Road Cycling · Public discussion

Economy of Motion

Started by Prisoner at War · · Last activity · 10 posts · 323 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
11 October 2007
Last activity
12 October 2007
Original author
Prisoner at War
Posts
10
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
323
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–10 of 10
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/fashion/11Best.html?ref=health

    EXCERPTS

    Economy can make the difference between being fast and being slow,
    between winning and losing in swimming to skiing, cycling to speed
    skating, running to rowing.

    But economy is baffling. It seems to be physiological, but it is not
    clear what exactly is involved. Is it an ability of muscles to use
    energy, an ability to use a variety of muscles in concert, an ability
    of nerves to activate certain muscles for a task while allowing other
    muscles to relax, an ability of nerves to fire in near-perfect
    patterns? Or is it all of these things in combination?

    While many exercise physiologists believe, or hope, that economy
    improves with training, they confess that it's not clear what kind of
    training or how much it takes to make a difference.

    They know that standard training programs, which emphasize speed and
    distance, improve the other key factors in performance: VO2 max and
    the anaerobic, or lactate, threshold, an indicator of how intensely a
    person can exercise.

    But economy is more of a mystery. In fact, there are only a few
    documented cases of athletes whose economy improved. One was Paula
    Radcliffe, the British marathoner. Every year for 11 years, starting
    in 1992, she increased her running economy by about 1 to 3 percent. In
    the end, she ran 40 seconds to a minute faster per mile, without
    changing how much oxygen she took in.

    ....

    But, Dr. Coyle said, "whether an average person running an hour a day
    would experience the same benefit is the million-dollar question."

    Researchers are finding that easy assumptions about exercise economy
    just don't hold up under rigorous study.

    Take the idea that you can tell who is an economical runner or cyclist
    by watching the person perform. Not true, researchers say. The only
    way to know is with tests in a lab.

    Dr. Daniels showed this in a study in which he videotaped runners.
    Then he sent the videos to coaches and biomechanics experts, and asked
    which were the more economical runners.

    "They couldn't tell, no way at all," he said.

    But can runners become more economical if they change their form? The
    surprising answer seems to be no, said Dr. Krahenbuhl. In fact, he
    said, every study that asked what happened after runners changed their
    natural form found that running economy declined.

    It may take a long time for a change of form to result in better
    economy, Dr. Daniels suggested.

    ....

    Maybe economical runners or cyclists or swimmers are simply gifted in
    general, researchers speculated. Perhaps whatever these athletes turn
    to, they will be economical.

    That, Dr. Daniels discovered, is not true.

    He recently studied runners and measured their economy when they ran.
    Then he measured it when they cycled, when they walked uphill at three
    different inclines on a treadmill, when they stepped up and down on a
    step, and when they cranked an ergometer with their arms. There was no
    relationship between being economical at one activity and being
    economical at another.

    ....

    Dr. Coyle finds that the most economical cyclists have an abundance of
    a particular type of muscle fiber, so-called slow twitch. It is not
    known whether other types of muscle can convert to slow twitch with
    training. But, he said, it may be that after years of training, nerves
    are directed to allow more leg muscles to participate in pedaling. The
    result might be greater riding economy.

    "You might wind up changing the way your neuromuscular system is
    wired," Dr. Coyle said. "It is a controversial area, but it makes
    sense."

    With swimmers, Dr. Coyle said, speed depends a great deal on
    technique, which can improve to a certain extent with coaching and
    training. Swimmers must overcome the drag of the water, and anything
    that interrupts the fluid dynamics of their motion will cause them to
    decelerate.

    But physiological economy can also have a huge effect in swimming. Dr.
    Daniels studied a woman who won an Olympic gold medal even though her
    VO2 max was only average for a recreational athlete and was very low
    for an elite athlete. Her gift? She wasted little energy, and that
    skill more than compensated.

  2. "Prisoner at War" <[email hidden]> wrote

    Quoted message said:

    Take the idea that you can tell who is an economical runner or cyclist
    by watching the person perform. Not true, researchers say. The only
    way to know is with tests in a lab.

    I take issue with this. I am very uneconomical as a runner. When in my
    prime, my vo2 max was 76.4 when not in my best shape, yet I could only
    muster a 2:37 marathon. Your typical 2:14 marathoner has a vo2 max of 76.
    I probably would have been a better cyclist, but I enjoy running much more
    than riding.

    I bounce a lot and take relatively longer steps. I can tell immediately by
    running side-by-side with other runners how economical they are. A good
    friend with only a 62 vo2 max could run a minute faster than me in a 10k,
    and was comical running alongside of him: He was as smooth and level as an
    electric motor or a V12 engine, and I was a roughly idling Harley by
    comparison.

    Twice I've come upon a super-efficient runner going easy (7-8 minute pace)
    and asked if he was elite, and each runner had a 10k pr in the 29's.

    I've also competed against a couple of national class guys -- in one case a
    28:xx 10k runner passed me in a 50 mile relay (our team won, but he beat me
    in our leg), and his feet were barely leaving the ground running 6:15 miles
    uphill, zipping by in a super efficient quick-step shuffle. I felt like I
    had square wheels in comparison.

    I have some pictures of me running a 2:44 marathon about a year after I
    started running, side by side with my super efficient friend, and the
    difference in efficiency is obvious just by looking at the photos. I'll try
    and dig them up and post a url.

    Quoted message said:

    Dr. Daniels showed this in a study in which he videotaped runners.
    Then he sent the videos to coaches and biomechanics experts, and asked
    which were the more economical runners.

    If you're inefficient and run side-by-side with an efficient runner, it is
    very obvious.

    -- Dan

  3. Prisoner at War said:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/fashion/11Best.html?ref=health

    EXCERPTS

    Economy can make the difference between being fast and being slow,
    between winning and losing in swimming to skiing, cycling to speed
    skating, running to rowing.

    But economy is baffling. It seems to be physiological, but it is not
    clear what exactly is involved. Is it an ability of muscles to use
    energy, an ability to use a variety of muscles in concert, an ability
    of nerves to activate certain muscles for a task while allowing other
    muscles to relax, an ability of nerves to fire in near-perfect
    patterns? Or is it all of these things in combination?

    While many exercise physiologists believe, or hope, that economy
    improves with training, they confess that it's not clear what kind of
    training or how much it takes to make a difference.

    They know that standard training programs, which emphasize speed and
    distance, improve the other key factors in performance: VO2 max and
    the anaerobic, or lactate, threshold, an indicator of how intensely a
    person can exercise.

    But economy is more of a mystery. In fact, there are only a few
    documented cases of athletes whose economy improved. One was Paula
    Radcliffe, the British marathoner. Every year for 11 years, starting
    in 1992, she increased her running economy by about 1 to 3 percent. In
    the end, she ran 40 seconds to a minute faster per mile, without
    changing how much oxygen she took in.

    ...

    But, Dr. Coyle said, "whether an average person running an hour a day
    would experience the same benefit is the million-dollar question."

    Researchers are finding that easy assumptions about exercise economy
    just don't hold up under rigorous study.

    Take the idea that you can tell who is an economical runner or cyclist
    by watching the person perform. Not true, researchers say. The only
    way to know is with tests in a lab.

    Dr. Daniels showed this in a study in which he videotaped runners.
    Then he sent the videos to coaches and biomechanics experts, and asked
    which were the more economical runners.

    "They couldn't tell, no way at all," he said.

    But can runners become more economical if they change their form? The
    surprising answer seems to be no, said Dr. Krahenbuhl. In fact, he
    said, every study that asked what happened after runners changed their
    natural form found that running economy declined.

    It may take a long time for a change of form to result in better
    economy, Dr. Daniels suggested.

    ...

    Maybe economical runners or cyclists or swimmers are simply gifted in
    general, researchers speculated. Perhaps whatever these athletes turn
    to, they will be economical.

    That, Dr. Daniels discovered, is not true.

    He recently studied runners and measured their economy when they ran.
    Then he measured it when they cycled, when they walked uphill at three
    different inclines on a treadmill, when they stepped up and down on a
    step, and when they cranked an ergometer with their arms. There was no
    relationship between being economical at one activity and being
    economical at another.

    ...

    Dr. Coyle finds that the most economical cyclists have an abundance of
    a particular type of muscle fiber, so-called slow twitch. It is not
    known whether other types of muscle can convert to slow twitch with
    training. But, he said, it may be that after years of training, nerves
    are directed to allow more leg muscles to participate in pedaling. The
    result might be greater riding economy.

    "You might wind up changing the way your neuromuscular system is
    wired," Dr. Coyle said. "It is a controversial area, but it makes
    sense."

    With swimmers, Dr. Coyle said, speed depends a great deal on
    technique, which can improve to a certain extent with coaching and
    training. Swimmers must overcome the drag of the water, and anything
    that interrupts the fluid dynamics of their motion will cause them to
    decelerate.

    But physiological economy can also have a huge effect in swimming. Dr.
    Daniels studied a woman who won an Olympic gold medal even though her
    VO2 max was only average for a recreational athlete and was very low
    for an elite athlete. Her gift? She wasted little energy, and that
    skill more than compensated.

    I used economy of my reading motion when I deleted your post.

  4. "D Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Prisoner at War" <[email hidden]> wrote

    Quoted message said:

    Take the idea that you can tell who is an economical runner or cyclist
    by watching the person perform. Not true, researchers say. The only
    way to know is with tests in a lab.

    I take issue with this. I am very uneconomical as a runner. When in my
    prime, my vo2 max was 76.4 when not in my best shape, yet I could only
    muster a 2:37 marathon. Your typical 2:14 marathoner has a vo2 max of 76.
    I probably would have been a better cyclist, but I enjoy running much more
    than riding.

    I bounce a lot and take relatively longer steps. I can tell immediately
    by running side-by-side with other runners how economical they are. A
    good friend with only a 62 vo2 max could run a minute faster than me in a
    10k, and was comical running alongside of him: He was as smooth and level
    as an electric motor or a V12 engine, and I was a roughly idling Harley by
    comparison.

    Twice I've come upon a super-efficient runner going easy (7-8 minute pace)
    and asked if he was elite, and each runner had a 10k pr in the 29's.

    I've also competed against a couple of national class guys -- in one case
    a 28:xx 10k runner passed me in a 50 mile relay (our team won, but he beat
    me in our leg), and his feet were barely leaving the ground running 6:15
    miles uphill, zipping by in a super efficient quick-step shuffle. I felt
    like I had square wheels in comparison.

    I have some pictures of me running a 2:44 marathon about a year after I
    started running, side by side with my super efficient friend, and the
    difference in efficiency is obvious just by looking at the photos. I'll
    try and dig them up and post a url.

    Quoted message said:

    Dr. Daniels showed this in a study in which he videotaped runners.
    Then he sent the videos to coaches and biomechanics experts, and asked
    which were the more economical runners.

    If you're inefficient and run side-by-side with an efficient runner, it is
    very obvious.

    -- Dan

    Thank you for posting this. It prompted me to do an internet search for how
    to walk more efficiently. I am going to try some of them out on my next
    walk. I will probably judge how it works by my heart rate monitor. If I can
    do an hour at a heart rate of less than 80 BPM for 15 minute miles then I
    have figured it out.

    Bob

  5. "D Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Prisoner at War" <[email hidden]> wrote

    Quoted message said:

    Take the idea that you can tell who is an economical runner or
    cyclist
    by watching the person perform. Not true, researchers say. The only
    way to know is with tests in a lab.

    I take issue with this. I am very uneconomical as a runner. When in
    my prime, my vo2 max was 76.4 when not in my best shape, yet I could
    only muster a 2:37 marathon. Your typical 2:14 marathoner has a vo2
    max of 76. I probably would have been a better cyclist, but I enjoy
    running much more than riding.

    I bounce a lot and take relatively longer steps. I can tell
    immediately by running side-by-side with other runners how economical
    they are.

    I agree. We have some really good runners(Kenyan's, Moroccan's) in the
    area that come for a local elite running camp. I would once in while get
    to share the track with them. I would watch in awe as they did 60
    second quarters with impeccable form. Some of them were three tall while
    others were six foot and to a person they were poetry in motion. I think
    good form is very visible.

    I also think bad form is obvious. In many of my races when I see people
    in front of me I can tell by their form whether I'll pass them.

    An additional reflection from my last race. It was a 50 and 50k with
    the 50k starting an hours and a half later. This allowed a few of the
    front runner 50 mile folks to pass me in the later stage of my race. The
    thing I immediately noticed was their form. They not only passed me like
    I was standing still but with the grace and power of an ocelot. 😉 As
    they passed by me I asked if they were in the relay and they said no,
    the 50. I tripped watching those guys run off into the sunset.

    -Doug

  6. D Stumpus said:

    I take issue with this. I am very uneconomical as a runner. When in my
    prime, my vo2 max was 76.4 when not in my best shape, yet I could only
    muster a 2:37 marathon. Your typical 2:14 marathoner has a vo2 max of 76.
    I probably would have been a better cyclist, but I enjoy running much more
    than riding.

    It's counter-intuitive, but that's what the article says the good
    doctor turned up.

    Quoted message said:

    I bounce a lot and take relatively longer steps. I can tell immediately by
    running side-by-side with other runners how economical they are. A good
    friend with only a 62 vo2 max could run a minute faster than me in a 10k,
    and was comical running alongside of him: He was as smooth and level as an
    electric motor or a V12 engine, and I was a roughly idling Harley by
    comparison.

    Twice I've come upon a super-efficient runner going easy (7-8 minute pace)

    In my own case, I'm not sure what to make of efficiency...when I used
    to run around the Central Park reservoir, we joggers/runners would
    often wind up in an ersatz, impromptu race of sorts, and there have
    been times when I thought I was efficient, and was still slow, while
    other times I only realized I was being efficient (smooth motion,
    mentally focused, etc.) from beating the other guy...one time I was so
    into it I almost didn't feel my legs, if you can believe that...I've
    mentioned this episode a few times over the past few years of checking
    in on these fitness newsgroups...it was incredible, and I daresay I
    ran most efficiently that one time, basically my legs disappeared from
    underneath me, all I felt was my arms swinging, as if wings flapping
    furiously -- I didn't even feel out of breath, incredibly enough, even
    though I beat the other guy (and we exchanged knowing winks
    afterwards)...I was so efficient it wasn't even about my legs or lungs
    anymore, but all I felt were my arms!

    Quoted message said:

    I've also competed against a couple of national class guys -- in one case a
    28:xx 10k runner passed me in a 50 mile relay (our team won, but he beat me
    in our leg), and his feet were barely leaving the ground running 6:15 miles
    uphill, zipping by in a super efficient quick-step shuffle. I felt like I
    had square wheels in comparison.

    I have some pictures of me running a 2:44 marathon about a year after I
    started running, side by side with my super efficient friend, and the
    difference in efficiency is obvious just by looking at the photos. I'll try
    and dig them up and post a url.

    That would be interesting, yes.

    Quoted message said:

    If you're inefficient and run side-by-side with an efficient runner, it is
    very obvious.

    I wonder why all those coaches and biomechanics experts
    failed...perhaps there are other cues other than purely visual ones
    when one is actually running side-by-side...or perhaps that's too
    subjective and one merely thinks the other is being efficient since
    the other is beating oneself...?

    Quoted message said:

    -- Dan

  7. Dnia Fri, 12 Oct 2007 o 13:03 GMT Doug Freese napisa³(a):

    Quoted message said:


    "D Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:


    I take issue with this. I am very uneconomical as a runner. When in
    my prime, my vo2 max was 76.4 when not in my best shape, yet I could
    only muster a 2:37 marathon. Your typical 2:14 marathoner has a vo2
    max of 76. I probably would have been a better cyclist, but I enjoy
    running much more than riding.

    I bounce a lot and take relatively longer steps. I can tell
    immediately by running side-by-side with other runners how economical
    they are.

    I agree. We have some really good runners(Kenyan's, Moroccan's) in the
    area that come for a local elite running camp. I would once in while get
    to share the track with them. I would watch in awe as they did 60
    second quarters with impeccable form. Some of them were three tall while
    others were six foot and to a person they were poetry in motion. I think
    good form is very visible.

    I also think bad form is obvious. In many of my races when I see people
    in front of me I can tell by their form whether I'll pass them.

    Did any of you guys actually *read* at least the quotes? Experienced
    trainers were proved to not be able to tell if you are economical or
    not. You have to make scientific test. Awful looking form often
    happens to be very economical and improved form often means loss of
    economy.

    C'mon. It's not so hard to actually read several quotes, is it?

    --
    Andrzej Rosa 1127R

  8. "Prisoner at War" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/fashion/11Best.html?ref=health


    ....

    Quoted message said:

    Dr. Coyle finds that the most economical cyclists have an abundance of
    a particular type of muscle fiber, so-called slow twitch. It is not
    known whether other types of muscle can convert to slow twitch with
    training. But, he said, it may be that after years of training, nerves
    are directed to allow more leg muscles to participate in pedaling. The
    result might be greater riding economy.

    "You might wind up changing the way your neuromuscular system is
    wired," Dr. Coyle said. "It is a controversial area, but it makes
    sense."

    I think that it's been established that certain fast twitch fibers can be
    endurance trained, but they will never completely change to the
    high-endurance slow twitch.

    As far as running economy goes, simple changes can sometimes lead to an
    improvement in economy. I remember running my first road races many years
    ago, and switching to what felt like a slower shuffle stride actually made
    it easier to keep up with the runners around me, though it didn't feel at
    all natural to me at first. I would find myself running naturally, then I
    would remember and switch to the shuffle stride and make things easier on
    myself. Now it feels more natural, but I don't feel the same power in my
    strides as when I was younger and more of a sprinter (well duh).

    -Tony

  9. Tony S. said:

    I think that it's been established that certain fast twitch fibers can be
    endurance trained, but they will never completely change to the
    high-endurance slow twitch.

    You know, IIRC, I think "Nutrient Timing" by the chairman of
    Kinesiology at Texas U stated that muscles are extremely adaptable and
    -- again, IIRC (this is at the end of the book; I'll have to look it
    up at home tonight) -- slow-twitch/fast-twitch are
    interchangeable...????

    Quoted message said:

    As far as running economy goes, simple changes can sometimes lead to an
    improvement in economy. I remember running my first road races many years
    ago, and switching to what felt like a slower shuffle stride actually made
    it easier to keep up with the runners around me, though it didn't feel at
    all natural to me at first. I would find myself running naturally, then I
    would remember and switch to the shuffle stride and make things easier on
    myself. Now it feels more natural, but I don't feel the same power in my
    strides as when I was younger and more of a sprinter (well duh).

    Interesting. I know that "kick" is important to speed, and it comes
    naturally enough when I feel energized and am focused to "attack" a
    stretch of distance, but otherwise trying to "remember" to kick seems
    to result in my being slower, actually...same goes for furiously
    swinging my arms like a locomotive -- it happens natural enough
    sometimes, but other times when I try to consciously implement it for
    a speed gain it seems to backfire -- though other times it still seems
    to work...?!?!

    Quoted message said:

    -Tony

  10. Andrzej Rosa said:

    Did any of you guys actually *read* at least the quotes? Experienced
    trainers were proved to not be able to tell if you are economical or
    not. You have to make scientific test. Awful looking form often
    happens to be very economical and improved form often means loss of
    economy.

    I do know that when I'm trying to impress some girls at the track I
    will revert to "classic form," which slows me down, actually...I'm
    actually faster doing my unimpressive looking modest steps, modest
    width strides, and steady little squirrel's cadence...it takes a lot
    of energy to do that classic running form when I want to show off, and
    it takes even more energy to actually make that form work well in
    terms of speed-up or speed maintenance for all of a few yards!

    Ditto for cycling, too, with its classic "hunched-back" form....

    Quoted message said:

    C'mon. It's not so hard to actually read several quotes, is it?

    I think they simply disagreed with the conclusions nonetheless, based
    on personal observations. (Of course, the article was talking
    precisely about how personal observations seemed so lacking.)

    Quoted message said:

    --
    Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.