you like, but take away your smart watch gizmos and arcane methods of calculating relative intensity and duration of exercise equivalents and for the vast majority of cases, you will do just as well to listen to your body, particularly as you get older.
The spirit might be willing but the flesh is decidedly weak, and will tell you in no uncertain terms if you're doing too much. So the simple answer for most people to how easy is it to overdo things is probably, Not Very. There are the driven and the obsessed who get hooked on exercise and those who might have an underlying undiagnosed condition but these are not the vast majority. You might find a greater concentration of the former on a cycling forum, which could skew the numbers a bit and give the impression that overdoing things is widespread. Vanishingly rare in reality, I should think.

Nearholmer wrote: ↑13 Apr 2023, 4:22pmNICE guidelines (150 minutes per week “moderate”, which seems to translate into steady cycling on the flat, or 75 minutes per week “vigorous”, which seems to translate into “fast or uphill”)

As far as I can tell the NHS/NICE guidelines are just a crib of the ACSM Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription.

The ACSM define:
Light intensity as <3METs
Moderate as 3-6 METs, and
Vigorous as >=6METs

For cycling, 6 METs is about 10mph on the level.

Their exercise recommendation is 500-1000METmins/wk, which is 75-150mins @6.7METs (about 11mph).
150 min of moderate execise would put you at about the middle of their recommended range.

a.twiddler wrote: ↑13 Apr 2023, 9:29pmyou will do just as well to listen to your body....The spirit might be willing but the flesh is decidedly weak, and will tell you in no uncertain terms if you're doing too much.

Nope. The symptoms of overtraining can be deceptively counterintuitive, which is how people can cen get sucked into doing it like I was. Like ending a 100 mile ride faster and less tired than at the start. Flying effortlessly up the stairs four at a time when you get home, and having a complete absence of any sense of fatigue, with the feeling that you could cycle forever the day after. The sense of effortless power is a complete illusion though, an empty feeling with nothing to back it up. In 2009 I did ~800 hours of exercise (about 6000m of cycling and 1000m of walking), and yet my aerobic fitness level was on the 10th decile: the level of a couch potato. When you see your performance declining it then motivates you to train longer and harder.

a.twiddler wrote: ↑13 Apr 2023, 9:29pm Vanishingly rare in reality, I should think.

I've lost count of the number of people I've seen coming on forums like this describing symptoms I recognise, and getting told to exercise more just like I was. I've tried speaking up, but I just get ignored, so I usually bite my tongue now. I got away with it for 30 years, but the chickens came home to roost eventually, and now my health is ruined.

I remain curious about what might be called “sensible upper limit”, because even nowadays some people must be putting in far more than the NICE/ACSM guidance through their daily work.

Post-persons and bin-persons for sure must be. Landscape maintenance staff, definitely. Even the people who deliver Amazon parcels probably are, because they make maybe ten short dashes from cab to front door and back in an hour, and work long shifts. Window cleaners.

Back in the days of a lot of hard physical work, some people “worked themselves to death”, and for a variety of reasons the median age at death was a lot lower than it is now, but is there any information to suggest that any of the workers I just mentioned are burning themselves out?

Nearholmer wrote: ↑14 Apr 2023, 7:29am I remain curious about what might be called “sensible upper limit”, because even nowadays some people must be putting in far more than the NICE/ACSM guidance through their daily work.

Post-persons and bin-persons for sure must be. Landscape maintenance staff, definitely. Even the people who deliver Amazon parcels probably are, because they make maybe ten short dashes from cab to front door and back in an hour, and work long shifts. Window cleaners.

Back in the days of a lot of hard physical work, some people “worked themselves to death”, and for a variety of reasons the median age at death was a lot lower than it is now, but is there any information to suggest that any of the workers I just mentioned are burning themselves out?

There's a systematic review which suggests that occupational physical activity has different effects from leisure time physical activity:

"Do highly physically active workers die early? A systematic review with meta-analysis of data from 193 696 participants":
Coenen et al (2018)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098540

Jonathan

Nearholmer wrote: ↑14 Apr 2023, 7:29am I remain curious about what might be called “sensible upper limit”, because even nowadays some people must be putting in far more than the NICE/ACSM guidance through their daily work.

Looking at the charts listing METs for an activity it would seem that a 3.5 hour mix of washing dishes and sitting fishing would give me the required 500 METs / week. But would that have the same cardio benefits as 1.5 hours of brisk walking which is also 500 MET's

*Edited I notice the ACSM guidance was for moderate activities

I wonder if a better question would be how long does my body need to recover from the stress induced by recent exercise (along with any other stress factors in my life). Heart rate variability trends may be a possible indicator for how well you're recovering.

My thanks to those that have and are contributing to the thread.

Some might recall it already but it’s worth reminding folk that the thread tittle, and maybe the original post too, got changed by the moderation team; at the time some folk felt that my comment and tittle were too hard hitting. IMHO it’s a shame that others could not accommodate ‘bald’ comment but that’s life … Never mind, the thread’s still interesting and I hope that it prompts useful thought and actions - which, anyway, was the intent of my original post. My suspicion with exercise is that damaged caused by excessive exercise is in at least two different forms: one form causing repeated low level damage (with much but not always total recovery) and another form causing total overload from which recovery is either slow or cannot happen.

May we all enjoy our cycling. May we also be aware that it’s surprisingly easy to inadvertently ‘blow a fuse’ and maybe a big one from which there is but poor or even no recovery . As they say: ‘stuff happens’.

Jdsk wrote: ↑14 Apr 2023, 7:57am

Nearholmer wrote: ↑14 Apr 2023, 7:29am I remain curious about what might be called “sensible upper limit”, because even nowadays some people must be putting in far more than the NICE/ACSM guidance through their daily work.

Post-persons and bin-persons for sure must be. Landscape maintenance staff, definitely. Even the people who deliver Amazon parcels probably are, because they make maybe ten short dashes from cab to front door and back in an hour, and work long shifts. Window cleaners.

Back in the days of a lot of hard physical work, some people “worked themselves to death”, and for a variety of reasons the median age at death was a lot lower than it is now, but is there any information to suggest that any of the workers I just mentioned are burning themselves out?

There's a systematic review which suggests that occupational physical activity has different effects from leisure time physical activity:

"Do highly physically active workers die early? A systematic review with meta-analysis of data from 193 696 participants":
Coenen et al (2018)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098540

Jonathan

You have to be careful you're comparing apples with apples. I've not looked at the article you've posted but many I've seen haven't taken into account the other lifestyle choices people who do physical work make. For example smoking and drinking. I'm from an industrial area and a huge percentage of manual workers smoke and drink well over the recommended guidelines. We live in the South now but cycle past any building site at break time these days and all you can smell is cannabis.

Regarding 'overdoing things' it's very easy to do. I've cycled with several ex-pros and all have said the average club rider pushes themselves at a far higher percentage of the time than pros do. This is also noted in the book "The mid-life cyclist". I have several friends who will do a 100 mile club ride at an average speed of 18-19 mph with 4-5000 ft of climbing on a Saturday then do a hard 65 mile ride on Sunday morning. On Sunday morning I see my Heart Rate Variability plummet after a hard Saturday club ride so I rest.

Had a read of the article, and the authors do indeed conclude that, despite efforts to account for as many as feasible, confounding factors associated with the socio-economic groups most likely to be involved in physically demanding work may be at play, smoking, diet etc. They suggest other possible causes too though, not just this one.

Having pondered it a bit further though, I do think that there might be a difference between “work exercise” and “leisure exercise”, in that the former tends to be unremitting, often semi-repetitious, and often at all sorts of hours of the day, and if outdoors then in all sorts of weather. People cog on with back pain until it completely puts them out of action, likewise other I troubles. Only the most obsessive leisure exerciser would put themselves through the same.