[Cyclopath]

Very good article from the folks at TrainingPeaks. All cyclists should read this - I know that several nwhikers are also cyclists. I'd love to hear your thoughts, whether you were already aware of this problem, and what you do about it in your own life. What the Research Shows If you are a road cyclist, especially if you train hard or have been training for multiple years, you are more likely to develop osteopenia or osteoporosis. This puts you at a higher risk for fractures; a risk that continues to go up with age and training. More masters were classified as osteoporotic compared to age-matched, non-athletes, and the percentage of these increased significantly after a seven-year period.1 So, for those of you in this category, you are not only more likely to be at risk, but the risk factor is higher as you complete more years of cycling training. In 2012, there was an extensive review of 31 studies on the subject2. The findings were that adult road cyclists who train regularly have significantly low bone mineral density in key regions. This was found to be true when comparing the cyclists to control populations of both athletes in other sports as well as non-athletes. Areas of the lumbar spine, pelvic and hip regions, and femoral neck were all key areas found to have lower values in road cyclists than the controls.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/why-cycling-is-bad-for-bone-density-and-how-you-can-improve-it

[DigitalJanitor]

Good article. Note however that they said mountain bikers don't seem to have this issue... and especially if you're doing heavy duty single track in the actual mountains, there's so much hike-a-bike/carry-a-bike that you may as well count it as cross training, lol.

[RichP]

Interesting. I never thought of cycling as being a non-weight bearing activity but it makes sense.

[Navy salad]

I'm struggling to make sense of some of their logic. For example, the article says:

[Cyclopath]

Road cyclists seem to be worse off (for bone density) than couch potatoes. So it's not just that cycling is low impact and not weight bearing, because watching television is also low impact. The best theory I've heard is that cyclists sweat so much, and lose minerals through our sweat: Complicating the issue is yet another by-product of cycling: sweat. You can lose up to 200 milligrams of bone-building calcium in an hour as you soak your jersey on a hot ride. Put in long training miles each week and ride a century now and then, and you’ll deplete your body of so much calcium that it becomes harder and harder to replace, especially as you age. You can counteract this by fueling up on foods with plenty of calcium, but you may need more than just dietary adjustments. Frame Work: Build Bone Strength | Bicycling I think what they're saying is that although being lean is a good and healthy thing, it can also be a problem in combination with several risk factors for osteoporosis. If you're going to be light and you're going to ride a bike, you should be aware of the health problem associated with these things, and take up running or weight lifting to counteract it.

[Riverside Laker]

Shucks, I read this just after finishing a 40 mile ride. I'll bet that backpacking would be a good antidote.

[Randito]

Triathlon

[boot up]

I read many years ago that its not a matter of weight bearing, but impact that makes a difference. I think they are using wrong terminology, and really mean cycling is a low impact sport. Impact stimulates bone growth from what I read. The catch of course is that impact also tears down the joints and causes its own problems. It wasn't cycling that made me end up with a fused ankle. Mtn biking certainly has more impact than road biking. Life is a matter of balance. I try to balance. I road bike, mtn bike and hike. No running for me though. My body just does not like running. Hopefully my fused ankle will let me snowshoe and xc ski. Life is a matter of using it all to the max before dropping dead, but not falling apart prematurely. That is a tough line to dance along.

[HitTheTrail]

[UGH]

Really. I've never heard such bull crap in a long time. I spend 1.5 hours a day on my bike getting fit and keeping the weight way down. As a result I'm in far better shape than over 90 percent of the people in my age bracket, almost all of whom are overweight slobs in comparison. There are so many health benefits to cycling that it's hard to know where to begin. And this yokel says that's bad? He probably munches twinkies and guzzles beer on the sofa in front of the teeee veeee during all his free time. As far as stress on the bones, the rest of my day is like everyone else's and my bones get all the normal stress they need. What they don't get is the bad stress of an overweight slob.

[mike]

A couple of data points. My dad rides about 100mi/wk ... until he took a couple of bad falls recently. Got T-boned in an intersection for a broken shoulder and hit an unmarked cons't hole in the pavement and badly broke his arm. He doesn't see as well as he used too, he's 93. Healing has been amazingly rapid and he'll be back in his bike soon.

[Cyclopath]

[Pyrites]

[Cyclopath]

[Navy salad]