Who Wins With An Even Playing Field?

[runninboy]

I agree with what you wrote there, even more so as I fall in that category of very poor runners who are decent cyclists.

However there is a type of running where a good correlation with VO2 exists : running uphill on fairly steep slopes ( > 8-10%). With little or almost no training I would normally finish in the 30-40 percentile in local (30-40 minutes) foot races, but on uphill races it would be more like top 10%.

Running upstairs is obviously also a good marker of VO2 and it looks to me like cyclists are better suited for that type of exercise than "flat" runners.
(actually running upstairs is the best cross-training exercise -for cyclists - I know of, and I used to do it often at work at lunchtime years ago)

agree when i was running it was easy to see some athletes who were very strong but who were poor runners.Good cyclists with a high VO2Max are more of a strength type of runner, running uphill or upstairs negates the technique involved in running fast and exchanges it for power. When running on the flat efficiency and optimum foot placement is key. Too short of stride your foot falls too far behind your center mass and you compromise the push off. Too long of stride your foot falls in front of your center and you end up having to use different muscles to kind of pull and then push during your stride not efficient. The key is being familiar with what is your maximum efficient stride length for the particular speed. The shorter the distance generally the shorter the stride, as you go up in distance your speed drops and so to maintain the maximum amount of momentum with the least amount of effort your stride naturally shortens. It is all about maintaining momentum. Going uphill momentum is trumped by power. The steeper the hill the more power required. Running upstairs suits cyclists more than efficient runners as it places a premium on power and strength.

 

[Cloxxki]

I agree with what you wrote there, even more so as I fall in that category of very poor runners who are decent cyclists.

However there is a type of running where a good correlation with VO2 exists : running uphill on fairly steep slopes ( > 8-10%). With little or almost no training I would normally finish in the 30-40 percentile in local (30-40 minutes) foot races, but on uphill races it would be more like top 10%.

Running upstairs is obviously also a good marker of VO2 and it looks to me like cyclists are better suited for that type of exercise than "flat" runners.
(actually running upstairs is the best cross-training exercise -for cyclists - I know of, and I used to do it often at work at lunchtime years ago)

Now, coming back to L.A. and his VO2, there is a very good source - in my opinion - that I seem to be the only one to ever mention on this forum : the june 1996 scientific american magazine.

I scanned the relevant article once for Poupou, so, even though you don't like me, it would please me to send it to you in a PM if you were interested.

Interesting angle there.
Could one reason be that a steep incline removes the runner's options to exploit overly inefficient technique? Pretty hard to stay in heel strike mode, even with the slowest of raised heel running shoes. Other contributing factors to effciency may also be influenced, such as subject's ability to move quick enough on a level treadmill. I know that when I was a really fit cyclist, I topped out at 23kph on the treadmill. Pretty pathetic. I am old now and would comfortably hit 30, as I've learned the biomechanics of running. On the steep incline treadmill, I never had an issue performing to my potential.
Ironically, the steep incline makes for a level playing field between athletes of many disciplines...

OT: I am training to reach 9'00 3k's. Not quite there yet, but I will eventually, I know my body can do that. And I'm as tall and heavier than Northug, and only a bit of a runner after I tapered off cycling. I aim to be a good XC skier, but reality is catching up me with that particular aim, not yet for the 3k thing If Northug could be bothered, he'd run low 8's I'm sure.

 

[Altitude]

I really need to revisit this again for some of you to put my comments in perspective. Lance in High school could not break 5 minutes for the mile and yet he was supposedly a tremendous natural talent and competed AND WON sprint tri's even at the national level. Sprint tri's at the time were not any specific distance as they were relatively new. Very short runs, many times only a mile or two no more than 3. So having decent mile speed was important to him at that time as it was HIS PROFESSION(turned pro in high school)!

Who the hell cares about his mile time? We're talking about his talent as a cyclist. I'd be willing to bet most professional cyclists could not run a 5 minute mile. Donkeys don't win professional bike races, let alone the World Championship and the Tour de France. Cannot happen.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Who the hell cares about his mile time? We're talking about his talent as a cyclist. I'd be willing to bet most professional cyclists could not run a 5 minute mile. Donkeys don't win professional bike races, let alone the World Championship and the Tour de France. Cannot happen.

They obviously do, with the right "preparation". You don't look like Armstrong did in those world pics by riding your bike.

 

[runninboy]

Who the hell cares about his mile time? We're talking about his talent as a cyclist. I'd be willing to bet most professional cyclists could not run a 5 minute mile. Donkeys don't win professional bike races, let alone the World Championship and the Tour de France. Cannot happen.

No, sorry. We were talking about how he was supposedly naturally gifted with athletic talent. He was training as a runner at the time, s swimmer/biker/runner AS A PROFESSIONAL. Purported to have great natural talent, referenced over & over,"a professional triathlete in high school" training as a professional
again lets look at a quote
""Lance was highly athletic from a very early age, as he began seriously running and swimming at age ten"
So he trained seriously as a runner for 8 years and was unable to break 5 minutes for the mile?
a time as i mentioned that is bettered by more than 200 high school girls every year but this professional athlete training seriously for 8 years could not beat 200 high school girls in a footrace in his profession?

That is not natural talent in ANY stretch of the imagination
again he was not a pro cyclist at that point he was a professional triathlete who ran close to the mile in competition.
that is a donkey, pure and simple. the fact that he found a profession that suits his attributes better than running does not make him a gifted natural athlete. Only a great doper.
Donkey's do win, otherwise Lance would be an unknown.

oh btw when i was in JUNIOR high school they had something called the presidents physical fitness award. There used to be levels, first you got a patch and the better you did on 5 fitness tests the higher award you got finally 5 stars i think was stop. In order to get the top award i had to break 5 minutes in the mile...
the standards have been lowered considerably since because most are sedentary. But hundreds of junior high boys met those basicstandards of physical fitness. Apparently pro triathletes while training seriously for 8 years in running are unable to do so.

 

[Altitude]

irrelevant rant

Thread is about who would win the Tour de France on a level playing field. Not who would run the fastest mile. Being a world class cyclist doesn't translate to being a world class runner, world class swimmer doesn't translate to world class cyclist, etc, etc. Why you keep going on about his running ability is puzzling, as it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

But lets have it your way. So he sucked at running when he was a pro triathlete, right? He still won races, didn't he? Or at least did very well in them. Wouldn't he have to be a really fast cyclist in order to make up for his apparently really sh!tty running ability? How do you explain that one?

 

[sittingbison]

...Wouldn't he have to be a really fast cyclist in order to make up for his apparently really sh!tty running ability? How do you explain that one?

Can't swim very fast - he got fifth in that swim at school.

Can't run very fast either - struggling to get under 5 minute mile.

So yup, he had to do something special on the bike. Like cheating by going into the next lane as evidenced in the video.

Once a cheat on a bike, always a cheat on a bike

 

[runninboy]

Why you keep going on about his running ability is puzzling, as it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

But lets have it your way. So he sucked at running when he was a pro triathlete, right?

the reason it is relevant is that he had no natural athletic ability. Without drugs he would not come close to winning the tour.
He had trained for the better part of a decade seriously as a runner and his performance was worse than many non athletes. The mile run was used to measure basic fitness in school, for all students.
When you are a serious pro athlete and you train to run, poor performance even below that of non athletes is an indicator of ones true athletic ability.
Which is a way to try to measure what a drugged up cheat would do without the drugs.The answer of course is that Armstrong would do nothing without drugs. You mention that he won races as a triathlete. Well there you go again. Not many pro's competed in sprint tri's as there was far better money in standard length tri's. Sprint tri's were basically a joke. I don't think Lance ever won a standard length pro tri, but maybe he did. The point is, even then he was most likely using steroids, a popular texas high school football PED and easy to get. That would account for any decent performance on the bike of a tri, or possibly the swim. The running portion not so much.
Hey maybe that is why he sucked so bad

 

[BroDeal]

When did Armstrong start working with Crawford? That might say a lot.

 

[cineteq]

Can a Race Among Doped Cyclists Be Fair?

"Athletes with greater resources are going to be able to contact better doctors, there are going to be some people who are going to be willing to take much greater risks with their bodies and their health than other people."

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...g-teammate-says-no/?smid=tw-thelede&seid=auto