Threshold & VO2max Differences Between Cycling and Running
I'm starting this thread partially in response to @Dave Tallo's post. This post doesn't quite fit as response to the topic he started (Turning airborne, contagious lemons into lemonade: A Time for Experiments), but there is some overlap and he motivated me to share some cool stuff I've learned recently).
I've had an ongoing discussion with someone who shall remain nameless (to protect me!) about bike performance vs run performance. This person has made super run improvements, always places well running, but biker performance isn't on the same scale. The COVID-Break has given me a some time to put data to the question "what should me bike performance be relative to my run performance?"
I pulled some data from 4 Athletes from 2019 (table below). A couple observations:
- Athlete's A, B & C had run FTP at/below bike FTP, Athlete D (the one in question) was reversed.
- Athlete's A, B & C had run Oxygen consumption at/below bike VO2, Athlete D was reversed.
I found this to be really curious... for an athlete who trains for both running and cycling, why would oxygen consumption be materially different? I found a really interesting paper on the subject: Physiological Differences Between Cycling and Running (Gregoire P. Millet, V.E. Vleck and D.J. Bentley - paper attached). The paper is a meta study, looking at results from other studies on runners/cyclists/triathletes, men/women, different ages, different ability levels.
Some take-aways:
- VO2max is specific the the sport (you can have different numbers for each sport)
- The cyclists had higher VO2s on the bike than on the run, the runners had higher VO2s on the run than on the bike and both were able to make improvements in their "off" sports when they trained.
- Cross training helps, however, running benefits cycling more than cycling benefits running
- Triathletes, generally have no material difference between VO2max for cycling vs running. Looking at the data, running was typically ≈2% higher than cycling.
- The EN athletes A, B & C each had bike VO2/FTP 5-10% bigger than run VO2, D's run was ≈30-40% greater than the bike.
- HR is different between running and cycling for both maximal and sub-maximal activities. Running is always higher (we knew this).
- Ventilatory fatigue / deteriorating mechanics measured in all activates, however, it was more impaired in cycling than in running.
- It was specifically noted that running after biking is an issue because cycling creates ventilators fatigue. Evidence that this can be improved with training (ie, do bricks).
Putting the WKO data I pulled together with the take-aways from the paper:
- Having power data from running (Stryd) as well as from the bike gives us an opportunity for insights into our fitness and training that we haven't had historically.
- It can be useful to do an analysis that compares VO2 and FTP from biking and running. As triathletes, these numbers should be within a small % of each other. To the extent that they are different, eg - run VO2 is much greater than bike VO2, it could indicate an area to focus training. Doing some quick math from the table above, with training focused on raising the oxygen consumption on the bike to approach the level demonstrated on the run could result in FTP improving from ≈155w to 210w!!
- If the 2019 data from Athletes A, B & C is somehow representative of our team, we are all probably leaving something on the table in terms of run performance and we may wan to consider working harder at our threshold runs!
Thoughts?
Comments
Very nice of you to put in the time to pull this together for us @Rich Stanbaugh . Looks to be a good strong, meaningful data set which you have summarized well, IMO.
2 thoughts for the readers to consider.
An athlete has one size set of heart and lungs relative to his/her extremities with which to pump oxygen and blood. Some of us more gifted than others. Biking, the act of engaging the larger quad and hamstring muscles at the same time vs. running may not allow that pump to push the blood and oxygen through both of those larger muscle sets as forcefully as it can through the running muscles given the hams and quads while biking are using so much blood and oxygen, hence a lower V02 ability biking vs. running using the same pumping system.
Pushing the run harder on the threshold runs to leverage this capacity might send us two steps backwards given the exponential risk of injury the run poses as intensity increase. Why not use the bike to safely work the pumping system (heart and lungs) into those extreme ranges, gain the fitness and decrease the risk injury otherwise inherent in threshold runs?
This really is amazing, Rich, and thanks for these data and conclusions. And for the paper. There's a lot to chew on.
My immediate curiosity about Athlete D (as an outlier) and tes A, B and C (as representative) is the role of absolute body mass on run FTP and v02 versus bike FTP and v02. More to follow, as I acknowledge the question is about the difference between oxygen uptake between the two.
Great stuff @Rich Stanbaugh
My question would be. How would the V02 comparison run vs. bike be if it were derived via Heart Rate and not Power? I'm guessing the outcome would still be similar ?
While I really believe the data calculations via STRYD, it is not a real PM strain gauge. The beginning (shorter time frames) of data in the power curve would be in question. The spread in run power curve is a lot smaller than bike power curve?
@Shaughn Simmons thanks for the thoughtful response, you brought up some good thinking points.
An athlete has one size set of heart and lungs relative to his/her extremities with which to pump oxygen and blood. Some of us more gifted than others. Biking, the act of engaging the larger quad and hamstring muscles at the same time vs. running may not allow that pump to push the blood and oxygen through both of those larger muscle sets as forcefully as it can through the running muscles given the hams and quads while biking are using so much blood and oxygen, hence a lower V02 ability biking vs. running using the same pumping system.
The study discussed this effect (§1.1.1) and noted that exactly this phenomena occurred in cases with untrained subjects, however in runners having any prior experience in the cycling, they were able to attain VO2max equal to or approaching their running VO2. I would guess that you are exactly right about the muscle mass, but that when you switch sports, there is an associated vascularity / capillary development that overcomes the issue. All of the data in the study suggested that with training, the numbers become very close to the same for all/most athletes.
Pushing the run harder on the threshold runs to leverage this capacity might send us two steps backwards given the exponential risk of injury the run poses as intensity increase. Why not use the bike to safely work the pumping system (heart and lungs) into those extreme ranges, gain the fitness and decrease the risk injury otherwise inherent in threshold runs?
I wholehearted agree with risks associated with running injuries. Having said that, you cannot become a fast runner unless you practice running fast.
The questions become - how fast do you need run and how do you balance that with the risk of injury? When I was young, the answer was "run as fast as I can" and "injuries?" Now, about the fastest I ever run is my "aspirational" 5k speed (works out to about 110-115% of threshold). By "aspirational," I mean the 5k speed that is associated with the my target race pace. I achieve the VO2 development by controlling the number of intervals and the rest between intervals. So, even if I am doing 400m repeats, I will do them at the 5k pace, increase the repeats and do jogging recoveries for 200m. This a a much different approach than on the bike where I regularly learn lessons in humility!
My immediate curiosity about Athlete D (as an outlier) and tes A, B and C (as representative) is the role of absolute body mass on run FTP and v02 versus bike FTP and v02. More to follow, as I acknowledge the question is about the difference between oxygen uptake between the two.
Athlete C has a lower body mass than Athlete D
Thanks @tim cronk
My question would be. How would the V02 comparison run vs. bike be if it were derived via Heart Rate and not Power? I'm guessing the outcome would still be similar ?
From my understanding, there are lots of different ways to estimate VO2. Traditionally, the most accurate way has been to go to a lab, jump on a treadmill/bike and do a maximal effort protocol while a technician periodically pricks your finger and measures your blood. This has been/probably still is the gold standard.
There is also a test where you wear a mask and they derive VO2 from the amount of CO2 in your breath. When I was in track in HS, we ran fixed distances at maximal effort and the coach looked the time/distance up on a table and estimated it that way (he also times us with a mechanical stop watch!).
Garmin uses an algorithm from Firstbeat to estimate VO2max based on heart rate data. Studies that I have read put this data within 5%-10% of lab data. The number that Garmin predicts for me tends to be slightly higher than the number that WKO predicts for me.
WKOs estimate is based on some complicated math on power and the PDC based on maximal efforts. When Dr, Coggan was developing this (circa 2013), cyclist were submitting their lab results and they were comparing the WKO calculations to the Lab results. The results were pretty remarkable, ≤5% difference (from memory).
Steve Palladino worked with WKO to adapt the calculations for running and achieved similar results. I believe that some of the adaption that they had to account for was to account for the short duration powers being less developed. If you do not have maximal efforts in the VO2 data ranges building out your PDC, the VO2 estimates will not be good.
I know that the four sets of data that I used were good data sets based on maximal bike efforts.
In the end, I am not certain how "accurate" any of the tests are. If the precision is good (repeatable results), then the tool become useful I think. It is especially useful because every time I load a new workout it is 'up to date' and it impacts decisions that I make about my next training session.
Thanks @Dave Tallo
My immediate curiosity about Athlete D (as an outlier) and tes A, B and C (as representative) is the role of absolute body mass on run FTP and v02 versus bike FTP and v02. More to follow, as I acknowledge the question is about the difference between oxygen uptake between the two.
I considered looking at the data in relative terms (normalized to body weight). If I was going to compare absolute numbers from athlete to athlete, I think that the data would have to be normalized.
In the end, I was trying to answer the questions "how much oxygen can this person consume?" And "do they consume about the same running as biking?" So, the comparisons that I was making were either within the same person, A vs A, B vs B, C vs C and D vs D, or they were comparing ratios across athletes, eg. VO2(bike)/VO2(run).
The largest body mass is ≈140% of the smallest body mass.
@Rich Stanbaugh - so what's the work prescription for Athlete D? I'm trying to advise on a similar scenario: an experienced masters-age triathlete, lean, ectomorph, with similar time (~12 years) in his run and bike legs. I want him to take 12 weeks in the fall to do a package of bike FTP work. Thoughts?
@Dave Tallo - I've spent a lot of time on this subject since April. I have "learned" a ton, but I haven't tested it on myself yet, so take this with a bigger-than-usual grain of salt. Also - there is more here than you asked for... I've been meaning to come back to this post and you gave me the impetus.
Starting with VO2 and adding to thoughts above
12-Week Plan
One last point - I have read a ton, talked to a ton of people, listened to a ton of podcasts to try learning about this. It is hard to know who all I should credit - Kolie Moore's Empirical Cycling and subsequent conversations with him is a key source of my learning. Some re-reading ancient postings from teh WKO forum, some from reading anatomy texts and a ton of papers. The concept of creating pre-load to drive stroke volume came directly from him. Some of the ideas are mine and some from other reading. I want to make sure to give the impression that this posting is a smorgasbord :-)
Wow, this is super great stuff @Rich Stanbaugh and @Dave Tallo .
Presentation is also really good...I like the functional changes (per workout prescription).
Random additions...just doing some performance testing with INSCYD and the data really gives depth to VO2 (range allows for short or long intervals) and the VLaMax metric (maximum glycolytic power) number tells me which VO2 you suck at (low VLaMax struggle with high VO2 numbers).
Note the the testing approach is built on overachieving early, as you have described. So a 3' interval needs to be paced as a 1' interval and then you hang on.
It also struck me we could do some "primed" intervals, and I have written those...both Primed + Threshold, as well as Primed + Lactate Shuttling. I even have a VO2Mix workout where the shorter/harder stuff "primes" the athlete and then they can do longer more sustainable efforts albeit at a lower power).
#overlap !! 😉
~ Coach Patrick