Skip to main content

Differences between running and cycling

 I'm a passionate runner, and always considered cycling as something fun, e.g. mountain-biking, but difficult to practice regularly. There's a lot of overhead in cycling, like the preparation, bike maintenance, dealing with city traffic, etc.

Anyway about eight months ago I bought a road bike and felt in love with it. Soon after that I discovered Zwift and that gave an additional dimension to the sport: practice whenever you want from home, with accurate power measurements and a way to socialise with distant people. That was a game changer.

In five months I cycled 1600 virtual Km and climbed almost 17 virtual Km. Meanwhile my running performance, instead of degrading, improved, and that surprised me.

Anyway what I wanted to write about is a great article I read, "Physiological Differences Between Cycling and Running". It's a review of articles published in that area. Some conclusions are very interesting.

In general it seems sports medicine is still inconclusive for many aspects, and coaches may still have an advantage by following empirical/heuristic approaches in comparison with research-driven indications.

But more specifically, some notes from the conclusions:

- For the same person, VO2max depends on the speciality (i.e. runners achieve higher values on treadmill than cycle ergometer)

- There seems to be more physiological transfer from running to cycling than the other way around

- Pedalling cadence impacts the metabolic response during cycling, but also during a following run (at least in the short term)

- The Lactate Threshold is lower for athletes when not practicing their speciality, i.e. the Lactate Threshold depends on the training method

- Both female and male are impacted in the same way when comparing VO2max for running and cycling

- Triathletes have similar max Heart Rate when running and cycling, again pointing to the importance of the actual speciality used in training

- The position when cycling makes it harder to breathe

and probably other important elements that I wasn't able to fully grasp.


Popular posts from this blog

Troubleshooting TURN

  WebRTC applications use the ICE negotiation to discovery the best way to communicate with a remote party. I t dynamically finds a pair of candidates (IP address, port and transport, also known as “transport address”) suitable for exchanging media and data. The most important aspect of this is “dynamically”: a local and a remote transport address are found based on the network conditions at the time of establishing a session. For example, a WebRTC client that normally uses a server reflexive transport address to communicate with an SFU. when running inside the home office, may use a relay transport address over TCP when running inside an office network which limits remote UDP targets. The same configuration (defined as “iceServers” when creating an RTCPeerConnection will work in both cases, producing different outcomes.

VoIP calls encoded with SILK: from RTP to WAV

SILK is a codec defined by Skype, but can be found in many VoIP clients, like CSipSimple . It comes in different flavours (sample rates and frame sizes), from narrowband (8 KHz) to wideband (24 KHz). Since Wireshark doesn't allow you to decode an RTP stream carrying SILK frames, I was curious to find a programmatic way to do it. In fact, this has also allowed to me to earn a "tumbleweed" badge in stackoverflow . You may argue that a Wireshark plugin would be the right solution, but that's probably for another day. Initially I thought it was sufficient to read the specification for RTP payload when using SILK ; the truth is that I had to reverse engineer a solution by looking at SILK SDK's test vectors. There, I discovered that a file containing SILK audio doesn't have the file header indicated in the IETF draft ("!#SILK"), but a slightly different one ("!#SILK_V3"). More importantly, each encoded frame is not preced...

Extracting Opus from a pcap file into an audible wav

From time to time I need to verify that the audio inside a trace is as expected. Not much in terms of quality, but more often content and duration. A few years ago I wrote a small program to transform a pcap into a wav file - the codec in use was SILK. These days I'm dealing with Opus , and I have to say things are greatly simplified, in particular if you consider opus-tools , a set of utilities to handle opus files and traces. One of those tools, opusrtp , can do live captures and write the interpreted payload into a .opus file. Still, what I needed was to achieve the same result but from a pcap already existing, i.e. "offline". So I come up with a small - quite shamlessly copy&pasted - patch to opusrtc, which is now in this fork . Once you have a pcap with an RTP stream with opus (say in input.pcap ) you can retrieve the .opus equivalent (in rtpdump.opus ) with: ./opusrtp --extract input.pcap Then you can generate an audible wav file with: ./opusd...