A question for those of us who enjoy both turbo sessions and running.
I've recently started using a HRM and have noticed a big difference in the perceived effort level and associated heart rate between the 2 activities. Basically, running at a fast but reasonably sustainable pace for an hour (7:30 - 8 mins per mile ish) gives an average heart rate of 165 bpm ish with a max of 187bpm. A similar perceived effort doing a threshold session on the turbo (arguably a harder effort level) gives an average of 123bpm, max of 165bpm.
The obvious conclusion is that I'm not working as hard as I think I am on the turbo yet I come off it exhausted, dripping with sweat and have aching legs for 24 hours afterwards. If anything, the run seems easier.
So, what am I missing? Why the discrepancy? And should I be worried by it?
you're only moving your legs...
on the run, you're moving your arms and stuff too.
It's just how it is... cycling is easier on a HR that running.
What he said ??
Far more going on when running than riding. Mines the same.
Excellent, that was a simpler answer than I thought!
When cycling your bodyweight is supported by the bike, when running your legs have to do the supporting as well as provide the forward momentum. You'll heat up more on the turbo as you don't have the cooling effect of moving through the air that you get when running.
Do you find your HR is less on the turbo than on the bike outdoors as well, for a similar perceived effort? I do. Highlights the inaccuracies of training using heart rate I think.
my peaks and hill efforts are less indoors on the turbo. Also the time it takes to get from 80%-99% are longer on the turbo. Out on the road i can go from 150bpm > 180bpm in a matter of about 50M ...
There's another kettle of fish as my indoor power is different to outdoor power. Using the same power meter...
my peaks and hill efforts are less indoors on the turbo. Also the time it takes to get from 80%-99% are longer on the turbo. Out on the road i can go from 150bpm > 180bpm in a matter of about 50M ...
This is 100% accurate for me too.
On the turbo you're static but out on road/trail you've also got wind/air resistance to counter, so more effort required.
Its a known phenomenon as stated above. Max HR running is often approx 10 beats higher than when cycling.
God knows the exact reason why though, never read a good explanation as to why.
Not convinced by the "you're just moving your legs"
shortbread_fanylion - Member
Do you find your HR is less on the turbo than on the bike outdoors as well, for a similar perceived effort? I do. Highlights the inaccuracies of training using heart rate I think.
Same here. I (without being any kind of physiologist) put it down to air resistance and rolling resistance - it surely takes more effort and energy to actually move you and bike forward rather than just turning a stationary wheel round.
At a guess, outdoor (MTB) heart rate is probably 15-20 bpm higher than on the turbo for a similar perceived effort.
Because of that (and I'm no racer - just use the turbo for not losing too much fitness) I see the turbo as more for the legs and learning to hurt than for HR-driven training.
EDIT. I don't run often, but when I do average HR is probably 10 bpm higher than cycling similar terrain (trail running rather than road).