Realistic conversion between VO2 and FTP

larkim

Ben6899 said:

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. 👍

Not going to disagree that a precise number isn't necessarily achievable. But it's hard to argue that without any change i bike setup or trainer setup that maxing out at 280w estimated one week and 340w esimated a few weeks later is anything other than progress. I should add it also correlates with an outdoor ride that I replicated over that period too - 2hr20 feeling gassed 5 weeks ago, 2h00 at the weekend. But with that ride, there are far more variables at play (wind direction, temperature, traffic, etc etc).

In my head I'm treating Zwift power readings as being +/- 5% (quite generous I think) as a margin of error given the simplicity of my setup. I've also tweaked my "fit" too which I think has also had an impact on my improvement.

bobmcstuff

First.Aspect said:

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?

The max achievable HR for different sports is different depending on the precise demands of that sport. That's all someone who is struggling to hit the same MHR in cycling as in running needs to know. This is a fact, I don't really understand why you are disputing it.

It's nothing special about gravity, it's just an additional demand that is placed on the body in different sports, or is placed on the body to a greater or lesser degree.

First.Aspect

bobmcstuff said:

First.Aspect said:

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?

The max achievable HR for different sports is different depending on the precise demands of that sport. That's all someone who is struggling to hit the same MHR in cycling as in running needs to know. This is a fact, I don't really understand why you are disputing it.

It's nothing special about gravity, it's just an additional demand that is placed on the body in different sports, or is placed on the body to a greater or lesser degree.

What's that based on though? I don't argue that it's harder for the average person to get to high hr's cycling Vs an all-body exercise like rowing, but it seems a stretch to argue that it's not possible. Particularly if you are referring to swimming.

larkim

I'm struggling with the concept though that you can't, in a physically exerting sport, get your maxHR as high in different sports. I get that in tiddlywinks or bowls that's impossible. And I can see how in swimming it might be a very different oxygen uptake due to breathing restrictions. But if I can get the same O2 into my body whether cycling or running or rowing etc my inherent logic tells me that to push my body to the limit in those sports I'd need my HR to be working to the same max, otherwise there is untapped capacity.

OTOH, if the argument is that because (say) in cycling the volume of muscle mass being used to capacity is (say) 90% of that used by runners, I can see some logic which says the HR may be maxxed out in the sense that the body "knows" it cannot deliver any more O2 to the muscles so there is nothing to be gained by pumping any faster / harder.

However, if the science says that's true - whatever I think / my internal logic says is irrelevant!!!

itboffin

cruff said:

maryka said:

In the lab studies I've done, relatively fit/trained cyclists' FTP is about 75-80% of their power at VO2max. Using this calculator with your figures, https://www.michael-konczer.com/en/training/calculators/calculate-vo2max your power at VO2max is going to be around 310w, so that puts your FTP somewhere between 230w and 250w. So Zwift isn't that far off.

An FTP of 300w at 73kg is over 4w/kg, which is going to require more like 60-65ml/kg/min VO2max.

That's about right for me and the riders I work with. My FTP is 325 at 77kg, last Vo2 max test I did came out as 62ml/kg/min. Two of the riders I do training plans for are at 285 at 68kg and 273 at 64kg, which puts all three of us in the 'good' 3rd cat/'poor' 2nd cat - borne out by race results 😁

Neither of the other two have done a proper lab Vo2 max test but I'd bet big money they're around the same as me, maybe a little higher as they're twelve and eighteen years younger respectively (which means they have more potential than a useless fat old lump like me 😢)

I’m FTP 269 at 77kg with a VO2max of 55 According to Garmin so it must be true 🤗

wongataa

larkim said:

I'm struggling with the concept though that you can't, in a physically exerting sport, get your maxHR as high in different sports. I get that in tiddlywinks or bowls that's impossible. And I can see how in swimming it might be a very different oxygen uptake due to breathing restrictions. But if I can get the same O2 into my body whether cycling or running or rowing etc my inherent logic tells me that to push my body to the limit in those sports I'd need my HR to be working to the same max, otherwise there is untapped capacity.

OTOH, if the argument is that because (say) in cycling the volume of muscle mass being used to capacity is (say) 90% of that used by runners, I can see some logic which says the HR may be maxxed out in the sense that the body "knows" it cannot deliver any more O2 to the muscles so there is nothing to be gained by pumping any faster / harder.

It's all down to the muscles used. In running you will be using more of the muscles of the body than cycling does. This increases oxygen demand. This will increase the pulse rate. Listen to the Empirical Cycling podcasts I linked to earlier. It will answer your questions.

First.Aspect

wongataa said:

larkim said:

I'm struggling with the concept though that you can't, in a physically exerting sport, get your maxHR as high in different sports. I get that in tiddlywinks or bowls that's impossible. And I can see how in swimming it might be a very different oxygen uptake due to breathing restrictions. But if I can get the same O2 into my body whether cycling or running or rowing etc my inherent logic tells me that to push my body to the limit in those sports I'd need my HR to be working to the same max, otherwise there is untapped capacity.

OTOH, if the argument is that because (say) in cycling the volume of muscle mass being used to capacity is (say) 90% of that used by runners, I can see some logic which says the HR may be maxxed out in the sense that the body "knows" it cannot deliver any more O2 to the muscles so there is nothing to be gained by pumping any faster / harder.

It's all down to the muscles used. In running you will be using more of the muscles of the body than cycling does. This increases oxygen demand. This will increase the pulse rate. Listen to the Empirical Cycling podcasts I linked to earlier. It will answer your questions.

Swimming? Rowing? XC skiing? For that matter, sprinting out of the saddle?

wongataa

First.Aspect said:

wongataa said:

larkim said:

I'm struggling with the concept though that you can't, in a physically exerting sport, get your maxHR as high in different sports. I get that in tiddlywinks or bowls that's impossible. And I can see how in swimming it might be a very different oxygen uptake due to breathing restrictions. But if I can get the same O2 into my body whether cycling or running or rowing etc my inherent logic tells me that to push my body to the limit in those sports I'd need my HR to be working to the same max, otherwise there is untapped capacity.

OTOH, if the argument is that because (say) in cycling the volume of muscle mass being used to capacity is (say) 90% of that used by runners, I can see some logic which says the HR may be maxxed out in the sense that the body "knows" it cannot deliver any more O2 to the muscles so there is nothing to be gained by pumping any faster / harder.

It's all down to the muscles used. In running you will be using more of the muscles of the body than cycling does. This increases oxygen demand. This will increase the pulse rate. Listen to the Empirical Cycling podcasts I linked to earlier. It will answer your questions.

Swimming? Rowing? XC skiing? For that matter, sprinting out of the saddle?

Swimming uses less muscles than cycling (not much leg use) so HR will tend to be lower. XC skiing has the highest HR.

First.Aspect

wongataa said:

First.Aspect said:

wongataa said:

larkim said:

I'm struggling with the concept though that you can't, in a physically exerting sport, get your maxHR as high in different sports. I get that in tiddlywinks or bowls that's impossible. And I can see how in swimming it might be a very different oxygen uptake due to breathing restrictions. But if I can get the same O2 into my body whether cycling or running or rowing etc my inherent logic tells me that to push my body to the limit in those sports I'd need my HR to be working to the same max, otherwise there is untapped capacity.

OTOH, if the argument is that because (say) in cycling the volume of muscle mass being used to capacity is (say) 90% of that used by runners, I can see some logic which says the HR may be maxxed out in the sense that the body "knows" it cannot deliver any more O2 to the muscles so there is nothing to be gained by pumping any faster / harder.

It's all down to the muscles used. In running you will be using more of the muscles of the body than cycling does. This increases oxygen demand. This will increase the pulse rate. Listen to the Empirical Cycling podcasts I linked to earlier. It will answer your questions.

Swimming? Rowing? XC skiing? For that matter, sprinting out of the saddle?

Swimming uses less muscles than cycling (not much leg use) so HR will tend to be lower. XC skiing has the highest HR.

Yes, swimming is an interesting one, but I'm struggling to see a significant difference in the studies I've (skim) read between cycling, running and using a rowing machine. Interstingly, there was a difference for a kayak-adapted rower. So, clearly the legs and glutes are the largest muscle groups, and also furthest from the heart. But you'd still expect to see cycling below rowing and running, wouldn't you?

It is nothing to do with gravity, at any rate.

ugo.santalucia

wongataa said:

Swimming uses less muscles than cycling (not much leg use) so HR will tend to be lower. XC skiing has the highest HR.

I guess it depends... pretty sure Phelps was using legs quite hard... especially in the butterfly.
The thing is whilst most have racing ambitions in cycling, they are also quite content to potter around in the swimming pool. Most use it as training for triathlons. I have never met anyone who could swim 100 m in less than a minute, for instance. Swimming is a weird one, as to get good you need to put in huge amount of hours. You can get quite quick on a bike doing 5 hours a week, but that won't get you anywhere in the pool.

First.Aspect

ugo.santalucia said:

wongataa said:

Swimming uses less muscles than cycling (not much leg use) so HR will tend to be lower. XC skiing has the highest HR.

I guess it depends... pretty sure Phelps was using legs quite hard... especially in the butterfly.
The thing is whilst most have racing ambitions in cycling, they are also quite content to potter around in the swimming pool. Most use it as training for triathlons. I have never met anyone who could swim 100 m in less than a minute, for instance. Swimming is a weird one, as to get good you need to put in huge amount of hours. You can get quite quick on a bike doing 5 hours a week, but that won't get you anywhere in the pool.

True. I was reading a study where they limited swimmers to the front crawl.

davebradswmb

Sorry to dredge up an old thread, but I questioned the statement that max HR is higher for running than cycling at the time and it has preyed on my mind since. I have cycled all my life, and on those rare occasions I get close to or reach my max HR it really hurts my chest, on top of the pain in my legs, and I can't see any way that I could push it any harder no matter what sport I am doing.

At the time I had just started running consistently and so I didn't have any comparible experience from my running. I have now been running some time now and yet I still cannot get my HR anywhere near what I can achieve cycling, in fact the max I have seen from running is roughly what I can hold for 30 minutes on a bike. I clearly am not anywhere near as good a runner as I am a cyclist yet.

That is not to say that there isn't anything in the statement that your max HR is different according to the sport. I also do canoe slalom, and have done for many years. Training for that sport is quite different to running or cycling, it consists of very short efforts, from a few seconds up to a maximum of 40 seconds during training, and a race only lasts about 100 seconds. In that sport my max HR barely gets to zone 4 - and yet I feel out of breath at the end of a race and still need a couple of minutes to recover.