Hey LB... and Coaches

I'm not LB either, but I did take some masters level ex phys classes.

Vo2 max has a couple of specific defining features when tested including whether your VO2 measurement truley maxed out or was still trending upward when your test was terminated. Depending on the exercise mode more or less muscle mass is used to do the activity. Running uses more muscles than cycling. Therefore, a well trained cyclist with a massive Vo2 max cyclign may be able to achieve a higher VO2 max on the treadmill...or maybe not. but it's not hte mode that determines it necessarily, it's the shape of the curve, did it plateau, was the right RER reached (ie were adequate carbs being burnt for fuel indicating a strong shift aaway fro aerobic metabolism etc).

Most people however will NOT reach those VO2 max markers in a swim or bike test and see the VO2 actually peak on the graph...it will show an upward trend as the test is being terminated (ie the subject can no longer continue). Then it's called a VO2 peak.

yoru Vo2 max is slightly trainable but it's capped by how much blood yoru heart can pump. When your HR reaches it's max, yoru VO2 has reached it's max as well. There is a very strong correlation with this. That's why using Heart Rate Reserve is a good substitute for creating training zones...your entire VO2 range from resting to max is contained between your resting & peak heart rates.

As for 100% explaining carryover...each sport has peripheral, or muscular demands, as well. Improving your oxygen uptake while swimming may not carry over to improved running efficeincy simce swimming movements are different than running movements. Some of it may if the heart is also being conditioned at the same time to pump a higher volume of blood...your running muscles will receive more blood. but it takes run specific condiitioning to extract that oxygen, which is how Vo2 is measured...it is a measurement of uptake, not just delivery.

I'm wondering if it actually *is* though.


no special definitions intended. To me, Max = cap, a hard ceiling, not movable. It's not called FTPMax, it's called FTP, it moves. A threshold can move, a Max can't. Just semantics to try and explain the thoughts. A VO2Max test results in a number, sure, so does an FTP test. Trying to turn it on its head.

Awesome, thanks!



OK, that's what I was trying to frame, thanks for putting better words to it!.



I can see how the heart can't pump more blood (it's only as big as it is), but doesn't the circulatory system have capacity to improve? You get the same amount of blood but can get that much more out of it?



this is what I'm asking about, really - if I can process say 50 l/min while cycling but only 48 l\min when running, does that mean I left 2 l\min - reverse engineered to pace to say, 20sec\mile - on the table?

Here's what I know:

I am close with 2 kids who are top 20 in the state in class 4 (large school) XC , both underclassmen......if you combined their training mileage this year you won't come close to what any of the other top 18 ran alone.

Each swims 30-50,000 yards per week, year 'round.

I'm sure there is no crossover benefit.  

(stand by.....here comes the part where the "experts" say you can't compare what people who swim that much do, you can only say swimming doesn't have any crossover when looking at people who don't swim much. )  IMO there's a clue there somewhere and we haven't even touched kick sets. 

 

Edited by Left Brain 2014-11-03 5:23 PM

No more than that...it means your hper conditioned for cycling and hav a lot of imrpovement for running. Actually it means you suck at running and should do more of it.

Don't have any degree or courses in ex phys but.....anecdotally, in HS I did very little running during the winter swim season (roughly November through early March). At most one 8-10 mile run at an easy pace on Sunday (when we had no practice) and maybe another 3-4 miles in there somewhere during the week. Definitley no speedwork--too tired from 8-10 km a day of swimming. Yet I always had strong performances, particularly in longer distances, early in the season, from March on. There were some early season road races (usually 5-15 km, but once a HM and once a full ) before track season started, and I usually ran PB's then off only 3-4 weeks of run-specific training. Short-range speed (never my forte in any sport) would be a bit rusty at first, and those first few track sessions really hurt, but it came back quickly.

I don't think I swam at all during track and XC seasons, but a similar experience with swimming--decent endurance from the start, speed coming back with increased training. There must be some crossover between the two, at least in terms of aerobic base, assuming one has good enough technique to get in a good threshold-level workout in each sport. But how much crossover there is would seem to depend on one's sport-specific muscular endurance and efficiency (swim technique, run economy).

This would also be why someone with the same VO2 max can be strong in one sport but weak in another. I assume that I suck at cycling, relatively speaking, because I lack sport-specific muscular endurance, and probably have issues with techical aspects like gearing, position, pacing, and my bike itself, that keep me from getting the best performance that I should theoretically be capable of.

Just realized, I'm not LB, and I'm not a coach (actually do some coaching, but no certification), so no business on here. just my $0.02.

Edited by Hot Runner 2014-11-04 4:30 AM

Well duh, I know I suck at running!
How does it mean I'm hyper conditioned for one\hypo conditioned for the other? Should the VO2-engineered paces be the same all things being equal?

I didn't mean to exclude anyone, sorry I'd love to hear everyone's feedback!

I think all of the points I would have raised on the physiology side of things have been raised but since the power of anecdote seems to supersede critical consideration of the evidence, here is my experience.

I have been coaching cross country for a decade and in that time, I've had some success with both individual athletes and teams. Most of my runners come from different sports; roughly 1/4 are runners, 1/4 are swimmers, 1/4 are paddlers and the remainder would be split between soccer, hockey, basketball, volleyball, biathlon as well as a few who just wanted to try running. In the decade I've been coaching my average team would have been about 20 athletes so a fair number of athletes have come through the program.

In all but three cases, the athletes who have won or been on the podium of individual races, regional championships and provincial championships have been runners. For the other three, they were all swimmers who were not only great swimmers, but genetic freaks who were able to run fast with little run training. However, in every single case, they were running much slower than their potential as when they started to include run training, they all got faster (which is also why I tried to recruit all three to triathlon with two of them competing on the national stage with some solid results). While they had success, they are simply outliers as the remainder of the swimmers would put up solid results, but in line with others who did minimal run specific training.

So, as has been said before, some swimmers will be solid runners (most won't) and will be able to have really good results without much specific run training. This doesn't mean that swim fitness carries over to run for the vast majority of athletes; it simply means that they have a talent for endurance sport, a well developed aerobic engine from swimming and, a very likely untapped, talent for running.

Shane

No...running uses more muscle mass overall, you're body weight is unsupported, your upper body is used and yoru core gets more use. Cycling your body weight is supported by the bike and primarily the legs are used. While core and upper body are used, not nearly to the same d e gree.

You should be using more oxygen during running, there is a much bigger workload demand, your heart should be pumping more blood to feed all those muscles. More muscle mass = higher oxygen demand = higher measured Vo2. Vo2 max is usually only reached on a run test, not on a cycling test. Which is why a cycling "Vo2 max" test is often called a cycling "vo2 peak" test. You need to look at the data to see if it's actually "maxed" for that exercise mode.

The heart is a muscle it can get stronger just like other muscles in the body. So depending on current fitness level your heart may or may not be able to pump more blood.

Just thinking out loud here; I would think the real limiting factor is the lungs ability to transfer the oxygen to the blood?
Are lungs trainable, as far as size and efficiency?

Not really; the lungs (in healthy people) do a great job of transferring oxygen to the blood; if you want to read about some of the factors involved in VO2max, this is a pretty good article:

http://vo2maxresearch.blogspot.ca/2009/02/limiting-factors-for-maxi...

Shane

I am not LB nor a coach. But I do know a fast kid, and most importantly I stayed at a Holiday Inn, so I must be "an expert" [pink off]

There have been various debates in various threads about the value of cross training. I don't think anyone has the answer. Some people are providing n=1 observations, some coaches are provided observations on multiple of their athletes and there are several research papers out there. If your goal is to improve your run, try to get as much info as possible and form an opinion of what is best for you.

I can only share what I have experienced and read. VO2max :
I was tested on both the bike and the run. I am a better runner than cyclist yet my VO2max was higher on the bike. I was surprised and this led me to research more.

The thing I learned, which we tend to talk less about, is running economy/cycling efficiency. At a given level of VO2, what pace can we run or how much power can we generate is realted to economy/efficiency. So for example at a VO2max of 63 I may be able to generate 325 watts, while at a VO2max of 60 you may be able to generate 400. I have a higher VO2max but you are a better cyclist. Not because of VO2max, because you have better efficiency.I have the charts for average cyclists and runners. The formulas you linked to probably use average efficiencies to get a VO2max number. The only way to get a real VO2max number is with a test with the mask.

So is poor run performance a low VO2max, poor economy or other issues such as inability to hold a % of VO2max for a long time (threshold) ? That you need to figure out. BTW, Vdot takes into consideration both Vo2max and economy.

Back to cross training. There are research papers that show that there is a cross training effect on VO2max. Interesting enough, one paper showed that running has the greatest VO2max benefit on other sports and swimming the least. But that's just one paper. Another paper showed no cross over from swimming to running for elite athletes. I will come back to that "elite" designation.

I have never seen a paper on the effect of cross training on efficiency. For example what does swimming do to the efficiency in running. I suspect nothing. But maybe, maybe, kicking has an impact on run economy. I don't think anyone really knows. There are papers that show that things like weight training could help with efficiency in cyclists.

I suspect that IF you have room to improve your VO2max, this will carry over to other sports.
However, if it's actually the efficiency you've improved (say for swimming), this may not carry over

Elite athletes probably have little to improve on their VO2max, this is why they see little carry over across sports.
People in the sport for a long time, performing at a high level, may have little room to improve their VO2Max.
Also, if thwy have poor efficiency, they need a BIG boost to get a bit of benefit

Another interesting point is the difference between youth athletes and adults. Another study showed that during their growth spurt youths had huge VO2max growth. Does that explain part of the cross training effect for youths ? I don't know. But if a 15 year old dramatically grows his VO2max during puberty, it can have a carry over to other sports. Adults don't have this growth phase. Youths, adults, elites and beginners are different. While we can learn from each group, you do need to consider there are differences.


So putting it together
The newbie starting out that has neither a big aerobic engine (VO2max), probably little efficiency/economy and a low lactate threshold there will probabably be a fair amount of cross over

For the experienced athlete that has developed his aerobic engine in one sports, gains in the others will probably come from working economy/efficiency and pushing his pace/power at threshold up.

For the young athlete that is growing his aerobic engine through training and that massive growth spurt, he/she may see cross over

For the elite that is probably close to his genetic potential of VO2max, has developed his efficiency/economy, is already running at a high % of VO2max at lactate threshold, improvements will be harder to find. Probably less cross training benefit. BTW, another paper showed the difference between elite cyclists and elite triathletes, on the bike was efficiency. Not VO2max, not % of VO2max at threshold

To say that doing more swimming and less running will improve the run performance of an adult athlete is IN MY OPINION, very wrong without understanding a person's background, performance, limiters, etc.

This is my understanding and would love to hear from people like Shane and AB how far off I am. If anyone wants links to any of the above, I can dig them up.




Edited by marcag 2014-11-04 1:30 PM

thanks so much, now I get it!

great article, and thanks for your input!