Road bike vs. recumbent comparison

[ed72]

I suspect the VO2 kinetics of upright vs supine have an age component as well. One thing I noticed and it could be age, it takes a much longer and more careful rampup of effort during warmup before doing a hard climb or TT. I think this paper explains it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3827567/

I trained really hard on the bent for well over 1 year. I am 60 years old.

My best recent FTP on the upright was 285 watts, but this was after completing the TransAm bike race where I spent a lot of time at elevation and a lot of time in extreme heat, ostensibly increasing HCT and plasma levels = more power. My normal range of FTP would have been 272-275 watts.

I achieved 253 watts last Fall and 252 watts in the early Summer on the bent. So, I got to about 8% differential.

I hope to raise my bent FTP to 265 this year but we'll see. I am still in the base period.

 

[RojoRacing]

Ok so 11 days after breaking out the V20 I just bettered/matched my best 35 mins DF power from the last 6 weeks. It's weird because I still cruise around with my free ride effort a good 20-30watts lower on the V20 vs the DF but when I get serious the all the power matches up as well as the HR.

If you'd like to dissect the data you're welcome too.

Today's ride https://www.strava.com/activities/2180719303/analysis/1311/3396

DF ride with 2 watt high 25 min power https://www.strava.com/activities/2110316739/analysis/56/1933

 

[RojoRacing]

Here are two longer 30ish min segments from each ride where I was pushing hard the whole time. Without comparing these pics to the data in the two links I posted above you'd be hard pressed to pick out which pic represents the DF bike with 175mm cranks or the V20 with 165mm cranks.

Same Power
Same HR
Same Cadence
Both are from TT events

 

[ed72]

Please don't take this too critical but as one who spent his whole career reviewing data and studies, that data does not come close to showing equivalence in my mind. I didn't try to figure out which data came from the DF and which was from the bent. The courses are not the same and both are hilly but one is constant up and down and the other has one big climb making comparisons not worthwhile.....apples to oranges. The warmup appears to be a full 8 miles in one and 2 miles in the other. The duration of the test is longer on one by about 2 miles and 4 minutes. More importantly, these were virtual rides, right? Do you have a Kickr Climb attached? Increased elevation of the legs above the heart reduces perfusion in the legs resulting in lower aerobic power. Was the power meter the same exact one? Not same model and brand.

Your 20-30 watt cruising power differential between upright and bent position is about what I register and it is weird to me too since the differential is lower in absolute terms at threshold but significantly lower in relative amount at threshold. One of the papers I think explains that (the French one from Montpelier)...has to do with the blood kinematics. I liken it to having a big ass turbo on a diesel, it takes a long time to spool up and it belches if you get on it too hard, too quick.

If you have any training secrets, I am all ears.

You certainly may make the same power on a bent compared to an upright, but your data does provide that evidence and it goes against the limited studies to date and the overwhelming anecdotes from other bent riders. Thus, I am all ears if you have any specific training that you conducted to close the gap between upright and bent power outputs because I have a difference of 10-12% and would like to get to my upright power.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3827567/
https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.1999.87.1.253
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16222538/

......there is a very large postural effect on performance during constant-load cycling exercise and this effect is significantly larger in men than women

 

[Osiris]

I have to echo Ed72's sentiments, though I'm not inclined to dismiss these results entirely. But as I mentioned elsewhere, there are different ways of measuring power and you're only comparing one of them: aerobic power. That's a very important distinction, because in my own tests I see very little if any difference when comparing relatively low levels of aerobic power on my bent vs. DF, but I see enormous differences at the upper ranges. When it comes to max power, my results on any of my bents don't come even close to what I can produce on my DF. Have you done any max power comparisons, or something in that neighborhood?

 

[RojoRacing]

Sorry I should have specified further about the data. The today’s ride link contains the warmup because it’s not an official Zwift event so you need to select the volcano flat 2 lap segment where I was going full gas. On the other ride I think it the same but it contains my cool down instead. So you’ll only want to look at each of those parts for now which are what the two graphs are displaying.

Always keep in mind I never train and I don’t do drills or workouts, I only ride where my bike takes me.

I’ll add to this response later but now I’ve got work to get to.

 

[ed72]

There are other studies. It is clear that RoJo is making about the same power at VT2 on bent vs upright, certainly within 10%.

Abstract
It was recently observed that inclining the body from a supine to upright position improved the performance of high-intensity, constant-load cycling to a larger extent in men than women (Egaña et al. in Eur J Appl Physiol 96:1-9, 2006), although this gender-related effect was based on a small number of men (n = 5) and women (n = 5). To explore this effect further, we studied the effect of body tilt on cycling performance in a larger and different group of men (n = 8) and women (n = 18). Peak power, peak VO2 and the ventilatory threshold (VT) were determined during an upright maximal graded cycle test, and a high-intensity test (80% peak power) was performed to failure in both the upright and supine positions. Performance was significantly longer in the upright compared with supine position in men (17.4 +/- 7.7 vs. 7.6 +/- 3.4 min) and women (14.1 +/- 6.0 vs. 6.0 +/- 3.7 min). The magnitude of this postural effect was not significantly different between men and women; whereas it was significantly correlated with the relative intensity of exercise expressed as a function of VT (r = -0.39). These data demonstrate that the postural effect on high-intensity cycling performance is not influenced by gender; but that it is related to the intensity of exercise relative to the ventilatory threshold.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17206442

Osiris, the maximal power differential is probably best laid out in the Too Thesis.

https://digitalcommons.brockport.ed.../&httpsredir=1&article=1314&context=bookshelf

 

[ed72]

This study seems to suggest a completely supine position would make more peak power (sprinting) than a partially recumbent orientation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737808/

 

[ed72]

This study conducted in Japan.

It is long and complicated.

My takeaway. It supports something I observed or learned with experimentation.

To make your best effort in a severely reclined position, one must ease into the effort much more so than on an upright. If not, you will be in oxygen debt quickly and the "lactic acid" burn will get you. I found that hard warm ups help but when getting into a TT pace, taking 3-5 minutes to progressively up the power helps tremendously to close the power gap between the upright and supine positions. The O2 kinematics are explained in the paper.

This is just pure speculation but RoJo is young. A lot of us are old or much older. Our endothelial function is much more compromised and our "CV and plumbing" probably we cannot compensate as well.

For old farts like me.....ease slowly into those hard efforts.....try it, it might help.

https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.1999.87.1.253

 

[RojoRacing]

No max power testing but in final sprints in Zwift races max 10 second power is within 10% if not closer if I recall from years past. We can monitor this in the upcoming months as I continue to race on Zwift with the Neo.

Power source will always be ether my Tacx Neo for Zwift or vector pedals(same pair shared between both bikes) for outdoors.

 

[LarryOz]

Power source will always be ether my Tacx Neo for Zwift or vector pedals(same pair shared between both bikes) for outdoors.

If you have not done this yet Jason, try comparing some average power reading between the Neo and your Garmin.
i.e. ride whatever in Zwift, but something you can get a good average power reading from Neo. (meaning don't pair you pedals to Zwift for this test)
Then on your Garmin capture you average power over the exact same time frame. Then compare.
There seems to be some "oddness" about the way Garmin is calculating power when you are using non-oval rings, and I saw pretty large differences between the 2 in my tests.

 

[Osiris]

There is an interesting claim made in both articles that the muscles active in pedaling are able to produce more power when the rider is placed in a supine position than when in a recumbent position. I've read this before, but it still makes no sense to me. From a mechanical perspective, precisely the opposite should be true. It's well known to anyone who has used a leg press, performed barbell squats, or simply gotten out of a chair, that the straighter the legs are, the more force they can generate. It's just a question of leverage; the more folded a joint is, the poorer the leverage. Conversely, the more open the joint, the better the leverage. When I was fitted for my DF, the optimal geometry for me resulted in a hip angle (the angle between my femur and thorax) of 53 degrees. That's with my hands in the drops. On racing recumbents like my M5 and M1, my hip angle is roughly 90 degrees. When I was weight training, I always set the leg press so that my hip angle was at 90 degrees; anything below that, and the amount of weight I could lift would diminish. I can guarantee that if I'd set the leg press for a hip angle of 53 degrees, I couldn't even move the weight stack. Since pushing a pedal from TDC to BDC is essentially like performing a leg press with one leg, it should be the case that I'd produce more power when riding a recumbent than when riding a DF. But in fact, my max power on a DF turns out to be far higher than it is on a recumbent -- precisely the opposite of what I had expected.

 

[RojoRacing]

If you have not done this yet Jason, try comparing some average power reading between the Neo and your Garmin.
i.e. ride whatever in Zwift, but something you can get a good average power reading from Neo. (meaning don't pair you pedals to Zwift for this test)
Then on your Garmin capture you average power over the exact same time frame. Then compare.
There seems to be some "oddness" about the way Garmin is calculating power when you are using non-oval rings, and I saw pretty large differences between the 2 in my tests.

Already captured vectors via Garmin and Neo via Zwift in both steady efforts and Zwift races and the average powers were within 1% with oval rings. I’ve fine this several times over the last two years and the results are always the same.

 

[RojoRacing]

Not directed at ed72 directly just quoting him because he's asking the questions most on here share.

All of what I'm about to say can mean nothing if your bikes ergonomics aren't tuned to achieve max power, perfect example is most of Larry's bikes which make sacrifices for aero gains. Also most of what I'm about to suggest is more mind over matter then a physical practice. It's basically on par with someone telling you that meditating 30 mins a day will allow you reach enlightenment and true happiness. All I can say is after completely breaking down my mind and body during my days of running ultra marathon I don't look at anything "physical" that same way so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Your 20-30 watt cruising power differential between upright and bent position is about what I register and it is weird to me too since the differential is lower in absolute terms at threshold but significantly lower in relative amount at threshold. One of the papers I think explains that (the French one from Montpelier)...has to do with the blood kinematics. I liken it to having a big ass turbo on a diesel, it takes a long time to spool up and it belches if you get on it too hard, too quick.

I think it's a matter of being in a more comfortable relaxed position triggers my mind to go into a more lazy mode. If output watts match HR values at each level and absolute threshold values are the same then your potential in the same and all you have left is the mental aspect. I was already matching my DF power on the V20 as soon as I was comfortable enough at controlling the bike, and long before anyone ever told me I should make less power on a bent vs a DF bike. My ignorance on the matter allowed me to strive for equal values without any metal hurdles to overcome, yes I believe that believing and visualizing a result have massive effects on outcomes.

I will say that I was always aware that bents aren't able to climb well and are meant for more flat roads, this knowledge almost kept me from going out and proving it completely false. During the 1st 6 months I had the bike I was terrible at climbing with it because every time I'd get into a climb I "knew" it was going to be harder so it always felt like I was dragging and anchor. Then I realized I was mentally sabotaging myself the exact same way I always tell others not to do when they ask me for training advise, I was honestly a little embarrassed with myself. I do have a rather unique background and my experience(motorcycle racing and ultra running) lets me switch those mental blocks or expectations off and I can blindly proceed. I know that sounds like I'm making myself out to sound special but it's not a exact or perfect ability or science I can't apply to everything, when it works it's amazing but most the time I'll only be lying to myself which doesn't work if that makes sense. So after awhile I was able to switch off those presumptions and attack the mountains as if I was on any other bike and the results kind of speak for themselves.

You certainly may make the same power on a bent compared to an upright, but your data does provide that evidence and it goes against the limited studies to date and the overwhelming anecdotes from other bent riders. Thus, I am all ears if you have any specific training that you conducted to close the gap between upright and bent power outputs because I have a difference of 10-12% and would like to get to my upright power.

The one thing that comes to mind listening to most others stories on here is that maybe you're riding your DF like a DF and your Bent like a Bent. What I mean by that is as soon as you toss a leg over a bike you make a mental switch as to what it's meant to do like this thing flies on the flats so I'm going to hammer there and make the best of it superiority.

I know all that sounds preposterous and most people upon hearing such words would rather believe such a practice is only the result of something like age or talent, but all I can do is offer what I know, it's up to others to do with it what they will.

 

[RojoRacing]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3827567/

"The nine subjects cycled at 197.2 (42.3 W) in upright position and at 149.9 (30.0 W) in supine position (p < 0.05). All the subjects were able to cycle for 12 minutes in both postures."

I'm not accustomed to reading scientific studies so I can have a hard time staying focused while reading but this line stood out at me. Did they just state that the effort for the upright part of the test was set to be 24% harder?

 

[ed72]

"The nine subjects cycled at 197.2 (42.3 W) in upright position and at 149.9 (30.0 W) in supine position (p < 0.05). All the subjects were able to cycle for 12 minutes in both postures."

I'm not accustomed to reading scientific studies so I can have a hard time staying focused while reading but this line stood out at me. Did they just state that the effort for the upright part of the test was set to be 24% harder?

No, the opposite. Same effort in both positions but lower power in the bent

 

[ed72]

I appreciate the feedback, RoJo.

I didn't want to get all psycho yoga but I did some of that last Spring when I did a lot of experimenting with breathing especially while climbing since there what about a million muscles involved with breathing. I figured any tension would hurt. I am not exactly sure why I made big improvements after 12 months of striking out but the three that stick out over 4-6 months.

1. I worked on breathing and relaxing on the bent
2. I thought muscle recruitment might a factor, so, I beat the death out of my legs 3 times a week with tabata intervals over about 2 months.
3. I then reasoned that since my old training methods were not working and assuming a delivery issue to the legs, I did Coggan's favorite workout. 20 minute sweetspots. But not 2 x20....often 6 x20.

With all that said and all the studies showing lower oxygen delivered to the muscles in the recumbent position and different dynamics at the muscles, the one flaw of these studies and it is really impossible to study anyway, is the effect of 1-3 years of training. Your data is the ONLY credible that I have seen showing equivalence and it gives me hope of further improvement. So, I thank you for sharing it.

 

[RojoRacing]

No, the opposite. Same effort in both positions but lower power in the bent

Ok so same effort as in same VO2 effort

 

[RojoRacing]

I appreciate the feedback, RoJo.

I didn't want to get all psycho yoga but I did some of that last Spring when I did a lot of experimenting with breathing especially while climbing since there what about a million muscles involved with breathing. I figured any tension would hurt. I am not exactly sure why I made big improvements after 12 months of striking out but the three that stick out over 4-6 months.

1. I worked on breathing and relaxing on the bent
2. I thought muscle recruitment might a factor, so, I beat the death out of my legs 3 times a week with tabata intervals over about 2 months.
3. I then reasoned that since my old training methods were not working and assuming a delivery issue to the legs, I did Coggan's favorite workout. 20 minute sweetspots. But not 2 x20....often 6 x20.

With all that said and all the studies showing lower oxygen delivered to the muscles in the recumbent position and different dynamics at the muscles, the one flaw of these studies and it is really impossible to study anyway, is the effect of 1-3 years of training. Your data is the ONLY credible that I have seen showing equivalence and it gives me hope of further improvement. So, I thank you for sharing it.

Or maybe my data is all wrong and I should be producing 20% more power on the DF

I really do think it could be my seat and handlebar setup, I have so much support and leverage it really no different than my road bike when sprinting in the drops.

 

[paco1961]

Not directed at ed72 directly just quoting him because he's asking the questions most on here share.

All of what I'm about to say can mean nothing if your bikes ergonomics aren't tuned to achieve max power, perfect example is most of Larry's bikes which make sacrifices for aero gains. Also most of what I'm about to suggest is more mind over matter then a physical practice. It's basically on par with someone telling you that meditating 30 mins a day will allow you reach enlightenment and true happiness. All I can say is after completely breaking down my mind and body during my days of running ultra marathon I don't look at anything "physical" that same way so take what I say with a grain of salt.



I think it's a matter of being in a more comfortable relaxed position triggers my mind to go into a more lazy mode. If output watts match HR values at each level and absolute threshold values are the same then your potential in the same and all you have left is the mental aspect. I was already matching my DF power on the V20 as soon as I was comfortable enough at controlling the bike, and long before anyone ever told me I should make less power on a bent vs a DF bike. My ignorance on the matter allowed me to strive for equal values without any metal hurdles to overcome, yes I believe that believing and visualizing a result have massive effects on outcomes.

I will say that I was always aware that bents aren't able to climb well and are meant for more flat roads, this knowledge almost kept me from going out and proving it completely false. During the 1st 6 months I had the bike I was terrible at climbing with it because every time I'd get into a climb I "knew" it was going to be harder so it always felt like I was dragging and anchor. Then I realized I was mentally sabotaging myself the exact same way I always tell others not to do when they ask me for training advise, I was honestly a little embarrassed with myself. I do have a rather unique background and my experience(motorcycle racing and ultra running) lets me switch those mental blocks or expectations off and I can blindly proceed. I know that sounds like I'm making myself out to sound special but it's not a exact or perfect ability or science I can't apply to everything, when it works it's amazing but most the time I'll only be lying to myself which doesn't work if that makes sense. So after awhile I was able to switch off those presumptions and attack the mountains as if I was on any other bike and the results kind of speak for themselves.




The one thing that comes to mind listening to most others stories on here is that maybe you're riding your DF like a DF and your Bent like a Bent. What I mean by that is as soon as you toss a leg over a bike you make a mental switch as to what it's meant to do like this thing flies on the flats so I'm going to hammer there and make the best of it superiority.


I know all that sounds preposterous and most people upon hearing such words would rather believe such a practice is only the result of something like age or talent, but all I can do is offer what I know, it's up to others to do with it what they will.

There is absolutely a mind over matter component and preconceived notions can be notoriously debilitating on the one hand and amazingly liberating on the other. We are ridiculously complex and highly heterogeneous systems mechanically, physiologically and psychologically.

For me, mechanical difference between bent and DF is huge. On my Lynskey with slammed stem I always felt that lung capacity was significantly limited by physical limitation of rib cage expansion. I could improve the situation by raising the bars but than there's that darned wind thing. My first ride on a bent was on an M1 tank of a Bacchetta Giro 20 . . . all 38 lbs of it with 20" front wheel and fat, flabby tires. Despite the inefficiency of the machine I was riding it was a complete revelation. I felt like I could actually breathe with the open body position. That was improved even more when I switched to the more reclined CB. Recruited a respiratory therapist friend who generously let me bring my Lynskey and CB (S40) to his office where we set up a functional lung capacity test. Did 3 tests on each bike and found an average of 13.5% greater capacity on the CB. Now I'm sure the improved aero efficiency of the CB position is a part of my significant performance gain over the DF but almost 15% more air in and out - despite a possible reduction in O2 perfusion rate, certainly can't hurt either. My PhD is in plants, not animals, but this seems pretty darned significant.

Physiologically it is clear that it is getting increasingly difficult to compare performances from year N+1 and year N. I figure these days that if I match a PR from 2 years ago I attribute that to either better training, better mechanics or better equipment as it is clear that the overall capacity of the engine is slowly fading. So for me a true PR is calculated by performance x chronological age!

Finally the psychological part. As pointed out by several here, this is one of the great x factors. I grew up with a running coach who was all about the mental part of the game - both internal and external. The internal was all about focus, challenge and visualization. The external was all about picking the best parts of a race to issue a dose of demoralizing pie to other competitors. His two big spots were the beginning of a hill and the top of a hill. The philosophy was to hit those two spots hard because they are spots where most people drop pace. When I first returned to my regular group after getting comfortable with the CB I was on a ride with the usual suspects who were all complaining about keeping up on a long flat section. They made me pull for 8 miles straight even knowing I now only offer about a 60% pull compared to when I was sitting much higher. When we hit the first significant climb my years of listening to my coach and his damned megaphone made me kick into hill entry mode. And before long I heard a gasp from behind say, "dammit, the thing climbs too." All I can say is that other than steep slopes over something like 12-15% most folks in town now consider me to be one of the better climbers around - and overall I am a mediocre athlete by all measures. It is amazing how perception can shape our brains. So for me its focus, spin and worry more about catching the guy up ahead than whether we're supposed to be fast or slow climbers. Just put in the work and worry about the power output numbers when you're home and sitting in front of the computer!