Tom Pidcock (cycling super talent) claims he ran a 13:25 5k

Noone cares

Five years ago we had a female MMA athlete claim she had gone sub 20 on the famed Incline in Manitou Springs. Sub 20 is an elite time for a male. When I suggested on FB that this was very unlikely, the mob came after me.

https://gazette.com/news/blog-raquel-penningtons-incline-claim-is-stunning/article_73a74c78-bfd8-51b7-b3f9-8eddd5ba1394.html

Unlike swimming and running, cyclists don’t know where they stand most the time. I raced all 3 at a high level and bike races were full of ego, even cat 4/5’s, everyone training the roads, few knowing their ability day to day from others (this was before strava and power meters - now they must be more aware). Made for a very cold, lame racing scene in cycling where cocky was the pre-race norm, then humbled after. Swimmers and runners mostly know their place, from day to day. Especially swimmers..

Pidcock should know better. Sure, he’s not a pursuiter on a velodrome but he’s dialed on tech stuff as a world tour rider. And he’s an under 23 world tt champ and a tt stud. Why he does well in tt cross races.

Pidcock just needs to get on a track. Finished.

Canadian hour cycling record holder Lionel Sanders, who averaged something like 30mph for an hour, ran a 14:35 5k, on a track just months separated from that cycling record. But 14:35 is light years from 13:25

You don't know cycling. Muscle "springyness" is just as important as in running. It's called Souplesse. Look it up.[/quote]

You got it backwards, homie. I'm saying "springyness" is FAR more important in running than in cycling.[/quote]

Yo, former domestic pro, it's a different type of "springyness" in both running and cycling.

in running at a decent 5000m pace, the foot is on the ground for about 0.2 seconds.

When pedalling at 90 rpm the timing of each phase is similar to running. The perfection of the technique for both sports is the requirement. Both beginner runners or cyclists can be out of breath or heavy legged. And so can seasoned athletes in either sport when they switch activities regardless of Lactate threshold, Aerobic threshold, Lactate clearance, Aerobic capacity or whatever.

Souplesse, look it up . Or ask someone. But don't try to tell me it doesn't have the same importance as neuromuscular conditioning in running when you've never even heard the word, much less understood it.

lol the dude is a clown. The middle miles are proof.

You got it backwards, homie. I'm saying "springyness" is FAR more important in running than in cycling.[/quote]

Yo, former domestic pro, it's a different type of "springyness" in both running and cycling.

in running at a decent 5000m pace, the foot is on the ground for about 0.2 seconds.

When pedalling at 90 rpm the timing of each phase is similar to running. The perfection of the technique for both sports is the requirement. Both beginner runners or cyclists can be out of breath or heavy legged. And so can seasoned athletes in either sport when they switch activities regardless of Lactate threshold, Aerobic threshold, Lactate clearance, Aerobic capacity or whatever.

Souplesse, look it up . Or ask someone. But don't try to tell me it doesn't have the same importance as neuromuscular conditioning in running when you've never even heard the word, much less understood it.[/quote]

Ok sure, but you must of course be aware that the power producing phase at 90rpm cycling is much longer than the power producing phase running? 0.2 seconds, as you say, is essentially a plyometric off the ground. 90rpm on a bike gives .75 sec for the entire downstroke. I'll acknowledge the entirety of the front 180 deg stroke car be effectively used, but even if only 2/3rds is used that's still double the power producing time. Add onto that there is effectively zero preload on the muscles and you can see just why cycling is a 99% concentric movement.

I humored you and looked up the actual definition for souplesse. It translates to flexibility, but I assume you mean the cycling norm of a smooth stroke. This is tantamount to good running form IMO. It does nothing to change the fundamental muscular requirements of a movement.

It is incorrect to say that cycling is 99% concentric. Souplesse incorporates the eccentric contractions. It is pedalling skill. It is the difference between a runner cycling and a well trained cyclist cycling.

This is really elementary cycling knowledge.

Tom is a smart and level headed guy. This wss just a bit of a joke/prank but idiots latched onto it

pumpkinnspiice wrote:

Tom is a smart and level headed guy. This wss just a bit of a joke/prank but idiots latched onto it

what did he think was going to happen?

I am an average cyclist and former decent runner. Where is the heavy eccentric loading in cycling? What am I missing.

more in fo wrote:

It is incorrect to say that cycling is 99% concentric. Souplesse incorporates the eccentric contractions. It is pedalling skill. It is the difference between a runner cycling and a well trained cyclist cycling.

This is really elementary cycling knowledge.

more in fo wrote:

It is incorrect to say that cycling is 99% concentric. Souplesse incorporates the eccentric contractions. It is pedalling skill. It is the difference between a runner cycling and a well trained cyclist cycling.

This is really elementary cycling knowledge.

I have a suspicion that most old school French training terms are of the same quality as the screeds about clearing lactate are in running. That is, a bit outdated.

knox harrington wrote:

pumpkinnspiice wrote:

Tom is a smart and level headed guy. This wss just a bit of a joke/prank but idiots latched onto it

what did he think was going to happen?

Hysterical hobby joggers would have aneurysms?

Can you point to which section of the pedal stroke shows heavy eccentric loading? Even with "souplesse"?

Surely if you mean to say the upstroke eccentrically loads the muscles then you need to take a better look at what pedaling form looks like. Ideally you would create a torque throughout the stroke, but in reality the best you can do on the upstroke is reduce the downward force of your leg, trying to pull harder (while seated) usually is deleterious to the overall stroke. Likewise, the top and bottom of the stroke are a fair bit easier to teach the "pull over the top" and "scrape the bottom". Most guys for this reason pedal in a square for awhile before they can truly get a smooth, (mostly) circular stroke.

The reason I explain this is to ask, if the muscles are actively moving the leg in the direction of the pedal stroke at every point of the pedal stroke, where is the heavy eccentric loading?

I'll also note that the only people I've ever heard throw around terms like "souplesse" and "panache" are cat3's with expensive bikes.

2600 bro wrote:

I am an average cyclist and former decent runner. Where is the heavy eccentric loading in cycling? What am I missing.

Sustained high power output. Your pedalling skill when you are producing 400 watts on a climb versus 300. You can probably hold hold 400 for a few minutes in the right conditions, but with training, maybe much longer.

Harambe wrote:

more in fo wrote:

It is incorrect to say that cycling is 99% concentric. Souplesse incorporates the eccentric contractions. It is pedalling skill. It is the difference between a runner cycling and a well trained cyclist cycling.

This is really elementary cycling knowledge.

I have a suspicion that most old school French training terms are of the same quality as the screeds about clearing lactate are in running. That is, a bit outdated.

Souplesse is not an old wives tale like some of the old school beliefs. It is the art of efficient pedalling. It is much harder to do in winter.

Maybe that's why it's a good idea to use much lower gears on cold days and you are finding it tough and slow going, but not when you are feeling good.

Do you utilize eccentric loading when running fast uphill?

How is cycling different? The 4 phases are very similar.

Why is there an optimal cadence that delivers optimal power and efficiency? Isn't that why a bicycle can never have too many gears because crank length is fixed.

In running, we can shorten or lengthen our stride

In cycling, we need gears. And this helps control power output. But why is there an optimal cadence for each section of a race? To optimise power and efficiency, n'est ce pas?

Are you drunk bro? Of course there is eccentric loading going uphill, it is generated when the foot hits the ground and stretches (or "eccentrically loads") the muscles. Loading your muscles in a similar way in a pedal stroke would actively detract from the power output on the other side of the crank. The fundamental difference is that running is load bearing and part of your output needs to hold you above the ground.

Is your argument to say that the eccentric load in running taking place while the foot is pulling through (coming forward, off the ground)? I suppose I can grant you that in a sense that is an application of an eccentric load, however it pales in comparison to the load induced when the foot hits the ground, and in both cycling and running cases is reduced as much as possible in order to increase efficiency.

The reason why gears are helpful in cycling is to balance the muscular and aerobic output. Doing a time trial at 30rpm will increase your breathing a bit but scorch you legs, likewise a TT at 150rpm will leave you gasping with little pain in you legs.

What do you think the advantage of eccentric loading is?

How many motor units do you think there are?

In running there is a landing force and a push off force. Two distinct phases between the stabilizing motion.

In cycling there is a more continuous power phase where each motor unit applies force in a different direction.

Think about what happens when you run up a steep hill or walk up a very steep hill. Are you using eccentric loading?

more in fo wrote:

What do you think the advantage of eccentric loading is?

How many motor units do you think there are?

In running there is a landing force and a push off force. Two distinct phases between the stabilizing motion.

In cycling there is a more continuous power phase where each motor unit applies force in a different direction.

Think about what happens when you run up a steep hill or walk up a very steep hill. Are you using eccentric loading?

I'll go straight to a source:

"In contrast to cycling, which includes only concentric contractions, during running up inclines eccentric muscle actions play an important role. With steeper inclines, more concentric contractions must be produced to overcome the external force, whereas the amount of eccentric muscle actions decreases. This change in the relative contribution of concentric and eccentric muscle actions, in combination with the fact that eccentric muscle actions require much less metabolic energy than concentric contractions, can explain the difference between the running and cycling delta efficiency. "

Link: