NYCC.org

Over-exercising

33 replies [Last post]

Mon, 12/18/2006 - 1:02pm

Anonymous

"Perhaps, some of us are over-doing it (including me, though to no ill effect so far). I'd be curious about other's reactions. (I got this from the Sound Cyclists group)

This is a provocative AP article stating that physically fit adults should do at least 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise like a brisk walk a day and physically fit people about an hour a day. The article then quotes Dr. Mehmet Oz a surgeon an author of ""You the Owner's Manual"", who states ""The real sweet spot, as you would expect there to be in any biologic system, is around an hour a day. ""After that it is hard to show a great benefit""

The important part of the article states it is difficult to say with precision when healthy exercise becomes unhealthy and quotes a Professor Haskell of Stanford School of Medicine and states the general risk of harm begins to outweigh the benefits for adults after more that an hour a day. Above an hour, its questionable whether you are going to get more from it, he said.

Dr. Oz says overexercise can create oxidative stress, in which oxygen molecules called free radicals are formed that damage DNA and cells that, over time, can accumulate to spur cancer. This is in addition to overuse injuries that often result from over training.

They state listen to your body and take days off.
Moral: everything in moderation.

Personally, I prefer to cross-train (hiking, mtn biking, skiing, running, hoops, etc.). I always kind of welcome the respite this time of year from road cycling.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FITNESS_OVERTRAINING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-12-14-14-26-04"

Mon, 12/18/2006 - 1:30pm

Raul Muntaner (not verified)

Some of us are over doing it.

Most of us, however, are not.

The one hour mark is an absurd generalization.

When it comes to cycling. Chances are much higher that you are not overdoing it.

Mon, 12/18/2006 - 1:52pm

Robert Shay (not verified)

Interesting article...

Thank you for sharing it!

I do listen to my body and rest accordingly. I find with road bicycling that my body does go through cycles during the year. I can train up to an event for about 10 to 12 weeks (approx. 200/250 miles/week towards the end). Then, once the event is over I need to rest for two weeks before I can begin bicycling up to that intensity/duration again.

I'm sure there is a book or something on this topic that I should read [probably - The Cyclist's Training Bible by Joe Friel].

Regards...

Mon, 12/18/2006 - 9:19pm

Bill Vojtech (not verified)

"I ride for fun, not because it's good for me. In fact, you could ""prove"" it was as bad as smoking and I'd still do it."

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 5:11am

RichardFernandez (not verified)

"I would think there is a difference between ""physically fit"" and someone that is an athlete.To do a century in 5 hours on rolling terrain would require time in the saddle for most of us to get to this point.Working up to a goal is just as important,because along the way your body changes at the molecular level.My 2 cents.Rich"

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 6:06am

Rob (not verified)

Over-exercising

Mr. Trippel makes excellent points. but let me make two simple points:

This article is pootly-founded because it assumes that we are all the same and our bodies are not adaptive.

There's a simple way to tell if you're over trained. Measure your resting HR once per week. If it rises quickly, you're either sick or overtrained.

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 11:16am

Hank Schiffman (not verified)

Not so fast...

I have read somewhere during this past year that an elevated HR might be a myth. Can someone help me here? Does anyone recall this and its source too?

Sat, 12/23/2006 - 10:59am

Richard Fernandez (not verified)

I remember when I was severely overtraining.I couldnt sleep for 4 months, all this while I was working and riding it was hell!I will never let that happen again.Myth?I dont think so.Rich

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 12:25pm

Yogi (not verified)

Is anybody over 60 in the NYCC?

More food for thought in today's NYT

>There is much more to becoming — and staying — physically fit as you age than engaging in regular aerobic activity. (Of course, the same applies to those younger than 60.) In addition to activities like walking, jogging, cycling and swimming that promote endurance, cardiovascular health and weight control, there is a dire need for exercises that improve posture and increase strength, flexibility and balance. These exercises can greatly reduce the risk of injuries from sports and endurance activities, the demands of daily life, falls and other accidents.

Sounds a lot like...hmmm?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/health/19brody.html

Carl wrote >Moral: everything in moderation.

-Even moderation.

Happy Shopping Season Everyone...

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 12:57pm

Sam AA (not verified)

"Not sure why running is weight-bearing while cycling isn't. I thought uphill we carry our weight and our bikes weight as well. Am I missing something?
haa
"

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 1:23pm

#10

Judith Tripp (not verified)

"""Weight bearing"" exercise"

"Sam, you're still sitting on the bike, rather than jumping up and down and stressing your bones (thereby making them stronger, the theory goes), or actually lifting weights (again, a ""weight bearing"" exercise). Swimming is not weight bearing either."

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 1:47pm

#11

Yogi (not verified)

weight to bear

My understanding is that there is little stress to the muscular skeletal structure as we ride on the road. If you can sit and spin up a hill, it’s still all about cardio vascular fitness (how efficient your heart and lungs are delivering oxygen to the muscles). So swimming and cycling isn’t as effective for osteoporosis prevention. Mountain biking loads the body a bit more because you use your arms and legs when you’re off the saddle.

You can have a pretty good gut and still be a long distance cyclist, but it’s harder to run far with a spare tire weighing you down.

Fri, 12/22/2006 - 6:20am

#12

Anon (not verified)

"True meaning of ""weight-bearing""?"

"So what does ""weight-bearing exercise"" really mean? By your definition, there is a contradiction in logic, as running is also mostly cardiovascular but is considered ""weight-bearing""? Does ""weight-bearing"" really mean that there must be some kind of blunt impact of weight, like the kind you have in running but don't have in cycling? If that is so, would weight-lifting at the gym really be considered ""weight-bearing""? There is no blunt impact there either, just smooth lifting of weights. Does that build bone density?"

Fri, 12/22/2006 - 7:07am

#13

<a href="http://www.OhReallyOreilly.com">Peter O'Reilly</a> (not verified)

weight-bearing exercise

When you are running, the amount of force applied at impact with each step is some multiple (1.x, 2xs) your body weight. Whatever the actual multiple is, I can assure you it is significant.

Some folks can bench press a weight that is much greater than their body weight. The amount of force required, requires a good deal of muscle strength and in turn presents a significant load on the bones.

Both these forceful, load bearing activities help build bone density.

Fri, 12/22/2006 - 7:45am

#14

Sam AA (not verified)

Still confused

"Many health websites seem to agree that load-bearing exercises involve working against gravity. If so cycling uphill is load-bearing. Some responses in this thread argued that skeletal stress (impact on the bones)is the criterion. But that would exclude weigh-lifting where there is no impact(shock) on the bones.
haa"

Sat, 12/23/2006 - 6:46am

#15

Anon (not verified)

"Agree. Peter's explanation makes sense, but there still doesn't seem to be a solid, objective way of defining ""load-bearing"" exercise. It's obvious that swimming isn't load bearing, but it's not obvious that cycling uphill on your lowest gear isn't. And most ordinary weight-lifting exercises don't seem to involve any bone-jarring impact, unless heavy muscle use is considered to stress the bones by default.

If the idea is exerting a force that's a significant proportion of body weight, there are really only a small number of specific weight-lifting exercises - bench presses, pull-ups, and leg squats are all I can think of - where ordinary people are capable of exerting a force close to their body weight, let alone above it. Are those ""load-bearing"" and the other exercises not?"

Sat, 12/23/2006 - 4:05pm

#16

Hank Schiffman (not verified)

2 cents, (about what it is worth)

Don't we have some PTs or the ilk reading this thread, following the blind lead the blind around in a snowstorm?

The way I see it, the stresses of the exercise need to be transmitted through the spine in an upright stance. Therefore, squats with weights are functional but arm curls on a table are not. Swimming and cycling don't stress the spine in an upright manner but running and walking do.

Thu, 12/28/2006 - 3:34pm

#17

<a href="http://www.OhReallyOreilly.com">Peter O'Reilly</a> (not verified)

It's really nothing to get stressed about

How many folks have experienced a stress fracture or know of someone who has while running, weight lifting or cycling?

Stress fractures are ultimately caused by forces applied to bones which exceed the bone's inherent strength and results in microfractures.

For the first two activities, especially the first, it is quite common. As for cycling, I don't know of *any* (crashing while on the bike obviously does not count here ;-).

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 2:00pm

#18

RichardFernandez (not verified)

"A very good book would be Arnold Schwarzenegger's ""THE NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MODERN BODYBUILDING"".I totally agree that exercises that increase overall body strength is just as important as aerobic exercise.Plus riding a bike is like doing one exercise because your working the same muscles and this will cause an imbalance.Stretching is always important.The older we get the harder it is to retain muscle because of acidicy.Rich"

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 2:13pm

#19

Not An Arnold Fan (not verified)

"Gee, does he give helpful advice on which are the best steroids to use???

Of course we've always known that most Republican politicians are on drugs... (-:

Arnold on the use of steroids
1974. ""I take steroids because they help me an extra 5 percent. Women take the (contraception) pill. They are somewhat similar. I do it under a doctor's supervision.""
1977: ""Yes I have used them, but no, they didn't make me what I am. Anabolic steroids were helpful to me in maintaining muscle size while on a strict diet in preparation for a contest.""
1987: ""I don't worry about it, because I never took an overdosage.""
1992: ""In those days you didn't have to deal with the black market. You could go to your physician and just say, 'Listen, I want to gain some weight, and I want to take something.' Then the physician would say, 'Do it six weeks before competition, then it will be safe.' And that's what you would do. The dosage that was taken then versus taken now is not even 10 percent. It's probably 5 percent.""
1996: ""I used steroids. It was a risky thing to do, but I have no regrets. It was what I had to do to compete. The danger with steroids is overusage. I only did it before a difficult competition – for two months, but not for a period of time that could harm me. And then afterward, it was over. I would stop. I have no health problems, no kidney damage or anything like that from using them.""
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger#On_use_of_steroids
"

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 2:49pm

#20

RichardFernandez (not verified)

And I was a two hundred pound sedentary smoker and alchoholic.Live and learn.

Mon, 12/18/2006 - 1:46pm

#21

Sienna (not verified)

one hour

When I ride for one hour in Central Park, a good bit of that time is spent on downhills. Am I still exercising on the downhills? Running or swimming, etc., for an hour is different from being on a bike for an hour.

Mon, 12/18/2006 - 1:58pm

#22

Fixer (not verified)

Am I still exercising on the downhills?

You are on a fixed gear!

Mon, 12/18/2006 - 7:29pm

#23

Nick Trippel (not verified)

"The article is interesting but I think it conflates a number of different issues leading to a certain amount of confusion for the (cycling) reader.

One of the problems is that it doesn't distinguish between the benefits of cardio/aerobic exercise and the physical stress of impact from weight-bearing exercises such as running. Cycling being a low- (or no-) impact exercise does not put the physical stress on the body that running does.

Beyond that, the research I know of that discusses the amount of exercise that is beneficial states the amount in total calories burned per week, rather than stating the number of hours. Simply stated, 1 hour a day on a bike at 20 mph for a 100 pound woman on a hilly route is not the same as 1 hour a day at 10 mph for a 250 pound man on the flats.

The study that I know of that considered the amount of exercise was a large-scale study of 17,148 Harvard alumni. The study concluded, ""Prostate cancer is the most common cancer affecting men today. In the Harvard study, alumni who expended greater than 4,000 calories per week (equivalent to about eight hours of brisk walking) were at a reduced risk of developing prostate cancer compared to their inactive counterparts.""
http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancerproject/exercise.html

At some point, I think it was 9,000 calories per week or more however, the risk of cancer was markedly worse than those just over 4,000 calories - the basic theory being that the amount of stress on the body weakened the immune system.

However, there are a whole host of other factors such as age, diet, getting hit by a car, et cetera that come into play as well. This was a very large scale study, so you have to be careful about drawing too fine a conclusion. That said, you might want to use a calorie calculator to see where you stand vis-a-vis the 4,000 to 9,000 calorie range.

Mon, 12/18/2006 - 8:10pm

#24

Hank Schiffman (not verified)

Apples & oranges

"But how deep can one get in a short article? The closing paragraphs delve into the salient points of backing off, listening to one's body and not giving up on staying fit.

Hard days and easy days, hard weeks and easy weeks plus being flexible with your training schedule is more sensible than running the clock each minute you exercise. This means not only backing off an extra day or 2, or cross training on fresh muscles, but it also translates to going hard a second day if your body feels good.

Never forget the small gain you could get by taking a chance on exercising on questionable muscles vs the large downside of injury which will blow your schedule out of the water. When in doubt, back off. If I go for a run and find the same injury surface that came on the day before, I walk home. If it is there again the next day, I stop running for a week, but cross train. Older athletes have to be especially wary of injuries.

Someone once said, ""there are no vacations after 40."" Don't wait too long before you take fitness seriously. Don't fall off the wagon. There is room on the wagon for chocolate and beer too if you play your cards right. Keep in mind that aerobic fitness is what separates us from the barbarians.... The longer you keep at it the more you will learn,. And you will also learn there is always more to learn..."

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 5:31pm

#25

[email protected] (not verified)

Good post. Thanks. (nm)

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 8:43am

#26

Sam AA (not verified)

oxidative stress

"Good point about running versus cycling; nothing batters you like running. I think you stand way more chances to get injured running than cycling. However the ""oxidative stress"" applies to both runners and bikers. I have read about it before. It is all the more harmful when air is polluted; which is the case for runners in the city and (to lesser extent?) for bikers out of the city.
haa

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 2:03pm

#27

RichardFernandez (not verified)

oxidation

And this is why athletes require far more anti- oxidants then sedentary people.

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 2:26pm

#28

Sam AA (not verified)

"I probably could Google this but since the subject is being discussed here... how do you increase your intake of anti-oxidants. I read that orange juice is good.
haa"

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 3:00pm

#29

RichardFernandez (not verified)

Orange juice may be good for you but it is not good for me,Why?,because orange juice is acidic and combined with the amount of acid I already have in my stomach it would create an over acidic digestive tract and this is not healthy at all(can cause ulcers).Learning what foods are acidic and alkaline will clarify this.Example:Orange juice comes from fruit,all fruits and veggies are alkaline BUT if your like me,blood type O+ then you already have a lot of acid in your stomach and lending to that via O.J. will cause an unhealthy acidic digestive tract.On the other hand if your blood type A OR AB then OJ is good.Supplements are the easiest way of consuming the necessary large amounts of antioxidants then there are fruits and veggies.Rich

Mon, 12/18/2006 - 8:20pm

#30

J (not verified)

Intervals. They are not simply those times on the bike when you exert yourself and then recover and then exert, etc.

Intervals apply to not only a particular ride or training, but to the day, the week, the month and the year.

If you look at a graph of exertion on a particular instance on the bike (heat rate, wattage), you see peaks and valleys. Look at your week - peaks and valleys. Look at the month, the past and the ensuing months, look at the year - all up and down, peaks and valleys.

Yes, you can overdo it - there MUST be valleys. You must take time to recover - during a ride, a day, a week, etc.

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 1:34pm

#31

Joe (not verified)

Oxidative stress

Has anyone seen any research that shows endurance athletes are more susceptible to cancer than the general population?

I think we're all aware that we should back off when our bodies warn us with aching joints/muscles or fatigue, but does the body provide any clue that it is undergoing oxidative stress?

Tue, 12/19/2006 - 1:57pm

#32

Nick Trippel (not verified)

re: Oxidative stress

See my post earlier in this thread...

Thu, 12/28/2006 - 2:18pm

#33

jr (not verified)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/diet.fitness/12/22/fitness.overtraining.a...

Bylaws Privacy Policy About Us Join NYCC

For support, please contact [email protected] for all other issues/questions, please contact the appropriate Board Member.

Webmaster: Natan Elman Content Editor: Sheila O’Connor