↓ Skip to main content

Physiological Differences Between Cycling and Running

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
36 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
225 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
589 Mendeley
Title
Physiological Differences Between Cycling and Running
Published in
Sports Medicine, October 2012
DOI 10.2165/00007256-200939030-00002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregoire P. Millet, V. E. Vleck, D. J. Bentley

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 589 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Other 9 2%
Unknown 552 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 106 18%
Student > Master 96 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 74 13%
Researcher 55 9%
Other 40 7%
Other 104 18%
Unknown 114 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 264 45%
Medicine and Dentistry 65 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 3%
Social Sciences 16 3%
Other 69 12%
Unknown 131 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 October 2023.
All research outputs
#861,517
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#781
of 2,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,912
of 192,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#101
of 831 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,626 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 831 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.