9 ms·
Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but Not Cyclists (2018)
- ChrisGranger 6y agoPlease use original titles. "The 100 Most Influential Studies in Sports Medicine"
- zython 6y agoI think you meant to link this: https://www.outsideonline.com/2301366/training-makes-runners-more-efficient-not-cyclists https://www.outsideonline.com/2301366/training-makes-runners... or as already mentioned the title is wrong.
- exabrial 6y ago> Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but Not Cyclists I could see this being true for road bikers... but any XCO, CXO, or Enduro rider depends heavily on training for: * Finding efficient body position for climbing * Weight shifting/wheel unloading while crossing features * Discovery efficiency gains in pedal cadence for terrain, slope, camber I did a cross country race last July. I started mountain biking in March (guess why). I was in great cardiovascular shape from being a rower and my legs were it great shape too. However, I've already surpassed what I could during that hour of all-out effort by a large margin by learning to do the above skills efficiently. Even a year later I keep breaking my own records. Pretty crazy, I know I'll reach a plateau eventually but for an amateur that plain is quite high.
- TimD1 6y agoAgreed. I would wager that in any sport where technique is important/difficult (swimming, nordic skiing, and to a lesser extent running), efficiency will improve over time, even for elite athletes.
- dahart 6y agoYes. The article has a very narrow focus on strictly the muscular efficiency of a pedal stroke. That makes it sound like it's suggesting that novice cyclists can easily be as good as expert cyclists, and that the benefits of training are limited. The article isn't talking about muscle mass nor rider skills at all, but it doesn't try too hard to clarify that.
- jsperson 6y agoA few years ago I took an XC clinic from a pro woman mountain biker. A big focus was on descending. On one particular hill she got down first - MINUTES ahead of me (the first student). This was on a descent where there was basically no pedaling. She did this to us all day. During that season I won a local mens cat 2 race series. I was no slouch, but she destroyed us. All technique.
- DenisM 6y agoDid you hear about the guy who won a downhill race after losing his chain out of the gate? Mountain biking is a lot closer to mountain skiing than it is to race biking - very little locomotion, a whole lot of body balancing. https://www.bicycling.com/racing/a20022483/video-aaron-gwin-loses-chain-wins-downhill-race-anyway/ https://www.bicycling.com/racing/a20022483/video-aaron-gwin-...
- mft_ 6y agoOne anecdote. Most DH races involve a lot of hard pedalling.
- medium_burrito 6y agoFor road biking as well- though a lot of it is many people are afraid of a 23mm contact patch being the only thing between them and going off a cliff in the Alps!
- indymike 6y agoEven for road riders, there is a huge difference between a stationary bike and a road bike. The changes aren't as pronounced xco, but your ability to hold a line, adjust cadence for wind and slope, and position your body to deal with turns, road conditions (never hit a pot hole with a stationary bike).
- exabrial 6y agoYcombinator 2022 idea: Peleton that simulates potholes and throws you off randomly
- DenisM 6y agoHow did you train for all that? I feel like I waste a lot of energy on climbs, but I can't quite figure out why. Could use some help.
- nradov 6y agoWhy do you think you waste a lot of energy on climbs? For most riders, climbing speed is based on your power to weight ratio. So the easiest way to waste less energy is simply to reduce body fat.
- DenisM 6y agoI often observe that I am he slowest climber on the mountain, but I do not think I am the least fit. There's a good chance it's the technique.
- nradov 6y agoThere's not a huge amount of technique to climbing, it's mostly power to weight ratio. Do you have a power meter and have you done an FTP test? One technique you can practice is calibrating your effort level in terms of watts or heart rate to the length of the climb. You need to get a feel for the maximum output you can sustain without getting gassed before you reach the summit.
- DenisM 6y agoI don’t have a power meter, but for the purpose of pacing I might get away with just the hr? I’ve always been bad with pacing myself, so that looks to be the lowest hanging fruit.
- exabrial 6y agoYep, HR can tell you a lot (power meters are pricey, but indeed are the best option). If your HR rises too quick you're likely off pace however though. Another thing you can do is thinking of saving some gas in the tank for the last bit of the climb where you'll sprint as you summit. Start with this in mind at the bottom
- nradov 6y agoAs a practical matter training can make cyclists more efficient by improving aerodynamics even if their psychological efficiency doesn't change. It takes quite a bit of muscular endurance and body awareness to hold an optimal aero position through a long ride.
- danburbridge 6y agoYes - very true. I race timetrials and keeping a stable aero position requires effort and practice but it's worth it as the gains from aero improvements can be huge.
- theptip 6y ago> A caveat: The cycling in the new study was performed on stationary bikes at a predetermined cadence. It’s possible that the benefits of experience and bike-specific training would be more noticeable on the open road at a freely chosen cadence. A pretty big caveat. I’m not surprised that cycling on a stationary bike at a fixed cadence has very little room for skill/technique improvements. This invalidates the results vis. real cycling in my book. Gear selection, out-of-saddle technique, etc. Though having said that I’d expect the skill-based component to be much smaller in riding than running as the movement pattern is much more constrained. Still an interesting result, since it does show that there is a skill-based efficiency gain in running.
- danburbridge 6y agoThere is also no mention of fit changes. Changes in crank length, saddle height, hip angles etc all can have quite considerable effects on efficiency
- justinator 6y agoDouble check the crank length. Many of the things you list have to do with bike fit, which I do agree can be wonderous when it comes to feeling comfortable on a bike. But testing various crank lengths I believe didn't have a huge effect on performance. It came down to "whatever you like". I ran a 165mm crank for the longest time, until I realized it was actually a 175mm. But in my head, I always thought the crank to be somehow weird and different. It wasn't! If you're short, maybe a shorter crank length, if you're talk, maybe a longer crank length. Maybe.
- ambivalents 6y agoI agree, but then if this is just looking at the physiological effects of training, and not the accoutrements of training, I think you would need to hold the bike constant. Perhaps you can get more efficient at cycling with better frame geometry etc but this is just looking at what the human body alone can do.
- ak217 6y ago
- helge9210 6y agoThe relevant part of the article: > When I pressed Kram and Swinnen for their preferred explanations, they pointed out that efficient runners use their stretchy tendons and ligaments to store elastic energy to be “recycled” from stride to stride. The push and pull between tendon and muscle is so finely tuned that your muscles stay roughly the same length throughout the stride instead of shortening and lengthening with each contraction. Optimizing this aspect of running is invisible to the naked eye and beyond conscious control, but it may be one of the crucial skills that improve with experience.
- ambivalents 6y agoAnd this: > Is there anything we can say for sure? How about: Yes, you can get more efficient at running. You probably can’t get more efficient at cycling—at least not by an amount that’s worth spending a lot of time fretting about.
- MrFantastic 6y agoYou can spot inefficient runners once you know what to look for. Efficient runners are striding 20 or 30% faster. Usually over 180 strides/minute. If you look at the efficient runners head looks like it's floating smoothly. If you are bouncing you are losing energy.
- johnold 6y agoThis reminded me of watching some Kenyan runners at a local race. I had never seen people that good run in person. I swear they just floated by... Their heads and shoulders just don't look like the move up and down at all. I'll never forget it. A thing of beauty.
- orthopodvt 6y agoThe study conditions are so artificial (very slow), that any potential efficiencies would likely be negligible. My son, who ran track in college used to tell me that it was harder to run at a 7 minute mile pace than 6 minute mile pace, because they were doing all their training to run at sub-5 pace. My experience on the bike is similar. AS for the author's comment about how easy the neuromuscular coordination to bike is, he probably hasn't tried to consistently maintain a cadence of 110-120 rpm. It takes practice to be able to do that smoothly, and improves your technique when you're going at a slower pace.
- rct42 6y agoI would guess they evaluated it at 8 min/mile pace because a more typical speed for evaluating running economy (e.g, 16 km/h or ~6:00 pace) might be a bit tough for cyclists who don't run. Especially since you'd need to do 5 minutes or more at said pace to make a meaningful determination of RE.
- radar 6y ago"Cyclist" should not be used here at all. Especially in the title, since bicycles were not used. "Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but not Spin Class Attendees"
- networkimprov 6y agoFrom experience, riding rollers regularly will makes you more efficient on an actual bike, because you have to keep the bike relatively still under you on rollers in order to stay upright. You don't have to keep the bike that still under you on the road, and that wastes energy.
- indymike 6y agoYou can quickly tell if someone is a strong cyclist by looking at how straight they go, both hands, one hand and no hands on the handlebars. All over the road? Usually weak. Can stay on a road line? Probably ok. Can stay on the inside edge of a road line? Look out.
- ben7799 6y agoI'm a cyclist.. while I can agree that this study could be flawed there's also something else. Bicycles are highly efficient themselves.. perhaps so efficient that they hide too many cues that riders would use to become more efficient. And while the study might be flawed by using trainers and such if you try to study stuff in the real world with cyclists there's probably too much noise in the signals with all the strange stuff that goes on with cycling, like weather, traffic, group riding, etc.. The Lance Armstrong results showing him becoming more efficient in disagreement with the newer study could have been highly flawed as well if he was "protected" more by his team even in training as his career advanced, which we know he was. To say nothing of his ever changing cocktail of PEDs. I do think any competitive rider will become more efficient after a year of coached riding with the benefit of a power meter & electronic tracking. Every pro today has that of course.
- mrcartmenez 6y agoTrue. The main way a cyclist becomes more efficient is holding a more aerodynamic position for longer. Which you can’t measure on an exercise bike indoors
- karmakaze 6y agoI don't see any importance in the conclusion. Certainly training improves technique which improves efficiency in real world situations. I took up cycling as a personal passtime going for a number of hours at a time. I signed up for a fundraiser for a distance I didn't know I could complete. I asked a cyclist friend to spend a day with me to prep. One thing I sucked at was hills. He noticed what I was doing and said you can't downshift your way out of it, it's better to stick with a gear and power through it even if it mostly burns you out. Getting winded and moving slowly expending too much energy just to keep your balance isn't better. That was immensely better and there are likely so many other things that could be better tuned for efficiency.
- mrcartmenez 6y agoParticipants were measured on a fixed bike in a lab wearing running shoes. Sorry guys but this is junk science