Am I Doing Enough?

[jqdsffjdsoge]

OK, so I'm 48 and although not yet ready for the big cycle lane in the sky (I hope!), it's a fact that I can see death peeking its head over the top of the horizon ahead of me.

I cycle to work every day. 10.4 miles there, 10.2 miles back, five days a week. 103 miles a week, average speed 15.5 mph. My resting heartbeat is 48, and my average during these commute runs is around 130 bpm.

Basically.. is this enough?

I don't do any upper body work, and the result is that my moobs and still world class, and I have a bit of a stomach.

What can I do to get rid of that? Eating less doesn't seem to work for me, as when I get home after a commute, I'm so starved that I descend on the Costcutter under our flat like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse ...

[Mark1978]

OK, so I'm 48 and although not yet ready for the big cycle lane in the sky (I hope!), it's a fact that I can see death peeking its head over the top of the horizon ahead of me.

I cycle to work every day. 10.4 miles there, 10.2 miles back, five days a week. 103 miles a week, average speed 15.5 mph. My resting heartbeat is 48, and my average during these commute runs is around 130 bpm.

Basically.. is this enough?

Enough for what? To do the Tour de France? No. To just maintain a general level of good fitness, god yes. You're doing way better than most people in their 20's. In any case 48 ain't exactly old.

I don't do any upper body work, and the result is that my moobs and still world class, and I have a bit of a stomach.

What can I do to get rid of that? Eating less doesn't seem to work for me, as when I get home after a commute, I'm so starved that I descend on the Costcutter under our flat like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse ...

Calories in ; Calories out, you can't escape the simple maths of it.

[jqdsffjdsoge]

OK, so I'm 48 and although not yet ready for the big cycle lane in the sky (I hope!), it's a fact that I can see death peeking its head over the top of the horizon ahead of me.

I cycle to work every day. 10.4 miles there, 10.2 miles back, five days a week. 103 miles a week, average speed 15.5 mph. My resting heartbeat is 48, and my average during these commute runs is around 130 bpm.

Basically.. is this enough?

Enough for what? To do the Tour de France? No. To just maintain a general level of good fitness, god yes. You're doing way better than most people in their 20's. In any case 48 ain't exactly old.

Problem is, I'm still 18 in my mind.

[maxcherry]

If you want to maintain the way you are, then yes. If you want to change, the way you are, then change what you are putting into your mouth and also mixup what you do to exercise

[beardy]

Calories in ; Calories out, you can't escape the simple maths of it.

No but you can understand and influence both. Often people are not aware where most of the calories are coming from and eating differently may be as good as eating less.

For calories out, I fear your body may have adapted itself very well to your commute and it will not lose weight on that alone. It possibly isnt long enough duration to really get the calorie fires burning.

Personally, I think any further weight loss will be more for your athletic ability, looks and self esteem than for your health, which is probably fine. (excellent by modern standards ).

[Vorpal]

Only you can decide for yourself if you are doing enough.

Personally I'd rather be happy in my slightly overweight, but reasonably fit 48 year old body than to devote my time and appetite to losing a bit of weight.

I would recommend doing *something* else than cycling, maybe yoga or pilates once a week for flexibility and stretching, especially if you sit at a desk at work.

[beardy]

Personally I'd rather be happy in my slightly overweight, but reasonably fit 48 year old body than to devote my time and appetite to losing a bit of weight.

You forget how vain we men are, unfortunately our gluttony and weak will (especially for beer) is even greater.

[axel_knutt]

How much physical activity is enough?

It is apparent that physical activity is essential in the prevention of chronic disease and premature death. However, doubt remains over the optimal “volume” (frequency, duration and intensity of exercise) and the minimum volume for health benefits, in particular the effects of intensity (e.g., moderate v. vigorous) on health status. There is evidence that intensity of physical activity is inversely and linearly associated with mortality. Early work by Paffenbarger and associates revealed that regular physical activity (expending > 2000 kcal [8400 kJ] per week) was associated with an average increase in life expectancy of 1 to 2 years by the age of 80 and that the benefits were linear even at lower levels of energy expenditure. Subsequent studies have shown that an average energy expenditure of about 1000 kcal (4200 kJ) per week is associated with a 20%–30% reduction in all-cause mortality. Currently, most health and fitness organizations and professionals advocate a minimum volume of exercise that expends 1000 kcal (4200 kJ) per week and acknowledge the added benefits of higher energy expenditures. Recently, investigators have postulated that even lower levels of weekly energy expenditure may be associated with health benefits. A volume of exercise that is about half of what is currently recommended may be sufficient, particularly for people who are extremely deconditioned or are frail and elderly. Future research is required to determine whether expending as little as 500 kcal (2100 kJ) per week offers health benefits. If so, then previously sedentary people may be more likely to engage in physical activity and maintain an active lifestyle. The dose–response relation between physical activity and health status outlined above generally relates to cardiovascular disease and premature death from any cause. However, the same may hold true for other activity-associated health benefits. For instance, as mentioned earlier, moderately intense levels of exercise (5.5 METs for at least 40 minutes per week) and of cardiovascular fitness (> 31 mL oxygen per kilogram per minute) are effective preventive strategies against type 2 diabetes. In patients with type 2 diabetes, walking more than 2 hours per week has also been shown to reduce the risk of premature death. With respect to cancer, a review of the literature revealed that moderate physical activity (> 4.5 METs) for about 30–60 minutes per day had a greater protective effect against colon and breast cancer than activities of low intensity. The greatest benefit for reducing the incidence of breast cancer was observed among women who engaged in 7 or more hours of moderate-to-vigorous activity per week. Among patients with established cancer, physical activity equivalent to walking 1 or more hours per week was associated with improved survival compared with no exercise. The greatest benefit was observed among cancer survivors who performed exercise equivalent to 3–5 hours per week at an average pace. With respect to osteoporosis, the dose–response relation of physical activity is less clear. However, osteogenic adaptations appear to be load-dependent and site-specific. Accordingly, physical activities that require impact or significant loading are therefore advocated for optimal bone health. Running distances of up to 15–20 miles (24–32 km) per week has been associated with the accrual or maintenance of bone mineral density, but longer distances may be associated with reduced bone mineral density.

Warburton et al:
Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence
CMAJ 2006;174(6):801-9
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/174/6/801.full.pdf+htmlt

More recent studies are showing a law of diminishing returns:

Compared with those who reported no moderate to vigorous physical avtivity (crude death rate, 8.34%), the adjusted hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.61-0.71; crude death rate, 4.81%), 0.53 (95% CI, 0.48-0.57; crude death rate, 3.17%), and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.43-0.49; crude death rate, 2.64%) for reporting 10 through 149, 150 through 299, and 300 min/wk or more of activity, respectively.

2015 Gebel et al:
Effect of Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity on All-Cause Mortality in Middle-aged and Older Australians.
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Apr 6. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0541.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25844882

Compared with individuals reporting no leisure time physical activity, we observed a 20% lower mortality risk among those performing less than the recommended minimum of 7.5 metabolic-equivalent hours per week (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.78-0.82]), a 31% lower risk at 1 to 2 times the recommended minimum (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.67-0.70]), and a 37% lower risk at 2 to 3 times the minimum (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.62-0.65]). An upper threshold for mortality benefit occurred at 3 to 5 times the physical activity recommendation (HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.59-0.62]); however, compared with the recommended minimum, the additional benefit was modest (31% vs 39%).

Arem et al:
Leisure Time Physical Activity and Mortality: A Detailed Pooled Analysis of the Dose-Response Relationship.
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Apr 6. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0533.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25844730

[gerrymcm]

Maybe you need to "shake up" you commute either by changing intensity or distance.
What about introducing some HIT into your commute? In simple terms, go ALL out for 1 mins then coast for a few mins then ALL out again for 1 min repeat at much as possible and is SAFE to do so.
OR
add a much longer ride either on the way in and way home.

goog luck

[maxcherry]

Remember that not all calories are equal.

[RiffmasterII]

OK, so I'm 48 and although not yet ready for the big cycle lane in the sky (I hope!), it's a fact that I can see death peeking its head over the top of the horizon ahead of me.

I cycle to work every day. 10.4 miles there, 10.2 miles back, five days a week. 103 miles a week, average speed 15.5 mph. My resting heartbeat is 48, and my average during these commute runs is around 130 bpm.

Basically.. is this enough?

I don't do any upper body work, and the result is that my moobs and still world class, and I have a bit of a stomach.

What can I do to get rid of that? Eating less doesn't seem to work for me, as when I get home after a commute, I'm so starved that I descend on the Costcutter under our flat like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse ...

If you want to get rid of moobs and gut then you need to do some weight training and cut out any rubbish foods that you're eating

[MikeF]

Cycling is good exercise, but it's not a weight bearing exercise. Perhaps cycling out of the saddle is weight bearing??

[Tangled Metal]

IIRC current recommendations for health is 5 sessions of moderate activity per week plus one resistance based exercise per week lasting I think either half or a full hour. I think it is half hour x 5 for higher intensity or one hour x 5 for moderate intensity. Moderate intensity is classed as brisk walk, cycling on the flat at an easy pace, etc. The higher intensity is walking quickly (so you are almost out of breath), jogging slowly, cycling on routes that include hills, undulating routes or at a higher intensity level.

The above is basically what I remember of current guide lines for maintaining health. It is not about getting fitter or losing weight but about a healthy life (if you eat well too). I am guessing you exceed this so in terms of government health guidelines you are doing well.

However,if you are like me at a measly 42 years, you are probably wanting to feel fast, find steeper hills easier or at least ride like you should be wearing tight lycra (i.e. not drawing the MAMIL tag line whenever you get off the bike). In this case you probably have plateaued out and need a change to the routine. I once read than the body gets accustomed to a level of exercise. So if you are doing the same things for a length of time that activity is no longer doing as much for your aims. AS mentioned HIIT might help, certainly I would try sprinting between lamposts or cycling hard for a distance or time then ease off then repeat. In running they used to call it fartlek which is Swedish for speedplay (an old orienteering training thing when I used to do that).

IMHO 15mph is not to shabby, and moobs may well be your natural physique at your age and above. If this is the only level you reach then it is a good level.

I once heard that leg weight exercises are helpful in losing your belly. Obviously with the proviso you are eating well. Most people do the high count of stomach crunches, situps, plank, etc thinking that reduces the midrift but the big thing is leg muscles as the larger muscles, working then does more. In my younger days (about 30) I was able to do 500 inclined bench stomach curls (harder than situps) in one go. I never had a six pack despite this. I got the 6 pack after I switched to fewer core exercises but more of the plank type of static core exercises combined with upper and lower body resistance. I upped my leg press to 525 pounds and somehow got a near 6 pack. I also upped my CV and lowered my resistance exercises for strength (lower weight, higher reps) and switched to more functional exercises. I was doing a mix of climbing, scrambling,walking and whitewater kayaking back then so I was doing a lot with the freedom machine at my gym (this is meant for disabled users to be able to do resistance but also good for very wide range of exrecises working precise muscle groups or a wider range. I had the moveable arms and cables set up so I could pull and push with opposing arms just like a kayaking stroke, while working the core as well. Kayaking gets the power from the core not the arms BTW so that exercise was painful around the core. I did it on a gym ball to add instability which means the stability/deep core muscles were working hard. Then I would change the settings to do the same exercise to the opposite way for balance.

Anyway I digress a lot. My advice is to do resistance work and preferably also balance/flexibility exercises too. If you have weights at home consider doing them whilst sat on a gym or Swiss ball. You can even lift one foot off the ground for added instability but perhaps not best. The idea is you are unstable which means that whilst exercising your core muscles are working deeply to keep you stable. Micro-movements or something. Whatever you do I would make sure you carry out resistance over the whole body. The problem with only one activity I think is it works certain muscles more. This means strong areas and weaknesses that can cause instability and damage later on in life. You may have very strong calf and thigh muscles but if your upper arm/body is weak then since it is all interconnected you may develop issues. I got a painful back because of the tight band on the outside of the knee/thigh was pulling my knee cap out of the groove and also causing instability at the ankle. Or something like that according to the NHS physio I got referred to.