Geschatte leestijd: 3 minutenWhat is better: indoor or outdoor cycling? People who cycle indoors, for example on a home exercise bike or at the gym, need to train more intensively to achieve the same effort. These are the conclusions of a study whose results will be published in an upcoming edition of The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. Last week, the results were already published online (1).
Indoor or Outdoor Cycling?
Some prefer indoor cycling because of the absence of weather dependence, but also for conditions such as temperature, resistance, and focus of attention. You get on the bike, clear your mind, and try to get into “the zone” where you’re almost unconsciously pedaling. Meanwhile, you can have a conversation with your neighbor or watch one of the TV screens in the gym, and half an hour to three-quarters of an hour flies by. Others prefer the variety of outdoor cycling. When it comes to effectiveness in achieving results for health, one might wonder which is better.
Study Design
Researchers from the University of Nebraska therefore divided 12 amateur cyclists into two groups. One group would cycle indoors for 40 kilometers, and the other group outdoors. The researchers measured factors such as power output, heart rate, core temperature, skin temperature, body weight, focus of attention, fatigue as experienced by the cyclist, and conditions such as wind force. All conditions were the same except for the wind force, which was greater outdoors.
The Results
In the group cycling outdoors, more power was generated over the 40 kilometers, and the average heart rate was higher. Core temperature was the same, but skin temperature was lower in the outdoor group (likely due to cooling by the wind). There were no significant differences in any other measurements, including perceived fatigue.
Indoor Cycling Feels More Intense
The researchers’ main conclusion is that indoor cycling requires a subjective higher effort to objectively achieve the same exertion and the same result in terms of energy expended and heart load.
These data indicate that outdoor cycling allows cyclists to exercise at a higher intensity than laboratory cycling, despite similar environmental conditions and perceived exertion. In light of this, cyclists may want to ride at a higher perceived exertion in indoor settings to acquire the same benefit as they would from an outdoor ride.
Molly Mieras, University of Nebraska
In other words, outdoor cycling is “easier” because you achieve the same result with subjectively less effort.
Results of Previous Studies
French researchers came to a similar conclusion in 2007 when they had seven cyclists perform various tests (2). They had them cycle in seven different ways: indoors in a seated position at three different speeds (60, 80, and 100 RPM), outdoors at two speeds (80 and 100 RPM), and outdoors uphill with a slope of 9.25% at two speeds (60 and 80 RPM).
The main conclusion here was also that indoor cycling leads to greater perceived fatigue with comparable exertion.
The most important findings of this study indicate that at maximal aerobic power the crank torque profiles in the Monark ergometer (818 E) were significantly different (especially on dead points of the crank cycle) and generate a higher perceived exertion compared with road cycling conditions.
W. Bertucci, Université de Reims-Champagne-Ardenne
Indoors Faster Than Outdoors Depending on Body Size
Two months earlier in 2007, the results of researchers who looked at the influence of body size on the difference between indoor and outdoor cycling results were published (3). They had 23 competitive cyclists cycle 25 miles indoors and outdoors on relatively flat terrain. The average speed indoors was higher than outdoors (40.4 +/- 3.02 vs. 38.7 +/- 3.55 km per hour). A difference of about 4%. However, for small cyclists, this difference was minimal, while it was much larger for larger riders. According to the researchers, larger cyclists may experience more (air) resistance outdoors due to their larger size.
The difference between road and laboratory cycling speeds (km x h(-1)) was found to be minimal for small individuals (mass = 65 kg and height = 1.738 m) but larger riders would appear to benefit from the fixed resistance in the laboratory compared with the progressively increasing drag due to increased body size that would be experienced in the field. This difference was found to be proportional to the cyclists’ body surface area that we speculate might be associated with the cyclists’ frontal surface area.
S.A. Jobson, University of Wolverhampton
Therefore, a larger body size results in a proportionally greater effort required outdoors to achieve the same speed as indoors.
References
- Mieras, Molly E.; Heesch, Matthew W.S.; Slivka, Dustin R. Physiological and Psychological Responses to Outdoor vs. Laboratory Cycling. POST ACCEPTANCE, 27 January 2014 doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000384
- William Bertucci, Frederic Grappe and Alain Groslambert. Laboratory Versus Outdoor Cycling Conditions: Differences in Pedaling Biomechanics. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 2007; 23:87-92. © 2007 Human Kinetics, Inc.
- Jobson SA, Nevill AM, Palmer GS, Jeukendrup AE, Doherty M, Atkinson G.The ecological validity of laboratory cycling: Does body size explain the difference between laboratory- and field-based cycling performance? J Sports Sci. 2007 Jan 1;25(1):3-9.
