Yet another reason to cycle

timestar

This is taken from today's Indenpendent (28/12/07):

Which sport has the fittest participants?

The sport of triathlon began with an argument between a group of US Navy Seals in San Diego. They wondered who were the fittest – swimmers, runners or cyclists – and attempted to find a way to answer the question. The solution they thrashed out was to conduct races in all three disciplines and see which they found the hardest. Furthermore, they would compete in each event consecutively which, while hardly scientific, appealed to their machismo – especially when their commander decided to award the title of "Ironman" to the winner. The first formally organised ironman race to invite all-comers was staged in 1978, when 15 entrants paid $3 each to attempt a 2.4-mile swim, a 112-mile bike ride and a 26.2-mile run under the Hawaiian sun. All but three entrants made it to the finish.

"Fitness" is a term that refers to five traits: cardiovascular efficiency, muscle-to-fat ratio, strength, agility and flexibility. In this sense, there are different kinds of fitness for different sports, yet researchers have tacitly agreed upon a common currency. The preferred unit of measurement when comparing different athletes' fitness is VO2 max – the maximum volume of oxygen that one can consume while exercising, expressed in terms of millilitres of oxygen per kilogram of bodyweight per minute. In 1996, a team at the University of Paris compared the VO2 max of groups of national-class cyclists, runners, swimmers and kayakers. There was little to separate the runners and cyclists, but the former had the edge over the latter with an average of 74.9ml/kg compared to 72.4ml/kg. Both were well ahead of the swimmers (59.6ml/kg) and kayakers (53.8ml/kg).

However, the researchers acknowledged that the cyclists were hamstrung by their larger body masses in this particular trial and the fact that they were operating in winter, out of season. Under different circumstances, they would normally beat the runners. Another study of top German cyclists gave an average VO2 max of 78ml/kg. Lance Armstrong's VO2 max is 83.8ml/kg. He also boasts a resting heart-rate of 32 beats per minute – compared with 60-70 for the average man – which rises to 201 at full exertion. According to his biographer Dan Coyle, these attributes make him "the world's greatest human power plant". He needed to be to win the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times. As Coyle put it: "The Tour is the hardest event on the planet, nothing comes close. Tour riders spend more daily energy than Everest climbers. During those three weeks they expend energy at a rate that exceeds the capabilities of all but four animal species."

Yet, there is something harder, for cyclists are not quite the fittest athletes in terms of VO2 max. That honour goes to cross-country skiers. Since they must use their arms as well as their legs to propel themselves, they are sending oxygen to the entire body. A study of elite German biathletes – a sport in which competitors also have to be skilled in rifle shooting and so can be expected to fall below the standards of pure skiers – found an average VO2 max of 81.7ml/kg among a group of six men. The fittest of them was on a par with Lance Armstrong. Pure cross-country skiers have reported scores of over 90ml/kg.

BentMikey

Of course the hardest cycle race is probably not the Tour, but RAAM. Two recumbent teams came second and third this year out of the two man teams.

ademort

That certainly makes for interesting reading. I,ve done many sports in my life and find cycling by far the most demanding. Unfortunately other sportmen and women will tend to disagree.Surely these days with all the tech know how, new methods of training, diet etc. one thing is for sure, to get to the top in any sport requires many hours of training, dedication and there must be a certain amount of natural talent in that athlete. It is great to know that after numerous tests conducted by various specialists around the world it does confirm what i have always believed. Cycling is an absolutely excellent way to build up condition and maintain a healthy body. Let,s hope this article is read by a great number of people and if only a small number turn to cycling for the fitness workout they require then it will only be for the good of the sport.Greetings One very happy Ademort.

Doom

ademort wrote:

I,ve done many sports in my life and find cycling by far the most demanding.

I my favourite time is watching the reaction of someone who considers themselves fit once they have got off a bike after a ride. No one knows just how demanding a sport is until they have done it themselves.

ademort

Hi DOOM, i love listening to footballers, rugby players e.t.c. saying how hard a game they had today.Have always said get yourself out on a bike preferably up the lake district where i used to live come with me and see just how far you get,most conversations usually end there, my offer was always on the table and none of the so called speed merchants or hardmen ever took me up on it.I will always say when you can cycle for three or four hours at a fair speed then your physical condition is excellent.We don,t stop for a break after 40-45minutes either.Greetings Ademort

Matteeboy

My V02Max is just under 60, thanks partially to a daily 10 mile hilly MTB ride for the last three years.

That's well into "superior" territory apparently.

Plax

I personally find running harder, that's one of the reason's why I started to cycle - it's easier! Maybe I'm just more pre-disposed to cycling. Running is much more boring, and at least with cycling you can commute to work. It's all hills round here too. I cycled 14 miles of mainly hill the other day. Managed to get up to 38mph down one of the hills - great fun!

Matteeboy

Well wife and I have been doing a daily ten mile cycle for years now.
I took up trail running mid last year and it was pretty easy to get good times - in my last very hilly 10k race, I came 5th out of 700 decent runners (my 2nd ever 10k).

Cycling gives you that good core fitness which helps for running (black and red shorts at the end of that 10k):



Surfing (me in November):



and all sorts of other stuff - I reckon it's THE perfect core fitness builder.

owenhewlett

ademort wrote:

Hi DOOM, i love listening to footballers, rugby players e.t.c. saying how hard a game they had today.Have always said get yourself out on a bike preferably up the lake district where i used to live come with me and see just how far you get,

I play rugby coach rugby and cycle
One thing you forget is when you cycle a 90 to 120 kg missile isnt rocketing towards your chest intent on destruction.
Rugby covers alot of anerobic quick burst of power quick rests
cycling areobic long sustained moderate efforts with small power bursts (hills, sprints)
I agree cycling is bloody tough but lets make the comparasins some what valid

Sorry about the rant just wanted to set the record straight

ademort

Hi Owenhewlett, thanks for your opinion, of course rugby is a hard and physically demanding sport i,ve played myself, all i,m sayimg is that when somebody cycles on a regular basis and covers distances of 80 miles plus then they have a very good fitness level and the results published in the Independent are of no surprise . This was never meant to be a slur on every rugby player or footballer.

graeme_s-2

Plax wrote:

I personally find running harder, that's one of the reason's why I started to cycle - it's easier! Maybe I'm just more pre-disposed to cycling. Running is much more boring, and at least with cycling you can commute to work. It's all hills round here too. I cycled 14 miles of mainly hill the other day. Managed to get up to 38mph down one of the hills - great fun!

I've taken up running in the last 12 months, as I did a couple of sprint triathlons this year. I'm planning to do an olympic distance next year, so I'm building up my running to do 10km. I absolutely agree with you, I find cycling much easier.

For me, the act of cycling is inherently comfortable. I find sitting on a well fitting bicycle and pedaling comfortable, when I push myself hard on the flat, or even on steep hills, my legs and lungs will burn, but I'm still comfortable. I find running inherently uncomfortable, from pretty much as soon as I start it feels like a physical and mental struggle to keep running, and I have various aches and pains all over my body.

timestar

As the original poster on this I just thought it was an interesting article. Myself I started out as a runner until injuries pushed me towards finding another sport for a while and I found cycling - and have been ever since. I'm not sure that I am "fitter" as a cyclist in general terms, although clearly I'm fitter to cycle. A good rugby player will be fit to play rugby, although general indicators such as VO2 max might also be quite good.