What determines running speed? watts?

Quoted message said:

For cycling you can train with a power meter and
essentially the more watts you can produce, the faster you
can ride.

What is the determining factor with running?

When running on flats, there is no meaningful way to measure
power output. Instead, one usually considers rate of energy
use (VO2) and running economy (distance covered per unit
energy). Someone with good cardiovascular fitness can
sustain high VO2 levels, and someone with an efficient can
cover distance without expending much energy (hence can run
faster at a given rate of energy usage)

Quoted message said:

Its certainly not aerodynamics (I'm not talking elite
levels here) as

Aerodynamics is part of the economy equation but only a
small part.

Quoted message said:

I see many bigger people running fast (say 35 min or
faster 10km times).

It's possible, 35 minutes is respectable but it's more
than 8 minutes off the record time, so it's plausible
that a large runner with very good cardiovascular fitness
could do this.

Quoted message said:

Is it easier to train scientifically with cycling than it
is with running?

I haven't cycled much, so don't know. I do't think it's that
hard to train "scientifically" with running.

Take a look at the book Daniels Running Formula if you're
interested in how the science can be applied to form a
training program that produces real world results.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

For cycling you can train with a power meter and
essentially the more watts you can produce, the faster you
can ride.

What is the determining factor with running?

Its certainly not aerodynamics (I'm not talking elite
levels here) as I see many bigger people running fast (say
35 min or faster 10km times).

Is it easier to train scientifically with cycling than it
is with running?

Legs act as springs and impulse thrusters, more explosive,
even at steady rates on level ground. Instrumenting this has
to be more difficult and less common than installing meters
on a bicycle.

Does anyone know what the relationship is between weight
LOSS and speed? For example, if you are currently running a
10min mile at weight 175lbs, what can you expect if you drop
to 155lbs (without changing anything else).

Steve S. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For cycling you can train with a power meter and
essentially the more watts you can produce, the faster you
can ride.

What is the determining factor with running?

Its certainly not aerodynamics (I'm not talking elite
levels here) as I see many bigger people running fast (say
35 min or faster 10km times).

Is it easier to train scientifically with cycling than it
is with running?

So tell me, what's scientific about right, left, right,
left, right...?

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

Quoted message said:

For cycling you can train with a power meter and
essentially the more watts you can produce, the faster you
can ride.

What is the determining factor with running?

To be overly simplistic, your parents.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is it easier to train scientifically with cycling than it
is with

running?

I think the same capabilities are there for runners but
bikers in general have been much more anal about it for
lot's of years.

-DF

I would say it is easier to quantify the load in cycling
since you can directly measure the power, something that
cannot be done in running.

For more info on training with power in cycling, check out
www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com. You can take some of the
principles and apply them to runnning.

However, the training plan design is similar in that most
cycling events are highly aerobic as are distance running
events. The volumes will differ however.

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

Quoted message said:

For cycling you can train with a power meter and
essentially the more watts you can produce, the faster you
can ride.

What is the determining factor with running?

Its certainly not aerodynamics (I'm not talking elite
levels here) as I see many bigger people running fast (say
35 min or faster 10km times).

Is it easier to train scientifically with cycling than it
is with running?

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For cycling you can train with a power meter and
essentially the more watts you can produce, the faster
you can ride.

While this is true to some extent, even if you're talking
about riding fast on flat roads, the body shape and position
on the bike make a huge difference in the speed you can
generate with the same wattage. For uphill riding,
bodyweight plays more of a factor. For example this year's
Giro winner (Cunego), is light (<140), and also short (about
5'6), and that makes him fast uphill (lightness), and not
bad on flats because his short stature blocks less wind than
a taller rider weighing the same amount. Similar factors
influence running: body weight, leg length, running economy
(there is such a thing as pedal stroke efficiency too) and
similar genetic factors that set the physilogical limits of
how long a certain wattage can be sustained.

Tony

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is the determining factor with running?

When running on flats, there is no meaningful way to
measure power output. Instead, one usually considers rate
of energy use (VO2) and running economy (distance covered
per unit energy). Someone with good cardiovascular

fitness

Quoted message said:

can sustain high VO2 levels, and someone with an efficient
can cover

distance

Quoted message said:

without expending much energy (hence can run faster at a
given rate of

energy

Quoted message said:

usage)

Quoted message said:

Its certainly not aerodynamics (I'm not talking elite
levels here) as

Aerodynamics is part of the economy equation but only a
small part.

Quoted message said:

I see many bigger people running fast (say 35 min or
faster 10km times).

It's possible, 35 minutes is respectable but it's more than
8 minutes off

the

Quoted message said:

record time, so it's plausible that a large runner with
very good cardiovascular fitness could do this.

Quoted message said:

Is it easier to train scientifically with cycling than it
is with running?

I haven't cycled much, so don't know. I do't think it's
that hard to train "scientifically" with running.

Take a look at the book Daniels Running Formula if you're
interested in how the science can be applied to form a
training program that produces real

world

Quoted message said:

results.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

In article
<[email hidden]>,

sms said:

Does anyone know what the relationship is between weight
LOSS and speed? For example, if you are currently running
a 10min mile at weight 175lbs, what can you expect if you
drop to 155lbs (without changing anything else).

It's easier to test the opposite: strap 20 lbs to your back
and run a 5k; see how much slower you go.

Seriously, how likely is it that a 185-lb person loses 20
lbs without losing some muscle mass along the way? I don't
think you're keeping everything else equal if you do.

I've heard some numbers thrown around in cycling like every
5 lbs you take off the bike or rider are worth 30 seconds in
a 5K uphill time trial with an average grade of 7% (I think
that's what they said). In other words, the $4000 it would
cost me to get a 16-lb bike as opposed to my current 22-or-
so lb bike *really* wouldn't be worth it to me. (On the flat
on a bike, weight doesn't hurt unless you're accelerating,
but expensive bikkes have better aerodynamics, which help
all-around.)

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Th-
en it was every other day. . . ."
- Homer J. Simpson

sms said:

Does anyone know what the relationship is between weight
LOSS and speed? For example, if you are currently running a
10min mile at weight 175lbs, what can you expect if you
drop to 155lbs (without changing anything else).

Page in French but if you click on the graphs, you can see a
set of curves describing the relationship between
marathon/half/10km time depending on weight, for several
weight/performance levels.
vo2max.com.frphysio poids.htmlOpen ↗

For example, if you can do a 3h marathon and you weigh
175lbs (say 80kgs=orange curve), every kilo lost wins 3
minutes. So by losing 20lbs (say 8kilos) you could the
marathon 24' quicker.

For a 4h30 marathon, it's nearer 35minutes that can be
gained.

Obviously (is it?) it's not so simple, but should give a
good idea.

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

To be overly simplistic,

...a quality to which you always aspire with considerable
success...

Quoted message said:

your parents.

True, though application and hard work do have their place.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is it easier to train scientifically with cycling than it
is with
running?

I think the same capabilities are there for runners but
bikers in general have been much more anal about it for
lot's of years.

Maybe the OP was referring to 'chemical aids'?

Sam wrote in message
<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I would say it is easier to quantify the load in cycling
since you can directly measure the power, something that
cannot be done in running.

For more info on training with power in cycling, check out
www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com. You can take some of the
principles and apply them to runnning.

However, the training plan design is similar in that most
cycling events are highly aerobic as are distance running
events. The volumes will differ however.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is it easier to train scientifically with cycling than it
is with running?

My take is that it is fairly easy to be "scientific" with
running just using pace (making allowances for grade). On
the bike there are so many things out of your control (like
wind) and fine points (like body position) which interfere
with trying to do it by speed alone. (In addition, due to
the greater distance you are covering on a bike, terrain
variability is a bigger confounding variable.) If you are
running, it takes a really major wind to affect your pace at
a given effort level.

Just my two cents, Bill

I would never let a former Secretary of the Interior tell me
how fast to run.

Thanks! That's what I'm looking for.
Steve S.
"steve common" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

sms said:

Does anyone know what the relationship is between weight
LOSS and speed? For example, if you are currently running
a 10min mile at weight 175lbs, what can you expect if you
drop to 155lbs (without changing anything else).

Page in French but if you click on the graphs, you can see
a set of curves describing the relationship between
marathon/half/10km time depending on weight, for several
weight/performance levels.
vo2max.com.frphysio poids.htmlOpen ↗

For example, if you can do a 3h marathon and you weigh
175lbs (say 80kgs=orange curve), every kilo lost wins 3
minutes. So by losing 20lbs (say 8kilos) you could the
marathon 24' quicker.

For a 4h30 marathon, it's nearer 35minutes that can
be gained.

Obviously (is it?) it's not so simple, but should give a
good idea.

Quoted message said:

My take is that it is fairly easy to be "scientific" with
running just using pace (making allowances for grade). On
the bike there are so many things out of your control (like
wind) and fine points (like body position) which interfere
with trying to do it by speed alone. (In addition, due to
the greater distance you are covering on a bike, terrain
variability is a bigger confounding variable.) If you are
running, it takes a really major wind to affect your pace
at a given effort level.

Just my two cents, Bill

I think you have it all backwards, powermeters have made
cycling the most measurable.

How can you measure your running effort, other than pace?

A power meter completely levels the playing field for
measurements. Heart rate doesn't matter, grade, PE, wind...

Using pace alone with running you still have all those
factors to contend with.

It sounds like that VO2 max is really the only measuring
point with running and maybe specific interval times (ie
400m, 800m, mile, 3k...)

What % is it legs in running as to lungs for example?

[email hidden] wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My take is that it is fairly easy to be "scientific" with
running just using pace (>>Bill

I think you have it all backwards, powermeters have made
cycling the most measurable.

Don't disagree that with a power meter you really have a
handle on things, but my point is that in running you can do
a very good job of "scientific" training just using pace.
(Besides, it's much cheaper!) Bill

Quoted message said:

Don't disagree that with a power meter you really have a
handle on things, but my point is that in running you can
do a very good job of "scientific" training just using
pace. (Besides, it's much cheaper!) Bill

I know but running pace can be affected by many other
variables.

Using pace as a training method on a bike is pretty archaic
nowadays since the proliferation of powermeters. For $500
you can get a decent used Powertap or Polar powermeter.

This may sound corny but are there power reading treadmills?
That way the other variables like HR, wind, PE are
eliminated.

Running speed must come down to simply wattage output by the
legs correct? Sure your lungs can limit things but in the
end its watts? Cars are measured by HP regardless if they
have a one barrel carb or dual 4-barrels.

I'm not telling, I'm asking.

Thx

Quoted message said:

I know but running pace can be affected by many other
variables.

Using pace as a training method on a bike is pretty
archaic nowadays since the proliferation of powermeters.
For $500 you can get a decent used Powertap or Polar
powermeter.

This may sound corny but are there power reading
treadmills? That way

No.

Quoted message said:

the other variables like HR, wind, PE are eliminated.

How do you eliminate economy as a variable ?

Quoted message said:

Running speed must come down to simply wattage output by
the legs correct?

No.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗