[HN Gopher] Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but Not Cycli...
___________________________________________________________________
Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but Not Cyclists (2018)
Author : dfgdghdf
Score : 40 points
Date : 2021-02-22 13:41 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.outsideonline.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.outsideonline.com)
| networkimprov wrote:
| From 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 wrote:
| You 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.
| theptip wrote:
| > 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.
| dkarl wrote:
| It's interesting because there is a widespread belief
| (questioned by many, but also still held by many) that pedal
| stroke at a fixed cadence can be made more efficient by
| directing the force in more of a circle instead of just pushing
| down on each side as a beginner does. As you direct the force
| in a more circular manner, you are supposed to get more
| efficient. Being clipped in is supposed to allow you to
| complete the circle by pulling up on the back of the stroke.
| Conclusive evidence for this has been hard to come by, and I
| think people now tell commuters and casual cyclists not to
| worry about it, but many people still believe that the
| difference is significant for competitive cyclists.
| Tarrosion wrote:
| Ah I've often wondered about this when riding! I wear grippy
| shoes on spiky pedals, but not clipped in (or using a poorly-
| named clipless system).
|
| Alternating left-right pushes feels very different than
| trying to maintain a continuous circular motion with quasi-
| equal force throughout. But unscientifically I can't notice
| any difference.
| nradov wrote:
| What sort of evidence is needed? Modern power meters can show
| the complete power phase and torque effectiveness on pedaling
| strokes. Regardless of efficiency, modern clipless pedals
| allow for delivering higher maximum power without your feet
| slipping off.
| putnambr wrote:
| Like you said there are questions of efficiency, but hardly
| any questions of effectiveness. By clipping in and being able
| to muscle around the full rotation might burn more calories,
| but it does allow you to push out more watts. Try climbing a
| 10%+ incline clipped in vs flats. You might be more tired at
| the top of the hill clipped in, but with flats you'll likely
| spin out and be forced to hike your bike. Regarding this
| study, I don't think form in cycling can be trained on the
| typical trainer. You'd need a rocker plate and something
| raises/lowers your fork to perform any of the movement that
| outdoor riding requires.
| mrob wrote:
| >Try climbing a 10%+ incline clipped in vs flats. You might
| be more tired at the top of the hill clipped in, but with
| flats you'll likely spin out and be forced to hike your
| bike.
|
| Doesn't "spinning out" mean your power output is
| bottlenecked because you can't move your legs fast enough?
| It only happens when your gear is too low. I don't see how
| that's possible while climbing, regardless of what pedals
| you use. I ride with flats, and there's a 10% incline hill
| not far from where I live. I've climbed it several times
| (at about walking pace) and never had any problem.
| ambivalents wrote:
| I 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.
| theptip wrote:
| It's a fair point; I'm not sure where you'd draw the line
| between physiological effects and skill effects and
| equipment; things like ligament spring-loading sound like
| they would be subconscious techniques that are also
| accompanied by physiological adjustments.
|
| And I am sure that you would make a physical adaptation to a
| sufficiently different frame/fit geometry, though if your fit
| was "good enough" then upgrading might not incur much change
| on the physiological level.
| ak217 wrote:
| I think the problem is that cyclists get more efficient over
| time _on their bike_ and on the kind of course they are
| familiar with. In this study, they didn 't even have clip-in
| pedals: "Because not all of the runners were familiar with
| cycling shoes, all participants cycled in their own running
| shoes on flat pedals without toe clips or straps."
|
| On a constant-speed training bike without clip-in pedals, a
| road cyclist will be pretty far out of their element. A lot
| of the efficiency gain in cycling comes from adding rigidity
| to the power train between the foot and the road, and from
| the continuous power application that clip-in pedals and
| shoes enable.
| johnchase wrote:
| Although I use clipless pedals on both my road and mountain
| bikes, most of the research I've seen recently suggests
| that clipless do not provide any efficiency gain. This
| video provides links to numerous peer reviewed articles on
| the topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUEaN9FKGLE. Of
| course I'm sure there is research that would suggest
| otherwise, and I would be interested in seeing counter
| arguments.
| ak217 wrote:
| Thanks, that's a great video and I'm going to look
| through the references. Lots of great points made in the
| video.
|
| As he acknowledges in the end, a lot of cyclists prefer
| clip-in pedals just due to stability. In my experience,
| it's not so much about the upstroke (which to be fair I
| am surprised was not measured to provide a power
| benefit), but the knowledge that I will never lose my
| footing. Without that knowledge, I simply wouldn't apply
| as much power.
| crispyambulance wrote:
| There's seems to be questioning on powering the upstroke,
| but that has never been "the reason" for foot retention
| systems. Except for one specific type of cycling-- track
| cycling, where upstroke IS USED in high acceleration
| starts like in Match Sprint or short time trials. There
| are track versions of clipless systems which require a
| lot more force and twist to get out of.
|
| The main reason for clipless, as I understand it, is for
| safety and maintaining one's foot on the pedal. When
| you're pedaling, if you are apply any down-force
| whatsoever on the upstroke, you're wasting power. So, a
| trained cyclist will always have their foot practically
| floating on the upstroke and their foot will drift
| position as they pedal unless something is keeping it in
| place.
| 1_2__4 wrote:
| I would go even further and say that a stationary bike behaves
| quite differently than a moving bicycle. There's side to
| side/rocking motion, slippage at the wheels, geometry in turns
| etc. A stationary bike is incredibly constricting, eliminating
| a lot of different factors in a way that treadmill running just
| doesn't (it's much more similar to running in motion).
| danburbridge wrote:
| There 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 wrote:
| Double 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.
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| the same can be said for running on a belt all the time. it's
| OK as substitute for when temperatures fall too far, but
| certainly worse result than when torturing yourself with real
| terrain. (alas always better than ending the season before it
| starts with a broken ankle)
| nightski wrote:
| I'm pretty sure biking at a fixed cadence outside would have a
| poor result as well in flat terrain.
|
| At the end of the day I've seen massive improvements in my
| cycling ability when regularly doing a HIIT bike routine (such
| as sufferfest for example) on a trainer such as the wahoo
| kickr.
| justinator wrote:
| Honestly, the best performance I ever had in my life was on a
| 50km race a few months after finishing a 2700 mile MTB race.
| Safe to say the 2700 had a lot of long, slow miles. That
| massive base (and recovery afterwards) allowed me to win the
| 50km race, by 10 minutes, against Cat 1+2 and one pro (who
| got second). Also everyone else had more than one gears on
| their bikes.
| liminal wrote:
| The Great Divide?
| radar wrote:
| "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"
| ben7799 wrote:
| I'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.
| orthopodvt wrote:
| The 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.
| zython wrote:
| I think you meant to link this:
|
| https://www.outsideonline.com/2301366/training-makes-runners...
|
| or as already mentioned the title is wrong.
| helge9210 wrote:
| The 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 wrote:
| And 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 wrote:
| You 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 wrote:
| This 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.
| exabrial wrote:
| > 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.
| jsperson wrote:
| A 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.
| medium_burrito wrote:
| For 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!
| DenisM wrote:
| Did 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-...
| mft_ wrote:
| One anecdote. Most DH races involve a lot of hard
| pedalling.
| dahart wrote:
| Yes. 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.
| DenisM wrote:
| How 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 wrote:
| Why 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 wrote:
| I 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.
| exabrial wrote:
| For road biking I can't provide much advice, but I'm sure
| Dylan Johnson does. He has a great YouTube channel and he
| does nothing but quote whitepapers and studies.
|
| For XCO, one must learn to load/unload wheels as they go over
| obstacles. The more you practice this, the more efficient you
| get at it; so rather than just plowing through obstacles with
| the gas pedal floored, figure out how to traverse rocks and
| roots using weight shifting only. Learning to manual on flat
| ground with the seat post all the way down can probably teach
| you a ton about weight shifting.
|
| Another big gain for me is learning how to judge how
| difficult a climb is and keeping a very steady pace up the
| climb. It takes practice, but the steadier your pace[power
| output] is, the more efficient it will be.
|
| If you're not shifting constantly, you're not doing things
| correctly :) You should be shifting before you hit your climb
| and should time when you need to put power down with your
| shifts so you don't have to shift under load.
|
| An oval chainring can help prevent pedal stalls at the top of
| stroke (I use the OneUp Components Cinch 32T) on both climbs
| and rock gardens.
|
| Make sure your bike fits your body as we're all built pretty
| differently. Literally learn everything about stack height,
| seat tube angle, bar rise, head tube angle, reach, bottom
| bracket height, wheel base, chainstay length, etc. There's
| important pedaling dynamics like anti-squat that are affected
| by everything in that list :)
|
| And of course, training, weight loss, etc as you probably
| already know.
| TimD1 wrote:
| Agreed. 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.
| indymike wrote:
| Even 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).
| karmakaze wrote:
| I 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.
| ChrisGranger wrote:
| Please use original titles.
|
| "The 100 Most Influential Studies in Sports Medicine"
| nradov wrote:
| As 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 wrote:
| Yes - 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-22 23:01 UTC)