Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19290675›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2009

Physiological differences between cycling and running: lessons from triathletes.

Gregoire P Millet, V E Vleck, D J Bentley

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 136 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
136citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

136 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

76 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gregoire P MilletISSEP, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. gregoire.millet@unil.ch
V E Vleck
D J Bentley

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this review was to provide a synopsis of the literature concerning the physiological differences between cycling and running. By comparing physiological variables such as maximal oxygen consumption (V O(2max)), anaerobic threshold (AT), heart rate, economy or delta efficiency measured in cycling and running in triathletes, runners or cyclists, this review aims to identify the effects of exercise modality on the underlying mechanisms (ventilatory responses, blood flow, muscle oxidative capacity, peripheral innervation and neuromuscular fatigue) of adaptation. The majority of studies indicate that runners achieve a higher V O(2max) on treadmill whereas cyclists can achieve a V O(2max) value in cycle ergometry similar to that in treadmill running. Hence, V O(2max) is specific to the exercise modality. In addition, the muscles adapt specifically to a given exercise task over a period of time, resulting in an improvement in submaximal physiological variables such as the ventilatory threshold, in some cases without a change in V O(2max). However, this effect is probably larger in cycling than in running. At the same time, skill influencing motor unit recruitment patterns is an important influence on the anaerobic threshold in cycling. Furthermore, it is likely that there is more physiological training transfer from running to cycling than vice versa. In triathletes, there is generally no difference in V O(2max) measured in cycle ergometry and treadmill running. The data concerning the anaerobic threshold in cycling and running in triathletes are conflicting. This is likely to be due to a combination of actual training load and prior training history in each discipline. The mechanisms surrounding the differences in the AT together with V O(2max) in cycling and running are not largely understood but are probably due to the relative adaptation of cardiac output influencing V O(2max) and also the recruitment of muscle mass in combination with the oxidative capacity of this mass influencing the AT. Several other physiological differences between cycling and running are addressed: heart rate is different between the two activities both for maximal and submaximal intensities. The delta efficiency is higher in running. Ventilation is more impaired in cycling than in running. It has also been shown that pedalling cadence affects the metabolic responses during cycling but also during a subsequent running bout. However, the optimal cadence is still debated. Central fatigue and decrease in maximal strength are more important after prolonged exercise in running than in cycling.

Indexed as

BicyclingExerciseExercise TestFemaleHeart RateHumansMaleMuscle FatigueOxygen ConsumptionPhysical EndurancePulmonary VentilationRunningSex Factors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.