Froome vs Rupp

Holy crap, you have no clue. Still waiting to see what CAT your avid cycling dad was?

Aerobic shape is nice, then there is that specificty thing. Pedaling a bike requires training and skill, not to mention power, slow twitch guys don't cut it.

You just heard from a cyclist who did 82 miles at 20.5 mph and you think you could pop off 100miles at 16 at that speed.

Sorry, did not happen, the pan mass fundraising event is just that, a fund raising event. Stop and have lunch and stop and hit the porta potty etc..

chief niwot. wrote:

Holy crap, you have no clue. Still waiting to see what CAT your avid cycling dad was?

Aerobic shape is nice, then there is that specificty thing. Pedaling a bike requires training and skill, not to mention power, slow twitch guys don't cut it.

You just heard from a cyclist who did 82 miles at 20.5 mph and you think you could pop off 100miles at 16 at that speed.

Sorry, did not happen, the pan mass fundraising event is just that, a fund raising event. Stop and have lunch and stop and hit the porta potty etc..

Sorry I didn’t say It wasn’t good for 16. I know it was good and like I said I trained for it. I’m done defending myself for something mediocre. Sorry you can’t do it and you’re bitter about it. Not really my problem.

Like the guy said he did 82 and was in zone 2.

My father didn’t compete he was in his late 40s and early 50s when we road together.

5 hour century ride is probably closer to a 3:45 marathon on flat courses. Maybe even closer to 4 hours for the marathon.

I'm not sure why this bothers me so much, just does, total BS.

Not bitter about it, took up cycling after being too injured to run seriously, did duathlons and tri's, did go through 100 in 4:22 on the way to 119, probably the fastest 100, after a 13 mile morning run on Mag's. But, never was a bike racer, so never did an all out 100mile.

Did run 29:30 10k on the roads once upon a time too.

Whatever....

Niwot, you need to take a walk -- you sound frantic.

I Chose D2 wrote:

20 mph on a mostly flat route is a zone 2 training ride for a cat 1 or 2 racer. Would be zone 1 for most pros.

Just looking back at my training log I see an 82.7 mile ride in 4:01 (20.5) mph. 3700 feet of elevation gain. 210W average, 227W normalized. 138 bpm average.

If you want to compare, you should have Rupp do a week of hard riding in the mountains, then see what he can do for a 40-60 minute climb with that fatigue in his legs.

Just curious, was that riding solo? We've got people on here talking about charity rides and centuries, but if they are riding with others then of course drafting will make a massive difference.

4 hours at 210w is going to take about 3200kjs, which if I'm remembering right is in the range of 2900 calories, or about what one might expect Rupp to burn in a marathon. Another hour will bring the total kjs to about 4000.

With no training Rupp is going to do better. Froome's tendons have lost a tremendous amount of elasticity by now. His muscles are not used to seeing significant eccentric loads. I wouldn't rule out a stress fracture or even multiple stress fractures if he went out and did a marathon on no training given his bone mass has likely been reduced significantly with so much time in the saddle.

Rupp would suffer as well, but the bike is much more forgiving. His quads would get hammered. His lower back would get hammered. His neck would be really sore. His sit bones would be bruised. His junk would be chafed. His hands would be numb on and off. He'd feel horrible. But as long as he took his nutrition seriously and started off conservatively I'd put my money on him.

Off no training I think Froome could limp home in the 3:00 to 3:30 range. I don't see Rupp breaking 5:00 with no training, assuming he's riding solo on a road bike, no wind, low rolling resistance tires.

Both of these guys would be hating life halfway through.

Jon Orange said Froome couldn't even break 20 for 5k with no running training.

Both Rupp and Froome are on par with their doping though.

another real cyclist wrote:

Froome's tendons have lost a tremendous amount of elasticity by now. His muscles are not used to seeing significant eccentric loads. I wouldn't rule out a stress fracture or even multiple stress fractures if he went out and did a marathon on no training given his bone mass has likely been reduced significantly with so much time in the saddle.

Cyclist usually have more muscle mass in their legs than runners, which would seem to make their bones stronger.

Why do you feel that cycling has significantly reduced his bone mass?

if they raced a duathlon: bike 100 then run a marathon, who would win? might be closer than you think

Froome is probably 10x richer than Rupp.

/thread

Lance ran ~2:45 for the marathon after his cycling days were over. Froome could break 3, no problem.

Biking takes a little more technique than running to be efficient. I’m going Froome > Rupp.

dunes runner wrote:

another real cyclist wrote:

Froome's tendons have lost a tremendous amount of elasticity by now. His muscles are not used to seeing significant eccentric loads. I wouldn't rule out a stress fracture or even multiple stress fractures if he went out and did a marathon on no training given his bone mass has likely been reduced significantly with so much time in the saddle.

Cyclist usually have more muscle mass in their legs than runners, which would seem to make their bones stronger.

Why do you feel that cycling has significantly reduced his bone mass?

Cyclists are at risk of osteoporosis because it's a non-weight bearing activity with no impact.

Agree Froome most certainly couldn't run even 26 miles nonstop without a lot of conditioning . Too completely different.

deep thoughts wrote:

With no specific training, who would do "relatively" better: Froome in a marathon or Rupp in a century ride?

Rupp could pedal and coast his way to the finish of a century ride, but no way on Earth he'd do it in 5 hours.

Froome could jog and walk his way through a marathon, but again, no speed records being set.

With that said, Rupp can coast faster than Froome can walk, so compartively to one another, Rupp's "performance" would be better due to the mechanical advantages.

A much better question would be something like a 10 minute uphill time trial on the bike compared to a 10 min time trial on the track.

I'm guessing maybe Rupp would be better comparatively, but he'd still probably be garbage compared to even a decent cat 3 if it's his first time on the bike.

Rupp without a doubt. It really has nothing to do with Rupp or Froome.

If you give each of them six months to train for their "new" event Rupp will succeed more than Froome. Most runners make better bikers than bikers make runners.

Case in point. Lance Armstrong ran a marathon when he was still in very good biking shape. He managed a 2:42 or 48 marathon. Somewhere in that range. While a respectable time, his cycling achievements were more on par with a sub 2:10 marathon. In other words he was an elite in one event but just good in another. Lance also used to do triathlons so he is no stranger to running.

hhtdp0 wrote:

if they raced a duathlon: bike 100 then run a marathon, who would win? might be closer than you think

Why would this be close?

Rupp has 20-60 minutes on him in the marathon at the end, probably on the lower end since Froome would handle longer events better.

Froome would have... 90+ minutes on Rupp on the bike?

They'd both find it hard to get of the couch later on in the day.

Froome would get to 18 miles and be reduced to a hobble. Pro cyclists when tuned to their race season can hardly walk, much less run.

Rupp would be able to turn pedals, likely, but the inefficiency he'd show by never riding a bike, and certainly never riding a bike that many hours means he'd be in an even larger world of hurt before 60 miles. Knees, pelvis, rear, back, neck, hands.

Cycling and marathoning are both so-called endurance sports, but the similarities stop there.

dunes runner wrote:

Cyclists usually have more muscle mass in their legs than runners, which would seem to make their bones stronger.

Why do you feel that cyclists can have significantly reduced bone mass?

cat 1 wrote:

Cyclists are at risk of osteoporosis because it's a non-weight bearing activity with no impact.

Resistance is the key though, not only weight bearing or impact. Apparently the concern with cycling is not the legs, but the spine, because cyclists typically do little other exercise that involves full range of the hips and the spine. Considering these things, body weight exercises and/or cross country skiing would be good exercises to complement cycling.

Former runner now more of a biker wrote:

Rupp without a doubt. It really has nothing to do with Rupp or Froome.

If you give each of them six months to train for their "new" event Rupp will succeed more than Froome. Most runners make better bikers than bikers make runners.

Case in point. Lance Armstrong ran a marathon when he was still in very good biking shape. He managed a 2:42 or 48 marathon. Somewhere in that range. While a respectable time, his cycling achievements were more on par with a sub 2:10 marathon. In other words he was an elite in one event but just good in another. Lance also used to do triathlons so he is no stranger to running.

Lance 5'10" 152-8

Froome 6'1" 140-6

Froome has a runners build. He even ran uphill while holding his bike...I think in the tour a few years back?

Winning 7 straight tours is on par with a 2:10 marathon. GTFO!

another real cyclist wrote:

Winning 7 straight tours is on par with a 2:10 marathon. GTFO!

Ha I noticed this, too. More like a WR.