OT: sport is healthy? wrong!

[LO^OK]

An interesting article (http://weblogs3.nrc.nl/swaab/2009/03/06/fitness-race-to-the-death/) in the Dutch Handelsblad (in English) challenging the prevailing dogma that pursuing sport is healthy. I personally wish there was more scientific data cited but even as it is is good as a thought provocation.

Cycling sadly make no exception with it's effects on bone density and blood vesels. There is an interesting (and tragic) thread on Slowtwitch (http://forum.slowtwitch.com/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/Exercised_Induced_Arterial_Endofibrosis_P2120151/) about avid cyclists stricken by Arterial Endofibrosis.

[1centaur]

Every time I cross the Boston Common on the morning of the Boston Marathon and see the strained/lined/aged faces of experienced marathoners waiting for their ride to the start line I think that too much exercise is not good for you!

[RonW87]

Countervailing view from a source that has applied some, what's that word? Oh yeah: SCIENCE!

From Centers for Disease Control Website:

"Science shows that physical activity can reduce your risk of dying early from the leading causes of death, like heart disease and some cancers. This is remarkable in two ways:

Only a few lifestyle choices have as large an impact on your health as physical activity. People who are physically active for about 7 hours a week have a 40 percent lower risk of dying early than those who are active for less than 30 minutes a week.
You don't have to do high amounts of activity or vigorous-intensity activity to reduce your risk of premature death. You can put yourself at lower risk of dying early by doing at least 150 minutes a week of moderate-intensity aerobic activity"

[rugbysecondrow]

I was going to read the article, but then I read the authors name was "Dick Swaab" and I couldn't keep going. Maybe I am a simple guy, but I am not taking any advice from a dick swaab, period.

[Dekonick]

Well -

How about a last name of seaman?

as in Dr.

I know one...

:beer:

Nice guy BTW...

[gemship]

a guy working at the local lbs. said to me that the pro cyclist get sick often. I believe the truth about cycling, physical activities etc. is like the old saying everything in moderation.

[Ray]

Some thought provoking articles in the last couple of Rivendell Readers by the "caveman" guy who's real into what we evolved to do best (and eat, but that's another whole thread). He used to be a big honcho in the triathlon world but has concluded that that kind of high output endurance exercise is profoundly unhealthy. And he has the connections and science to make a pretty good case. Running and cycling are certainly part of that, if done at any intensity. His whole thing is that our bodies evolved based on LOADS of very low intensity exercise (walking the plains and though the forests all day) punctuated by brief bursts of VERY intense running/climbing/lifting (as in when hunting for prey, trying to avoid being hunted ourselves, lifting and carrying prey back to the camp, etc). And that we're just not set up for working at 80-85% of max heartrate for hours at a time like hard core endurance runners and cyclists do. We're adaptable enough to pull it off, but we're not built for it and its not good for us. And it also leads to eating loads of carbs, which has its own set of problems (and which we also didn't evolve to be able to digest very efficiently).

I may be attracted to this philosophy because it reflects pretty well what my riding has been evolving into. Lots of long, slow riding, punctuated by pretty hard efforts on the hills and occasionally to try to catch someone. But lots and lots of taking a walk on my bike. Touring can be pretty good for this, if you remind yourself to go easy most of the time. I've also been feeling better since I've been riding more like this over the last couple of years and less like the long hard days I used to put in pretty regularly. And I suspect that's not coincidence. I think my century+ days are probably over.

-Ray

[gemship]

Some thought provoking articles in the last couple of Rivendell Readers by the "caveman" guy who's real into what we evolved to do best (and eat, but that's another whole thread). He used to be a big honcho in the triathlon world but has concluded that that kind of high output endurance exercise is profoundly unhealthy. And he has the connections and science to make a pretty good case. Running and cycling are certainly part of that, if done at any intensity. His whole thing is that our bodies evolved based on LOADS of very low intensity exercise (walking the plains and though the forests all day) punctuated by brief bursts of VERY intense running/climbing/lifting (as in when hunting for prey, trying to avoid being hunted ourselves, lifting and carrying prey back to the camp, etc). And that we're just not set up for working at 80-85% of max heartrate for hours at a time like hard core endurance runners and cyclists do. We're adaptable enough to pull it off, but we're not built for it and its not good for us. And it also leads to eating loads of carbs, which has its own set of problems (and which we also didn't evolve to be able to digest very efficiently).

I may be attracted to this philosophy because it reflects pretty well what my riding has been evolving into. Lots of long, slow riding, punctuated by pretty hard efforts on the hills and occasionally to try to catch someone. But lots and lots of taking a walk on my bike. Touring can be pretty good for this, if you remind yourself to go easy most of the time. I've also been feeling better since I've been riding more like this over the last couple of years and less like the long hard days I used to put in pretty regularly. And I suspect that's not coincidence. I think my century+ days are probably over.

-Ray



that's interesting stuff from the caveman. I love to eat carbs and I don't do nearly enough to balance the consumption/burn ratio. However I do have a bit of a hollow leg. I'm not to big on all the proper cycling jargon but I did take a century ride once by myself. I started the first half of the ride in I guess what is known as zone 1 or 2 intensity. later on the 2nd half of the ride I flirted with higher intensity riding and the last few 10 miles of the ride at times I would sprint and I was just amazed at my ability to do it. One of the best rides I ever had and made a whole day of it and didn't feel the least bit fatigued the following day. Don't get me wrong though as I didn't set any land speed records it was just a matter of putting common sense into it, plenty of slow riding out of the saddle. Actually I did get saddle sore but I didn't bonk and I would certainly do a ride like that again.

[ti_boi]

Sport is incredibly enjoyable....people are fragile....overdoing it has it's rewards and consequences....wow. :rolleyes:

[jpw]

Something that mimics the physical activity of our distant ancestors would probably be beneficial to us. A 21st century hunter gatherer lifestyle. The bike can be part of that. Pro riders....are something else entirely.

[Len J]

Different articles for different audiences.

If I'm talking to the average American that doesn't exercise at all (like the center for disease control), then I emphasize how good physical activity is.....If I'm tlaking to the Tri/Marathon crowd....I'm asking questions about "when is too much bad for you?" Most of us are in the middle.

Different strokes.

len

[Kines]

I read most of the dick swab's article, but had to stop when he used boxing and injecting anabolic steroids as examples of how sports are bad for you.

Mostly I just replied here because I wanted to say "dick swab".

KN

[LO^OK]

Some thought provoking articles in the last couple of Rivendell Readers by the "caveman" guy who's real into what we evolved to do best (and eat, but that's another whole thread). He used to be a big honcho in the triathlon world but has concluded that that kind of high output endurance exercise is profoundly unhealthy. And he has the connections and science to make a pretty good case. Running and cycling are certainly part of that, if done at any intensity. His whole thing is that our bodies evolved based on LOADS of very low intensity exercise (walking the plains and though the forests all day) punctuated by brief bursts of VERY intense running/climbing/lifting (as in when hunting for prey, trying to avoid being hunted ourselves, lifting and carrying prey back to the camp, etc). And that we're just not set up for working at 80-85% of max heartrate for hours at a time like hard core endurance runners and cyclists do. We're adaptable enough to pull it off, but we're not built for it and its not good for us. And it also leads to eating loads of carbs, which has its own set of problems (and which we also didn't evolve to be able to digest very efficiently).

I may be attracted to this philosophy because it reflects pretty well what my riding has been evolving into. Lots of long, slow riding, punctuated by pretty hard efforts on the hills and occasionally to try to catch someone. But lots and lots of taking a walk on my bike. Touring can be pretty good for this, if you remind yourself to go easy most of the time. I've also been feeling better since I've been riding more like this over the last couple of years and less like the long hard days I used to put in pretty regularly. And I suspect that's not coincidence. I think my century+ days are probably over.

-Ray

+1

[LO^OK]

I read most of the dick swab's article, but had to stop when he used boxing and injecting anabolic steroids as examples of how sports are bad for you.

Mostly I just replied here because I wanted to say "dick swab".

KN

Well, articles in the popular press often rely on exaggerated examples and/or resort to oversimplifications. Yet the line of thought might still be worthy to follow, not as a word from scripture of course but more as an intellectual provocation.

[jimp1234]

Another +1.....

I've been reading Mark Sisson's blog for a while now, and he has very persuasive arguments against what he calls "chronic cardio". I've pretty much reached the conclusion that cycling a lot at high intensity (not sure what the magic number is..) is not "healthy" (i.e. promoting good health, disease resistance, long life,etc.) and if you ride a lot, particularly at >85% max HR, you do it on the basis that you enjoy doing it, not on the basis of the possibly erroneous belief that you're going to be healthier for it.

Some thought provoking articles in the last couple of Rivendell Readers by the "caveman" guy who's real into what we evolved to do best (and eat, but that's another whole thread). He used to be a big honcho in the triathlon world but has concluded that that kind of high output endurance exercise is profoundly unhealthy. And he has the connections and science to make a pretty good case. Running and cycling are certainly part of that, if done at any intensity. His whole thing is that our bodies evolved based on LOADS of very low intensity exercise (walking the plains and though the forests all day) punctuated by brief bursts of VERY intense running/climbing/lifting (as in when hunting for prey, trying to avoid being hunted ourselves, lifting and carrying prey back to the camp, etc). And that we're just not set up for working at 80-85% of max heartrate for hours at a time like hard core endurance runners and cyclists do. We're adaptable enough to pull it off, but we're not built for it and its not good for us. And it also leads to eating loads of carbs, which has its own set of problems (and which we also didn't evolve to be able to digest very efficiently).

I may be attracted to this philosophy because it reflects pretty well what my riding has been evolving into. Lots of long, slow riding, punctuated by pretty hard efforts on the hills and occasionally to try to catch someone. But lots and lots of taking a walk on my bike. Touring can be pretty good for this, if you remind yourself to go easy most of the time. I've also been feeling better since I've been riding more like this over the last couple of years and less like the long hard days I used to put in pretty regularly. And I suspect that's not coincidence. I think my century+ days are probably over.

-Ray

[Ray]

Another +1.....

I've been reading Mark Sisson's blog for a while now, and he has very persuasive arguments against what he calls "chronic cardio". I've pretty much reached the conclusion that cycling a lot at high intensity (not sure what the magic number is..) is not "healthy" (i.e. promoting good health, disease resistance, long life,etc.) and if you ride a lot, particularly at >85% max HR, you do it on the basis that you enjoy doing it, not on the basis of the possibly erroneous belief that you're going to be healthier for it.
Yeah, I find his stuff fascinating. I've been riding sort of like he recommends for a couple of years - I haven't done a lot of long hard rides since 2006. I've been trying to follow his eating guidelines as well, cutting my carbs down to very infrequent very small portions. I don't find I crave or miss the carbs, but trying to figure out what ELSE to eat three meals a day has been a bit of a challenge. I didn't realize how apt I was to have a bowl of cereal, or some sort of toast, or sandwich, or pasta, or something else with noodles in it, and beans or potatoes/rice/etc with dinner. Or grab a pretzel or cracker or something for a snack. I've been mowing down the salads lately and eating more chicken/fish/meat as well. I've never been real creative in the kitchen and knocking out carbs really cuts down on the options. And I'm curious to see how I'll feel if I do try to start ramping the mileage up a bit later this spring and summer.

-Ray