| Title |
Comparison of running and cycling economy in runners, cyclists, and triathletes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-018-3865-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wannes Swinnen, Shalaya Kipp, Rodger Kram |
| Abstract |
Exercise economy is one of the main physiological factors determining performance in endurance sports. Running economy (RE) can be improved with running-specific training, while the improvement of cycling economy (CE) with cycling-specific training is controversial. We investigated whether exercise economy reflects sport-specific skills/adaptations or is determined by overall physiological factors. We compared RE and CE in 10 runners, 9 cyclists and 9 triathletes for running at 12 km/h and cycling at 200 W. Gross rates of oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production were collected and used to calculate gross metabolic rate in watts for both running and cycling. Runners had better RE than cyclists (917 ± 107 W vs. 1111 ± 159 W) (p < 0.01). Triathletes had intermediate RE values (1004 ± 98 W) not different from runners or cyclists. CE was not different (p = 0.20) between the three groups (runners: 945 ± 60 W; cyclists: 982 ± 44 W; triathletes: 979 ± 54 W). RE can be enhanced with running-specific training, but CE is independent of cycling-specific training. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 135 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 30 | 22% |
| United Kingdom | 14 | 10% |
| Australia | 8 | 6% |
| Canada | 5 | 4% |
| Spain | 5 | 4% |
| France | 4 | 3% |
| South Africa | 4 | 3% |
| Ireland | 3 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 10% |
| Unknown | 45 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 91 | 67% |
| Scientists | 32 | 24% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 142 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 30 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 11% |
| Researcher | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 15% |
| Unknown | 28 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 76 | 54% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 36 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 105. 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 15 November 2021.
All research outputs
#402,091
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#99
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,747
of 324,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#1
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 324,262 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 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.