Realistic conversion between VO2 and FTP

kevin_stephens

Really? Even when the red mist come down out of the saddle in the last few seconds of a very steep hill or a 10 mile TT? I don't run but find that hard to believe

larkim

On max HR, I was surprised that last night in the final minute of the ramp test I was at the same HR as I was putting out at the end of a recent 10k, as I had always struggled to get HR as high whilst cycling compared to running. These were sustained MaxHRs, not just blips, on a Polar OH1+ which I trust.

wongataa

The Empirical Cycling podcast is doing a series at the moment on VO2 max.

https://www.empiricalcycling.com/podcast-episodes#

bobmcstuff

kevin_stephens said:

Really? Even when the red mist come down out of the saddle in the last few seconds of a very steep hill or a 10 mile TT? I don't run but find that hard to believe

Yes really. It's completely normal for your max heart rate in various sports to be different.

Running is weight bearing and requires more muscle groups, and most people will have a slightly higher MHR in running than cycling.

There's dozens of good references for this. I think this article was linked earlier: https://www.bicycling.com/training/a20043987/5-max-heart-rate-training-myths-busted/

"Things that are load bearing—like running—will generally push your heart rate higher, since you have to do more work to overcome gravity. Cycling, because it has the mechanical assistance of the bike, will generally produce a lower max heart rate. And swimming, which happens in a pool with zero-impact, may be lower still—since the water is keeping you cool, Golich says, heat will be less of a factor in raising your heart rate"

An actual paper https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-2003-39087

"We found that heart rate at IAT [individual aerobic threshold] or at 4 mmol × l-1 blood lactate did not correlate between cycling and running. A sports specific test seems to be a prerequisite for reliable heart rate recommendations."

maryka

larkim said:

The added complication is that I'm riding a dumb trainer with a speed / cadence sensor. It's a well known trainer (Crono Fluid) but clearly limited in terms of how accurate power data from that can be.

The 259w yesterday was based on a 20min average in the race at about 272w, but as you say that 20min average would include a minute of smashing out a lot more w. That was the first race I'd done though, and even in the mid section (only a 11 mile race anyway) I was riding at well above what I thought my FTP was (I think I averaged about 260 before any sense of a finale arrived) so 95% of 260 would put it around 247 which is still a decent jump up.

So far I've only done a ramp test, maybe time to do something a little more painful and see what numbers pop out of that.

So you don't even have a powermeter then? Get a powermeter, otherwise all talk about FTP etc. is academic...

bobmcstuff

larkim said:

On max HR, I was surprised that last night in the final minute of the ramp test I was at the same HR as I was putting out at the end of a recent 10k, as I had always struggled to get HR as high whilst cycling compared to running. These were sustained MaxHRs, not just blips, on a Polar OH1+ which I trust.

As I referenced above, it's normal for HR to be different between sports, but as I alluded to before there is definitely a skill to FTP testing (by ramp or other means) and you definitely do get better at it with a few goes.

The final minute of a ramp test should be a good indicator your MHR (for cycling).

bobmcstuff

maryka said:

larkim said:

The added complication is that I'm riding a dumb trainer with a speed / cadence sensor. It's a well known trainer (Crono Fluid) but clearly limited in terms of how accurate power data from that can be.

The 259w yesterday was based on a 20min average in the race at about 272w, but as you say that 20min average would include a minute of smashing out a lot more w. That was the first race I'd done though, and even in the mid section (only a 11 mile race anyway) I was riding at well above what I thought my FTP was (I think I averaged about 260 before any sense of a finale arrived) so 95% of 260 would put it around 247 which is still a decent jump up.

So far I've only done a ramp test, maybe time to do something a little more painful and see what numbers pop out of that.

So you don't even have a powermeter then? Get a powermeter, otherwise all talk about FTP etc. is academic...

Well so long as his virtual power is consistent day to day it's usable for training. But obviously comparing it to his friends is a bit pointless.

I used virtual power for years and was surprised to see how close it was to my Kickr (except for a few major blips, mostly when I messed up the setup).

First.Aspect

bobmcstuff said:

kevin_stephens said:

Really? Even when the red mist come down out of the saddle in the last few seconds of a very steep hill or a 10 mile TT? I don't run but find that hard to believe

Yes really. It's completely normal for your max heart rate in various sports to be different.

Running is weight bearing and requires more muscle groups, and most people will have a slightly higher MHR in running than cycling.

There's dozens of good references for this. I think this article was linked earlier: https://www.bicycling.com/training/a20043987/5-max-heart-rate-training-myths-busted/

"Things that are load bearing—like running—will generally push your heart rate higher, since you have to do more work to overcome gravity. Cycling, because it has the mechanical assistance of the bike, will generally produce a lower max heart rate. And swimming, which happens in a pool with zero-impact, may be lower still—since the water is keeping you cool, Golich says, heat will be less of a factor in raising your heart rate"

An actual paper https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-2003-39087

"We found that heart rate at IAT [individual aerobic threshold] or at 4 mmol × l-1 blood lactate did not correlate between cycling and running. A sports specific test seems to be a prerequisite for reliable heart rate recommendations."

What has gravity got to do with it?

maryka

But he asked whether his FTP was correct, as relating to his tested VO2max as a runner. So virtual power is not going to answer that question very well, and especially not in Zwift racing with all the accelerations etc.

I used virtual power as well for a few seasons (long before Zwift came along) with a known power curve on a dumb trainer and found that warming up the tire properly and having the pressure exactly right (both pressure of the roller against the tire and the tire pressure itself) was crucial. It's fine of course for measuring your progress in steady state training, but that's not what this thread was about.

bobmcstuff

First.Aspect said:

bobmcstuff said:

kevin_stephens said:

Really? Even when the red mist come down out of the saddle in the last few seconds of a very steep hill or a 10 mile TT? I don't run but find that hard to believe

Yes really. It's completely normal for your max heart rate in various sports to be different.

Running is weight bearing and requires more muscle groups, and most people will have a slightly higher MHR in running than cycling.

There's dozens of good references for this. I think this article was linked earlier: https://www.bicycling.com/training/a20043987/5-max-heart-rate-training-myths-busted/

"Things that are load bearing—like running—will generally push your heart rate higher, since you have to do more work to overcome gravity. Cycling, because it has the mechanical assistance of the bike, will generally produce a lower max heart rate. And swimming, which happens in a pool with zero-impact, may be lower still—since the water is keeping you cool, Golich says, heat will be less of a factor in raising your heart rate"

An actual paper https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-2003-39087

"We found that heart rate at IAT [individual aerobic threshold] or at 4 mmol × l-1 blood lactate did not correlate between cycling and running. A sports specific test seems to be a prerequisite for reliable heart rate recommendations."

What has gravity got to do with it?

Ask the guy that wrote it? Requires more muscle groups to work to overcome it I suppose.

The second link seems more reliable though.

bobmcstuff

maryka said:

But he asked whether his FTP was correct, as relating to his tested VO2max as a runner. So virtual power is not going to answer that question very well, and especially not in Zwift racing with all the accelerations etc.

I used virtual power as well for a few seasons (long before Zwift came along) with a known power curve on a dumb trainer and found that warming up the tire properly and having the pressure exactly right (both pressure of the roller against the tire and the tire pressure itself) was crucial. It's fine of course for measuring your progress in steady state training, but that's not what this thread was about.

Yep, fair. I found having the roller tension the same was important too. And not accidentally changing the resistance setting on the turbo without noticing... Which I did at least twice...

First.Aspect

bobmcstuff said:

First.Aspect said:

bobmcstuff said:

kevin_stephens said:

Really? Even when the red mist come down out of the saddle in the last few seconds of a very steep hill or a 10 mile TT? I don't run but find that hard to believe

Yes really. It's completely normal for your max heart rate in various sports to be different.

Running is weight bearing and requires more muscle groups, and most people will have a slightly higher MHR in running than cycling.

There's dozens of good references for this. I think this article was linked earlier: https://www.bicycling.com/training/a20043987/5-max-heart-rate-training-myths-busted/

"Things that are load bearing—like running—will generally push your heart rate higher, since you have to do more work to overcome gravity. Cycling, because it has the mechanical assistance of the bike, will generally produce a lower max heart rate. And swimming, which happens in a pool with zero-impact, may be lower still—since the water is keeping you cool, Golich says, heat will be less of a factor in raising your heart rate"

An actual paper https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-2003-39087

"We found that heart rate at IAT [individual aerobic threshold] or at 4 mmol × l-1 blood lactate did not correlate between cycling and running. A sports specific test seems to be a prerequisite for reliable heart rate recommendations."

What has gravity got to do with it?

Ask the guy that wrote it? Requires more muscle groups to work to overcome it I suppose.

The second link seems more reliable though.

The guy who wrote it writes for a bicycle magazine. It is the latter.

What the paper actually says, I suspect (I can't access it) is that you need to measure these things with the sport you are actually trained for. So, if you are a runner, don't measure FTP, MaxHR or VO2max on a bike, or vice versa.

Which doesn't seem to me have necessitated academic research, any more than the study that found no statistical bias towards toast falling butter side down, but hey.

bobmcstuff

First.Aspect said:

bobmcstuff said:

First.Aspect said:

bobmcstuff said:

kevin_stephens said:

Really? Even when the red mist come down out of the saddle in the last few seconds of a very steep hill or a 10 mile TT? I don't run but find that hard to believe

Yes really. It's completely normal for your max heart rate in various sports to be different.

Running is weight bearing and requires more muscle groups, and most people will have a slightly higher MHR in running than cycling.

There's dozens of good references for this. I think this article was linked earlier: https://www.bicycling.com/training/a20043987/5-max-heart-rate-training-myths-busted/

"Things that are load bearing—like running—will generally push your heart rate higher, since you have to do more work to overcome gravity. Cycling, because it has the mechanical assistance of the bike, will generally produce a lower max heart rate. And swimming, which happens in a pool with zero-impact, may be lower still—since the water is keeping you cool, Golich says, heat will be less of a factor in raising your heart rate"

An actual paper https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-2003-39087

"We found that heart rate at IAT [individual aerobic threshold] or at 4 mmol × l-1 blood lactate did not correlate between cycling and running. A sports specific test seems to be a prerequisite for reliable heart rate recommendations."

What has gravity got to do with it?

Ask the guy that wrote it? Requires more muscle groups to work to overcome it I suppose.

The second link seems more reliable though.

The guy who wrote it writes for a bicycle magazine. It is the latter.

What the paper actually says, I suspect (I can't access it) is that you need to measure these things with the sport you are actually trained for. So, if you are a runner, don't measure FTP, MaxHR or VO2max on a bike, or vice versa.

Which doesn't seem to me have necessitated academic research, any more than the study that found no statistical bias towards toast falling butter side down, but hey.

They did MHR tests (ramp tests) with the same athletes on treadmills and bikes. With the specific aim of trying to determine whether MHR in one sport is applicable to another. And found that it is not.

Which is completely relevant to what Kevin above was saying above that MHR in cycling should be the same as running. It is not. I thought I should try and include something to support that since otherwise you just get shot down on here; turns out you get shot down even if you do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

First.Aspect

bobmcstuff said:

First.Aspect said:

bobmcstuff said:

First.Aspect said:

bobmcstuff said:

kevin_stephens said:

Really? Even when the red mist come down out of the saddle in the last few seconds of a very steep hill or a 10 mile TT? I don't run but find that hard to believe

Yes really. It's completely normal for your max heart rate in various sports to be different.

Running is weight bearing and requires more muscle groups, and most people will have a slightly higher MHR in running than cycling.

There's dozens of good references for this. I think this article was linked earlier: https://www.bicycling.com/training/a20043987/5-max-heart-rate-training-myths-busted/

"Things that are load bearing—like running—will generally push your heart rate higher, since you have to do more work to overcome gravity. Cycling, because it has the mechanical assistance of the bike, will generally produce a lower max heart rate. And swimming, which happens in a pool with zero-impact, may be lower still—since the water is keeping you cool, Golich says, heat will be less of a factor in raising your heart rate"

An actual paper https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-2003-39087

"We found that heart rate at IAT [individual aerobic threshold] or at 4 mmol × l-1 blood lactate did not correlate between cycling and running. A sports specific test seems to be a prerequisite for reliable heart rate recommendations."

What has gravity got to do with it?

Ask the guy that wrote it? Requires more muscle groups to work to overcome it I suppose.

The second link seems more reliable though.

The guy who wrote it writes for a bicycle magazine. It is the latter.

What the paper actually says, I suspect (I can't access it) is that you need to measure these things with the sport you are actually trained for. So, if you are a runner, don't measure FTP, MaxHR or VO2max on a bike, or vice versa.

Which doesn't seem to me have necessitated academic research, any more than the study that found no statistical bias towards toast falling butter side down, but hey.

They did MHR tests (ramp tests) with the same athletes on treadmills and bikes. With the specific aim of trying to determine whether MHR in one sport is applicable to another. And found that it is not.

Which is completely relevant to what Kevin above was saying above that MHR in cycling should be the same as running. It is not. I thought I should try and include something to support that since otherwise you just get shot down on here; turns out you get shot down even if you do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I've found that as well.

larkim

maryka said:

larkim said:

The added complication is that I'm riding a dumb trainer with a speed / cadence sensor. It's a well known trainer (Crono Fluid) but clearly limited in terms of how accurate power data from that can be.

So you don't even have a powermeter then? Get a powermeter, otherwise all talk about FTP etc. is academic...

LOL, I'm far too penny pinching for that. £300 bike (but not a terrible one), £100 trainer, £50 speed and cadence sensor and I'm griping about £12.99 for one month on Zwift. £400+ on a power meter just isn't going to happen!

Ben6899

First.Aspect said:

bobmcstuff said:

kevin_stephens said:

Really? Even when the red mist come down out of the saddle in the last few seconds of a very steep hill or a 10 mile TT? I don't run but find that hard to believe

Yes really. It's completely normal for your max heart rate in various sports to be different.

Running is weight bearing and requires more muscle groups, and most people will have a slightly higher MHR in running than cycling.

There's dozens of good references for this. I think this article was linked earlier: https://www.bicycling.com/training/a20043987/5-max-heart-rate-training-myths-busted/

"Things that are load bearing—like running—will generally push your heart rate higher, since you have to do more work to overcome gravity. Cycling, because it has the mechanical assistance of the bike, will generally produce a lower max heart rate. And swimming, which happens in a pool with zero-impact, may be lower still—since the water is keeping you cool, Golich says, heat will be less of a factor in raising your heart rate"

An actual paper https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-2003-39087

"We found that heart rate at IAT [individual aerobic threshold] or at 4 mmol × l-1 blood lactate did not correlate between cycling and running. A sports specific test seems to be a prerequisite for reliable heart rate recommendations."

What has gravity got to do with it?

Body mass is irrelevant, if you take away gravity.

larkim

bobmcstuff said:

maryka said:

But he asked whether his FTP was correct, as relating to his tested VO2max as a runner. So virtual power is not going to answer that question very well, and especially not in Zwift racing with all the accelerations etc.

I used virtual power as well for a few seasons (long before Zwift came along) with a known power curve on a dumb trainer and found that warming up the tire properly and having the pressure exactly right (both pressure of the roller against the tire and the tire pressure itself) was crucial. It's fine of course for measuring your progress in steady state training, but that's not what this thread was about.

Yep, fair. I found having the roller tension the same was important too. And not accidentally changing the resistance setting on the turbo without noticing... Which I did at least twice...

No roller tension to adjust on a Crono Fluid, so assuming it's been manufactured to reasonable tolerances, and that Zwift have analysed the trainer properly, they should have a decent idea of a good power correlation. Can't deny that tyre pressure and warming up wouldn't be factors too of course but I do try to keep those consistent.

I've only done one race where I got an FTP update, all my other Zwifting has been on either group rides or workouts. I've done the ramp test twice now, 5 weeks ago I could get through the 280w minute but failed at 300w, yesterday I got through the 340w but couldn't summon enough to get to 360w and that raised the Zwift -calculated FTP to 269w. Whether that would be exactly the same on a higher spec kit or could be replicated on a real bike with a power meter, who knows. I'm definitely on a learning / performance curve though.

larkim

Ben6899 said:

First.Aspect said:

bobmcstuff said:

kevin_stephens said:

Really? Even when the red mist come down out of the saddle in the last few seconds of a very steep hill or a 10 mile TT? I don't run but find that hard to believe

Yes really. It's completely normal for your max heart rate in various sports to be different.

Running is weight bearing and requires more muscle groups, and most people will have a slightly higher MHR in running than cycling.

There's dozens of good references for this. I think this article was linked earlier: https://www.bicycling.com/training/a20043987/5-max-heart-rate-training-myths-busted/

"Things that are load bearing—like running—will generally push your heart rate higher, since you have to do more work to overcome gravity. Cycling, because it has the mechanical assistance of the bike, will generally produce a lower max heart rate. And swimming, which happens in a pool with zero-impact, may be lower still—since the water is keeping you cool, Golich says, heat will be less of a factor in raising your heart rate"

An actual paper https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-2003-39087

"We found that heart rate at IAT [individual aerobic threshold] or at 4 mmol × l-1 blood lactate did not correlate between cycling and running. A sports specific test seems to be a prerequisite for reliable heart rate recommendations."

What has gravity got to do with it?

Body mass is irrelevant, if you take away gravity.

Overcoming gravity is a huge part of running and a big difference to cycling (on the flat). Running involves projecting your body mass upwards as well as forwards, whereas cycling does not include that (assuming we're talking a level playing field, e.g. turbo vs treadmill)

Ben6899

larkim said:

I've done the ramp test twice now, 5 weeks ago I could get through the 280w minute but failed at 300w, yesterday I got through the 340w but couldn't summon enough to get to 360w...

That's a significant jump over 5 weeks. Which, for me, supports two things already said here: 1. be wary of power accuracy with a non-smart trainer; and 2. FTP/ramp tests are something you get "better" at.

First.Aspect

larkim said:

Ben6899 said:

First.Aspect said:

bobmcstuff said:

kevin_stephens said:

Really? Even when the red mist come down out of the saddle in the last few seconds of a very steep hill or a 10 mile TT? I don't run but find that hard to believe

Yes really. It's completely normal for your max heart rate in various sports to be different.

Running is weight bearing and requires more muscle groups, and most people will have a slightly higher MHR in running than cycling.

There's dozens of good references for this. I think this article was linked earlier: https://www.bicycling.com/training/a20043987/5-max-heart-rate-training-myths-busted/

"Things that are load bearing—like running—will generally push your heart rate higher, since you have to do more work to overcome gravity. Cycling, because it has the mechanical assistance of the bike, will generally produce a lower max heart rate. And swimming, which happens in a pool with zero-impact, may be lower still—since the water is keeping you cool, Golich says, heat will be less of a factor in raising your heart rate"

An actual paper https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-2003-39087

"We found that heart rate at IAT [individual aerobic threshold] or at 4 mmol × l-1 blood lactate did not correlate between cycling and running. A sports specific test seems to be a prerequisite for reliable heart rate recommendations."

What has gravity got to do with it?

Body mass is irrelevant, if you take away gravity.

Overcoming gravity is a huge part of running and a big difference to cycling (on the flat). Running involves projecting your body mass upwards as well as forwards, whereas cycling does not include that (assuming we're talking a level playing field, e.g. turbo vs treadmill)

Mmm. Okay so cycling is a more efficient mode of transport and so you go faster. That's related to your heart rate how though?

Consider instead rowing vs cycling. Or indeed swimming.

larkim

First.Aspect said:

larkim said:

Ben6899 said:

First.Aspect said:

bobmcstuff said:

kevin_stephens said:

Really? Even when the red mist come down out of the saddle in the last few seconds of a very steep hill or a 10 mile TT? I don't run but find that hard to believe

Yes really. It's completely normal for your max heart rate in various sports to be different.

Running is weight bearing and requires more muscle groups, and most people will have a slightly higher MHR in running than cycling.

There's dozens of good references for this. I think this article was linked earlier: https://www.bicycling.com/training/a20043987/5-max-heart-rate-training-myths-busted/

"Things that are load bearing—like running—will generally push your heart rate higher, since you have to do more work to overcome gravity. Cycling, because it has the mechanical assistance of the bike, will generally produce a lower max heart rate. And swimming, which happens in a pool with zero-impact, may be lower still—since the water is keeping you cool, Golich says, heat will be less of a factor in raising your heart rate"

An actual paper https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-2003-39087

"We found that heart rate at IAT [individual aerobic threshold] or at 4 mmol × l-1 blood lactate did not correlate between cycling and running. A sports specific test seems to be a prerequisite for reliable heart rate recommendations."

What has gravity got to do with it?

Body mass is irrelevant, if you take away gravity.

Overcoming gravity is a huge part of running and a big difference to cycling (on the flat). Running involves projecting your body mass upwards as well as forwards, whereas cycling does not include that (assuming we're talking a level playing field, e.g. turbo vs treadmill)

Mmm. Okay so cycling is a more efficient mode of transport and so you go faster. That's related to your heart rate how though?

Consider instead rowing vs cycling. Or indeed swimming.

Not disagreeing with that. Just observing that gravity is a big factor in running compared to cycling. Agree overall that that alone shouldn't make a huge difference to maxHR; it's just deploying maxHR in different proportions around the body.

My personal observation is that as a runner who occasionally cycled it was harder to reach maxHR. Over the last 6 weeks though my ability to reach maxHR when cycling has improved (rapidly) as I'm clearly adapted to the subtle differences in muscular recruitment that cycling brings vs running.

So perhaps its more that cycling requires adaptation to achieve maxHR, whereas running we can all achieve maxHR without requiring any adaption as perhaps our muscular recruitment for running isn't so different to daily life in terms of the range of muscles used?

larkim

Ben6899 said:

larkim said:

I've done the ramp test twice now, 5 weeks ago I could get through the 280w minute but failed at 300w, yesterday I got through the 340w but couldn't summon enough to get to 360w...

That's a significant jump over 5 weeks. Which, for me, supports two things already said here: 1. be wary of power accuracy with a non-smart trainer; and 2. FTP/ramp tests are something you get "better" at.

Agreed with 2, not sure about 1. Whatever the number pumped out, I was on the same equipment in ramp test 1 vs ramp test 2 and could pedal with a higher power output on the second time. That's nothing to do with power accuracy.

First.Aspect

larkim said:

First.Aspect said:

larkim said:

Ben6899 said:

First.Aspect said:

bobmcstuff said:

kevin_stephens said:

Really? Even when the red mist come down out of the saddle in the last few seconds of a very steep hill or a 10 mile TT? I don't run but find that hard to believe

Yes really. It's completely normal for your max heart rate in various sports to be different.

Running is weight bearing and requires more muscle groups, and most people will have a slightly higher MHR in running than cycling.

There's dozens of good references for this. I think this article was linked earlier: https://www.bicycling.com/training/a20043987/5-max-heart-rate-training-myths-busted/

"Things that are load bearing—like running—will generally push your heart rate higher, since you have to do more work to overcome gravity. Cycling, because it has the mechanical assistance of the bike, will generally produce a lower max heart rate. And swimming, which happens in a pool with zero-impact, may be lower still—since the water is keeping you cool, Golich says, heat will be less of a factor in raising your heart rate"

An actual paper https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-2003-39087

"We found that heart rate at IAT [individual aerobic threshold] or at 4 mmol × l-1 blood lactate did not correlate between cycling and running. A sports specific test seems to be a prerequisite for reliable heart rate recommendations."

What has gravity got to do with it?

Body mass is irrelevant, if you take away gravity.

Overcoming gravity is a huge part of running and a big difference to cycling (on the flat). Running involves projecting your body mass upwards as well as forwards, whereas cycling does not include that (assuming we're talking a level playing field, e.g. turbo vs treadmill)

Mmm. Okay so cycling is a more efficient mode of transport and so you go faster. That's related to your heart rate how though?

Consider instead rowing vs cycling. Or indeed swimming.

Not disagreeing with that. Just observing that gravity is a big factor in running compared to cycling. Agree overall that that alone shouldn't make a huge difference to maxHR; it's just deploying maxHR in different proportions around the body.

My personal observation is that as a runner who occasionally cycled it was harder to reach maxHR. Over the last 6 weeks though my ability to reach maxHR when cycling has improved (rapidly) as I'm clearly adapted to the subtle differences in muscular recruitment that cycling brings vs running.

So perhaps its more that cycling requires adaptation to achieve maxHR, whereas running we can all achieve maxHR without requiring any adaption as perhaps our muscular recruitment for running isn't so different to daily life in terms of the range of muscles used?

Yeah this is all spot on, I think. Ditto my experience switching from rowing to cycling.

bobmcstuff

First.Aspect said:

larkim said:

Ben6899 said:

First.Aspect said:

bobmcstuff said:

kevin_stephens said:

Really? Even when the red mist come down out of the saddle in the last few seconds of a very steep hill or a 10 mile TT? I don't run but find that hard to believe

Yes really. It's completely normal for your max heart rate in various sports to be different.

Running is weight bearing and requires more muscle groups, and most people will have a slightly higher MHR in running than cycling.

There's dozens of good references for this. I think this article was linked earlier: https://www.bicycling.com/training/a20043987/5-max-heart-rate-training-myths-busted/

"Things that are load bearing—like running—will generally push your heart rate higher, since you have to do more work to overcome gravity. Cycling, because it has the mechanical assistance of the bike, will generally produce a lower max heart rate. And swimming, which happens in a pool with zero-impact, may be lower still—since the water is keeping you cool, Golich says, heat will be less of a factor in raising your heart rate"

An actual paper https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-2003-39087

"We found that heart rate at IAT [individual aerobic threshold] or at 4 mmol × l-1 blood lactate did not correlate between cycling and running. A sports specific test seems to be a prerequisite for reliable heart rate recommendations."

What has gravity got to do with it?

Body mass is irrelevant, if you take away gravity.

Overcoming gravity is a huge part of running and a big difference to cycling (on the flat). Running involves projecting your body mass upwards as well as forwards, whereas cycling does not include that (assuming we're talking a level playing field, e.g. turbo vs treadmill)

Mmm. Okay so cycling is a more efficient mode of transport and so you go faster. That's related to your heart rate how though?

Consider instead rowing vs cycling. Or indeed swimming.

Lower MHR again in swimming.

I don't see why this is controversial, it's really well known that you will have a few bpm difference in MHR between sports. For whatever reason, weight bearing sports result in slightly higher MHRs than non weight bearing ones - it is as simple as that..

Ben6899

larkim said:

Ben6899 said:

larkim said:

I've done the ramp test twice now, 5 weeks ago I could get through the 280w minute but failed at 300w, yesterday I got through the 340w but couldn't summon enough to get to 360w...

That's a significant jump over 5 weeks. Which, for me, supports two things already said here: 1. be wary of power accuracy with a non-smart trainer; and 2. FTP/ramp tests are something you get "better" at.

Agreed with 2, not sure about 1. Whatever the number pumped out, I was on the same equipment in ramp test 1 vs ramp test 2 and could pedal with a higher power output on the second time. That's nothing to do with power accuracy.

I have no skin in this, but I'd say that "Whatever the number pumped out, I was on the same equipment in ramp test 1 vs ramp test 2 and could pedal with a higher power output on the second time" isn't necessarily true given the potential setup/accuracy issues that we see with wheel-on trainers (tyre pressure, contact force on the roller).

Just something to be wary of. 👍

ugo.santalucia

Is any of these threads ever not going to turn into an FTP willy waving exercise?
As said many times in many places... it's not something to aspire to and it's not even something that wins races... it' pointless to test it every week, trying get a bigger and bigger number

Ben6899

I don't think anyone is willy-waving, Ugo.

First.Aspect

ugo.santalucia said:

Is any of these threads ever not going to turn into an FTP willy waving exercise?
As said many times in many places... it's not something to aspire to and it's not even something that wins races... it' pointless to test it every week, trying get a bigger and bigger number

It wins zwift races doesn't it?

First.Aspect

bobmcstuff said:

First.Aspect said:

larkim said:

Ben6899 said:

First.Aspect said:

bobmcstuff said:

kevin_stephens said:

Really? Even when the red mist come down out of the saddle in the last few seconds of a very steep hill or a 10 mile TT? I don't run but find that hard to believe

Yes really. It's completely normal for your max heart rate in various sports to be different.

Running is weight bearing and requires more muscle groups, and most people will have a slightly higher MHR in running than cycling.

There's dozens of good references for this. I think this article was linked earlier: https://www.bicycling.com/training/a20043987/5-max-heart-rate-training-myths-busted/

"Things that are load bearing—like running—will generally push your heart rate higher, since you have to do more work to overcome gravity. Cycling, because it has the mechanical assistance of the bike, will generally produce a lower max heart rate. And swimming, which happens in a pool with zero-impact, may be lower still—since the water is keeping you cool, Golich says, heat will be less of a factor in raising your heart rate"

An actual paper https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-2003-39087

"We found that heart rate at IAT [individual aerobic threshold] or at 4 mmol × l-1 blood lactate did not correlate between cycling and running. A sports specific test seems to be a prerequisite for reliable heart rate recommendations."

What has gravity got to do with it?

Body mass is irrelevant, if you take away gravity.

Overcoming gravity is a huge part of running and a big difference to cycling (on the flat). Running involves projecting your body mass upwards as well as forwards, whereas cycling does not include that (assuming we're talking a level playing field, e.g. turbo vs treadmill)

Mmm. Okay so cycling is a more efficient mode of transport and so you go faster. That's related to your heart rate how though?

Consider instead rowing vs cycling. Or indeed swimming.

Lower MHR again in swimming.

I don't see why this is controversial, it's really well known that you will have a few bpm difference in MHR between sports. For whatever reason, weight bearing sports result in slightly higher MHRs than non weight bearing ones - it is as simple as that..

So you are arguing that an elite swimmer can't get as close to their maxHR than a runner?

Mmm, scratches chin....

What is it, in that case, that is special about overcoming gravitational force as opposed to some other force?

larkim

@ugo.santalucia
That was never my intention. I'm only presenting my initial contradiction between the range of my VO2Max as a runner and the range of my (reported) FTP as a cyclist, and querying whether they should be broadly correlated as it *felt* like my FTP (as the best measure I have of how "capable" my body is at cycling) was out of sync with my running times (as the best measure I have of how "capable" my body is at running).

Whether that means I have an FTP of 100, 200, 300, 400 I don't care.

But I have to talk in specifics because that's what I'm looking at! My respect for performance is about the effort and the training commitment, not the outputs generated.