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

&gt; 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.<p>A pretty big caveat. I’m not surprised that cycling on a stationary bike at a fixed cadence has very little room for skill&#x2F;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.<p>Still an interesting result, since it does show that there is a skill-based efficiency gain in running.

&gt; Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but Not Cyclists<p>I could see this being true for road bikers... but any XCO, CXO, or Enduro rider depends heavily on training for:<p>* Finding efficient body position for climbing<p>* Weight shifting&#x2F;wheel unloading while crossing features<p>* Discovery efficiency gains in pedal cadence for terrain, slope, camber<p>I did a cross country race last July. I started mountain biking in March (guess why).<p>I was in great cardiovascular shape from being a rower and my legs were it great shape too. However, I&#x27;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&#x27;ll reach a plateau eventually but for an amateur that plain is quite high.

I&#x27;m a cyclist.. while I can agree that this study could be flawed there&#x27;s also something else.<p>Bicycles are highly efficient themselves.. perhaps so efficient that they hide too many cues that riders would use to become more efficient.<p>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&#x27;s probably too much noise in the signals with all the strange stuff that goes on with cycling, like weather, traffic, group riding, etc..<p>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 &quot;protected&quot; 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.<p>I do think any competitive rider will become more efficient after a year of coached riding with the benefit of a power meter &amp; electronic tracking. Every pro today has that of course.

The relevant part of the article:<p>&gt; 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.

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&#x27;s comment about how easy the neuromuscular coordination to bike is, he probably hasn&#x27;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&#x27;re going at a slower pace.

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.<p>You don&#x27;t have to keep the bike that still under you on the road, and that wastes energy.

&quot;Cyclist&quot; should not be used here at all. Especially in the title, since bicycles were not used.<p>&quot;Training Makes Runners More Efficient, but not Spin Class Attendees&quot;

I don&#x27;t see any importance in the conclusion. Certainly training improves technique which improves efficiency in real world situations.<p>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&#x27;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&#x27;t downshift your way out of it, it&#x27;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&#x27;t better. That was immensely better and there are likely so many other things that could be better tuned for efficiency.

As a practical matter training can make cyclists more efficient by improving aerodynamics even if their psychological efficiency doesn&#x27;t change. It takes quite a bit of muscular endurance and body awareness to hold an optimal aero position through a long ride.

Participants were measured on a fixed bike in a lab wearing running shoes.<p>Sorry guys but this is junk science

I think you meant to link this:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.outsideonline.com&#x2F;2301366&#x2F;training-makes-runners-more-efficient-not-cyclists" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.outsideonline.com&#x2F;2301366&#x2F;training-makes-runners...</a><p>or as already mentioned the title is wrong.

Please use original titles.<p>&quot;The 100 Most Influential Studies in Sports Medicine&quot;