Live data from Hacker News

Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but Not Cyclists (2018)

outsideonline.com

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but Not Cyclists (2018)

#21
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.

Re: Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but Not Cyclists (2018)

#22
post #4

> 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 Mar…

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.

Re: Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but Not Cyclists (2018)

#23
post #7

> 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 result…

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.

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.

Re: Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but Not Cyclists (2018)

#24
post #7

> 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 result…

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

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.

Re: Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but Not Cyclists (2018)

#25
post #4

> 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 Mar…

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).

Re: Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but Not Cyclists (2018)

#26
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 wi…

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.

Re: Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but Not Cyclists (2018)

#27

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.

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.

Re: Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but Not Cyclists (2018)

#28
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

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.

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.

Re: Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but Not Cyclists (2018)

#29
post #7

> 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 result…

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.

Re: Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but Not Cyclists (2018)

#30
post #7

> 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 result…

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.

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.

Post reply on HN