An hour at zone 3, is it useful?

[kaptanpedal]

Of course running will produce more fitness for the same person . Comparisons are tricky and depends on the selection but all else as much as equal running will get vo2max higher.
- running uses more muscles. Not by much but enough to make a difference.
- even slow running is hard. No freewheeling, no descending. Comparable to climbing in cycling.
- cycling training is measured in tss, kj, watts or similar. For running distance alone tells a lot. There is a reason for that.

I have done both sports competitively and would say running is much more time efficient to get fit. Only comparable riding is sweetspot on a trainer. If i was time crunched i would go back to running.
It is very easy to ride, enjoy it and not get fit enough for the time spend.
This does not mean top end of cycling is less fit, quite the opposite. To run well you just need to run well. To cycle well you need to do much more than that. Just coming to the finish line in one piece is an achievement by itself.
Finally; boy running is boring (except trail running)

[TobinHatesYou]

Did I say I got it from the videos? People post their data...

Also, don't sit there and pretend like I'm saying something crazy. Every since that one study from a US university (slips my mind) that came out 10 or so years ago which implied that (right or wrong) cyclists are generally less fit than runners, and may even be worse at cycling than runners after adaptations, this whole "what are cyclists doing wrong" concept has been a relatively hot topic.

And no, don't ask me to cite it or engage in a long discussion on the merits of this study as I found it interesting and nothing more. Just something to think about without jumping to conclusions.

Okay so if you look at my data where I do 150W at 99bpm, 255W at 130bpm and 300W at 152bpm, what can you infer about my VO2max or my general aerobic fitness? What is my FT and my TTE from those w/bpm data points? I'll throw in that I weigh 60/61kg.

[iheartbianchi]

Thanks, I should give it a shot. Need to try to make time for longer rides during the week. Usually my long weekend ride has too much intensity for polarized training. Yesterday I did a 5 hour ride with 150BPM average and periods of 170-180 (my max is 200). I could squeeze in 2hr rides during the week sometimes but 3hr would be tough.

This is always the trade-off. Those 5 hour rides (presumably with friends) is a lot of fun, etc. Certainly 100x more fun than cruising at 25-30km/hr alone for 5 hours (barf just to think about).

But we've all been on those rides. And if we're being honest, for how long afterwards are we feeling knackered? 2-3 days? Can you get any decent riding in the day or two after the 5 hour ride? Or are you slow pedaling trying to "recover", if you're even on the bike at all?

[iheartbianchi]

Of course running will produce more fitness for the same person . Comparisons are tricky and depends on the selection but all else as much as equal running will get vo2max higher.
- running uses more muscles. Not by much but enough to make a difference.
- even slow running is hard. No freewheeling, no descending. Comparable to climbing in cycling.
- cycling training is measured in tss, kj, watts or similar. For running distance alone tells a lot. There is a reason for that.

I have done both sports competitively and would say running is much more time efficient to get fit. Only comparable riding is sweetspot on a trainer. If i was time crunched i would go back to running.
It is very easy to ride, enjoy it and not get fit enough for the time spend.
This does not mean top end of cycling is less fit, quite the opposite. To run well you just need to run well. To cycle well you need to do much more than that. Just coming to the finish line in one piece is an achievement by itself.
Finally; boy running is boring (except trail running)

See, this is where we disagree. I think 1 hour of cycling at 60% of max HR should get you the same exact aerobic fitness benefits as 1 hour of running at 60% of max HR! But you're right, in practice, running tends to create more fit people for time invested.

There is all this talk of swinging your arms, using a wider range of core muscles to stabilize your running motion, etc. in running, which supposedly requires more calories burn compared to cylcing which is more or less stationary with your legs moving in a fixed path. This all sounds good at first glance, but conceptually, if your heart is beating at 130 bpm (or at a specific level of oxygen uptake), you are more or less producing in the aggregate the same amount of work through your cardiovascular system.

But yes, running is terribly boring. I used to run 12 miles or so a day when I was running in college. When you're doing 60-70 mile weeks (roughly 8 hours of training), you're in really good shape and at that point running slow (7-8 min mile) is incredibly easy and effortless.

[iheartbianchi]

Okay so if you look at my data where I do 150W at 99bpm, 255W at 130bpm and 300W at 152bpm, what can you infer about my VO2max or my general aerobic fitness? What is my FT and my TTE from those w/bpm data points? I'll throw in that I weigh 60/61kg.

I think this is a bit backwards. What I would want to see is how long you can maintain an effort at 99bpm, or 130bpm, or 152 bpm, regardless of power. Your question implies a static, linear relationship between effort level, and power-based metrics such as FTP or TTE. I.e., that the ability of a person to maintain x% of MaxHR is consistent to that of others (in other words, that all people can maintain a 70% MaxHR effort for approximately 3 hours). On the contrary, I contend that the ability to maintain an x% of MaxHR for longer durations of time is in fact a key measure of aerobic fitness.

(But I will humor you. Assuming a max HR of around 185-190, I would say that you are very fit aerobically, with an FTP (3 hours) of roughly 300 watts and a Vo2Max of between 55-65. FTP 60 probably 350 watts or so. Take this with a grain of salt as I think this whole exercise is inaccurate and misleading! More on this below:)

And just to demonstrate how vastly different the training and scientific theory is between running and cycling, see the below - it's really the polar opposite way of thinking about training compared to most cycling.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 03026/full

Excerpt:

"While the minority of these recreational (around 3 h) runners were able to sustain a constant speed with a low coefficient of variation until arrival, the great majority of them (3/4) “hit the marathon wall” at the 26th km. Indeed, in accordance with prior studies (Alvarez-Ramirez and Rodriguez, 2006; Billat V.L. et al., 2009; Wesfreid and Billat, 2009; Haney and Mercer, 2011; Renfree and St Clair Gibson, 2013), a change of the fractal scaling of the heart rate and speed in a marathon race has been detected, showing evidence of the significant effect of fatigue induced by such long and intensive exercise on the heart rate and speed variability (Wesfreid and Billat, 2009; Billat et al., 2012). Indeed, marathon elicits a high fraction of VO2max (70–90%), which has been estimated to be between 70 and 90% of VO2max according to the running economy at the marathon average speed (Costill, 1972; Sjödin and Svedenhag, 1985; Billat et al., 2001). This zone corresponds to subcritical speed, the one at which VO2 is not any more at a steady state and shows a drift until VO2max. Critical speed has been shown to be better correlated with marathon performance than VO2max or the ventilatory threshold (Billat et al., 1995; Florence and Weir, 1997). However, when real measures are performed during the real marathon race as did the excellent experiment of Maron et al. (1976), we can see that 100% of VO2max was elicited at the 26th km in one of the two good level marathoners (2 h30 min). Indeed, the speed is not constant and even more the oxygen cost of running per kilometer. This is due to the recruitment of supplementary fiber type II for compensating the muscular fatigue and strength responsible for losing elastic energy recoiling during the race (Gazeau et al., 1997; Slawinski and Billat, 2004; Rapoport, 2010). One has, indeed, considered that the ultimate limit to marathon performance might be dictated by the limits of running economy and a recruitment of the running musculature with a pattern that minimizes fatigue, possibly by spreading the work over many neurons (Coyle, 2007)."

Power-based measures such as FTP, TTE, even power itself, are just outputs based on a variety of inputs, i.e., snapshots or aggregations of a variety of variables. The problem arises when you try to craft a training program based on snapshots. This is akin to snapshots upon snapshots upon snapshots. It's maybe "good enough" for "some or most," but it comes at a cost of neglecting the underlying factors that influence the initial outputs in the first place. Just my two cents.

[TobinHatesYou]

350W 60min CP at 60kg would put me over 5.8w/kg and surely I'd be a domestic pro somewhere at that point. That would also make an estimate of between 55-65ml/kg/min quite low, don't you think?

For the record, my MLSS is somewhere around 300W, my LTHR is around ~161bpm and my HRmax is ~174bpm.

There's basically no way to tell from such data without the individual also describing their RPE.

[kaptanpedal]

Okay so if you look at my data where I do 150W at 99bpm, 255W at 130bpm and 300W at 152bpm, what can you infer about my VO2max or my general aerobic fitness? What is my FT and my TTE from those w/bpm data points? I'll throw in that I weigh 60/61kg.

Sustained power? For how long? If you can do 5wkg at 150bpm you are a monster or have a hrmax of 160

[iheartbianchi]

Okay so if you look at my data where I do 150W at 99bpm, 255W at 130bpm and 300W at 152bpm, what can you infer about my VO2max or my general aerobic fitness? What is my FT and my TTE from those w/bpm data points? I'll throw in that I weigh 60/61kg.

Sustained power? For how long? If you can do 5wkg at 150bpm you are a monster or have a hrmax of 160

I think it's fair to say Tobin is the fastest here among us

[iheartbianchi]

350W 60min CP at 60kg would put me over 5.8w/kg and surely I'd be a domestic pro somewhere at that point. That would also make an estimate of between 55-65ml/kg/min quite low, don't you think?

For the record, my MLSS is somewhere around 300W, my LTHR is around ~161bpm and my HRmax is ~174bpm.

There's basically no way to tell from such data without the individual also describing their RPE.

Based on your prior posts I would say you are fairly close to domestic pro level.

For your reference I used a rough calculation of 0.8 x MaxHR to guess your FTP 3 hour. Based on a MaxHR of 174 your FTP 3 hour would be revised (using my rough math) to 140bpm or probably around 275 power or so. Your 86% of MaxHR for MLSS and 91% of MaxHR for LT is very very high. Either your MaxHR number is wrong, or you have an incredibly high lactate threshold which means you have done a very large volume of long, hard riding. At 61kg I bet you can really hammer those KOMs. I would be curious to hear what protocols you used to test your MaxHR and LTHR.

[kaptanpedal]

See, this is where we disagree. I think 1 hour of cycling at 60% of max HR should get you the same exact aerobic fitness benefits as 1 hour of running at 60% of max HR! But you're right, in practice, running tends to create more fit people for time invested.

We don't. We are saying the same thing. I never said running at the same effort makes you fitter.

There is all this talk of swinging your arms, using a wider range of core muscles to stabilize your running motion, etc. in running, which supposedly requires more calories burn compared to cylcing which is more or less stationary with your legs moving in a fixed path. This all sounds good at first glance, but conceptually, if your heart is beating at 130 bpm (or at a specific level of oxygen uptake), you are more or less producing in the aggregate the same amount of work through your cardiovascular system.

Again a mix up. Running can reach a higher vo2max, not a higher vo2 consumption for the same effort (impossible to compare but assume same hr is close enough). I don't know where this same heart rate same outcome is coming from when we are looking at vo2max. When same person goes to the max they can do for both sports running will reach a higher vo2max and almost always a higher hr too.

[iheartbianchi]

Again a mix up. Running can reach a higher vo2max, not a higher vo2 consumption for the same effort (impossible to compare but assume same hr is close enough). I don't know where this same heart rate same outcome is coming from when we are looking at vo2max. When same person goes to the max they can do for both sports running will reach a higher vo2max and almost always a higher hr too.

We have come full circle, and I'm glad you raised this point. This is exactly what we have been talking about these past several pages.

In short, this is a misconception, and is in fact a hotly studied and debated topic of the last decade or so.

Yes, traditionally we have know that when you stick amateur runners on a cycling ergometer, the Vo2Max figures from the running activity was 10% or so higher than the cycling ergometer. This has often lead to conclusions such as yours, which incidentally are also used to "excuse" the lower Vo2Max numbers from the cyclists. Predictably, when amateur cyclists were placed on a treadmill, their Vo2Max on the treadmill was initially lower than the cycling due to biomechanical inefficiencies, but the treadmill results eventually caught up.

Critically, elite cyclists record their highest Vo2max on the cycling ergometer, and not on the treadmill. So there is a distinct difference in the running Vo2max results between amateur cyclists and elite cyclists. The reasons for this difference is hotly debated.

Again, some people use this to conclude simply that running requires more muscle recruitment and thus naturally elicits a higher Vo2Max, which more or less explains away why amateur cyclists tested on cycling ergometers exhibit lower Vo2max than amateur runners. On the flip-side, people such as myself contend that, based on the opposite results from elite cyclists, in fact the amateur cyclist group are less fit than their amateur running conterparts and this is the reason for the 10% or so difference (after controlling for basic biomechanical inefficiencies).

There is a slew of recent research on this topic and this is still cutting-edge so who knows where the dust will settle 5-10 years from now!

[TobinHatesYou]

Sustained power? For how long? If you can do 5wkg at 150bpm you are a monster or have a hrmax of 160

Much closer to the latter than the former, which is why I caution that we can’t just look at someone’s HR response over time without them either telling us their zones or LTHR or at least their perceived effort.

[kaptanpedal]

Yes, traditionally we have know that when you stick amateur runners on a cycling ergometer, the Vo2Max figures from the running activity was 10% or so higher than the cycling ergometer. This has often lead to conclusions such as yours, which incidentally are also used to "excuse" the lower Vo2Max numbers from the cyclists. Predictably, when amateur cyclists were placed on a treadmill, their Vo2Max on the treadmill was initially lower than the cycling due to biomechanical inefficiencies, but the treadmill results eventually caught up.

I am not basing my conslusion on any of that. And no sane person familiar with the matter would do so. Not sure why they were spending money and time testing this.

Critically, elite cyclists record their highest Vo2max on the cycling ergometer, and not on the treadmill.

Of course. Who argues otherwise?

So there is a distinct difference in the running Vo2max results between amateur cyclists and elite cyclists. The reasons for this difference is hotly debated.

They mean elite cyclists differ less between sports? I would expect this since being highly trained transitions better to other activities. Does not mean much by itself though.

Again, some people use this to conclude simply that running requires more muscle recruitment and thus naturally elicits a higher Vo2Max, which more or less explains away why amateur cyclists tested on cycling ergometers exhibit lower Vo2max than amateur runners. On the flip-side, people such as myself contend that, based on the opposite results from elite cyclists, in fact the amateur cyclist group are less fit than their amateur running conterparts and this is the reason for the 10% or so difference (after controlling for basic biomechanical inefficiencies).

To repeat: same person, as fit as possible: runner version hits higher vo2max most of the time. There are always exceptional cases of course.
Putting amateur runner vs cyclist against each other and coming to conclusions like mentioned here does not make any sense. Waste of money unless there is some other good reason for it.

[iheartbianchi]

There is nothing to suggest or support the premise that for any given person, their lifetime potential Vo2Max will be higher if he chose running over cycling. In fact, it would be the opposite. We do know that elite cyclists tend to have higher Vo2Max than their running counterparts. You're trying to say, if these cyclists had been runners, their Vo2Max would have been higher? That is unsupported by the evidence.

[kaptanpedal]

There is nothing to suggest or support the premise that for any given person, their lifetime potential Vo2Max will be higher if he chose running over cycling. In fact, it would be the opposite. We do know that elite cyclists tend to have higher Vo2Max than their running counterparts. You're trying to say, if these cyclists had been runners, their Vo2Max would have been higher? That is unsupported by the evidence.

We can agree to disagree on this one. And, no, we do not know any of the above for sure. And we do not have proof for any side of the argument. We have data and critical thinking, no evidence.
Muscle usage is a reality; look at xc skiers and their gigantic vo2max values. That can be a coincidence or more likely due to whole body nature of the exercise.

I also always keep in mind that cycling benefits from having a very high power @vo2max due to the nature of bike racing. Which benefits the testing procedures as well.
And finally elite running data is skewed by African runners who tend to be very efficient. Discussed here: https://sportsscientists.com/2010/09/2- ... hysiology/

Example A is based on the measured economy of African athletes (including some Olympic medalists) who have a measured economy of around 190 ml/kg/min. At 2-hour marathon pace, they use 67 ml/kg/min. That athlete, running at 80% of maximum, must have a VO2 max of 84 ml/kg/min. If they were able to sustain 85% (which I don’t think is possible), they would have an estimated VO2max of 79 ml/kg/min.

Even for extremely efficient runners a 2:0x:00 marathon is not inferior to TDF contenders in terms of typical vo2max.

Anyway, I would love to see the "evidence" and stand corrected.