Lance Armstrong 5k

I can only speak for my own experience, but I've done some decent running (a 2:27 marathon) and I couldn't even begin to imagine how impressive Armstrong's cycling accomplishments were until I started biking last summer.

I'd much, much rather go out and do a 15-mile hilly tempo run than a long, hilly bike ride. The ride would be WAY harder for me.

Anybody notice, in the results, the entry for Bandit Number 9001? WTF?

[quote]Beaver Tranquilizer wrote:

The NFL doesn\'t have a deep talent pool to draw upon, but do you think the giant man-beasts with agility who play at that level are as common as 15 minute 5k guys?quote]

Actually, it seems like they are...there are 32 NFL teams with about 80 people each...that is 2560 professional football players at any given time, not to mention all the top college players. How many people break 15:00 for 5k each year in the US? I doubt it\'s much more than that.

douche bagger wrote:

lance ran a 1600 in 4:18 in hs you realize and was a sub 16 5k xc runner.

1500*

milefan wrote:

pretty sure his quads are just fine...he just has to get a runners stride back and that will take time cause is muscles and ligaments are used to biking position.

And arent used to the impact of a running effort. He's due for a lot of potential connective tissue and bone injuries in his latest quest.

living strong wrote:

My friend at the race and said he ran pretty casual and didn't appear to be working too hard -- supposedly training for Chicago.

Sounds like he's right on target for his 2:15 at Chicago.

With training, I think Lance could run faster than many of you think he can. When Lance won the dirty duathlon in Smithville several years ago...he ran faster than I did during both 5k legs (and remember that he did this for fun) I am NOT a sub 1600 5k runner, but I've run 16:20's up to 1:15 for a half marathon (I know, very slow by let's run standards). My whole point is that Lance ran significantly faster than me when he was NOT training to run. I agree with others who have said that his body may not be built for running; but with his huge max vo2, he'd still be able to run fairly fast if he trained with consistency.

A supposedly hilly 5K, no elite participants, 114 finishers.

... and it's CHIP TIMED!

I laughed at first when I read the time, because, I'm female and I run faster than that, even if the entire freaking race is uphill. So my first reaction was that it was hilarious that he thought he could run a 2:15 marathon when he just ran the speed of a high school girl, basically.

But then I thought, damn, he was willing to puke after a 5k race - how many people have the guts to work that hard and not back off? So I bet I laughed too soon, because gritting it out when it hurts so can't be underestimated in distance running. I mean, it's Lance Armstrong, you just can't write him off. He'll probably will himself to a 2:20 or something.

Also, don't cyclists never ever even walk? I remember reading that Lance lived on the 2nd floor of his apartment and never took the stairs. So if you basically spent 10 years not even walking anywhere, it would probably take a while to relearn how to use your feet.

second thoughts wrote:

...it's Lance Armstrong... He'll probably will himself to a 2:20 or something.

2:20 is 16:34 5K pace, and he reportedly puked after a single 18:20. He has to go from 5:55 pace over 3.1, to 5:16 over 26.2. That's about 10 seconds every 400m.

Someone bet Lance a $100 that he couldn't run sub-20 5K 10 minutes after eating a Big Mac and Fries and a Coke.

I agree, it sounds as if Lance is on pace for a 2:15; of course he'll still have another 10k to go!

too bad having a high vo2 wont help much in a marathon. and 516 pace would give you a 2:18, not a 2:20.

fools.. wrote:

too bad having a high vo2 wont help much in a marathon. and 516 pace would give you a 2:18, not a 2:20.

Yea, bad calculation on my end. But if that vo2 got him 18:20 and vomiting, then he's not anywhere close to even discuss 2:20.

If Lance had listened to nay-sayers at any point during his career--well, he'd have been dead, literally, a long time ago.

There are a few people around where I would say: never say never. Lance is certainly one.

Puking after an 18:20? Well, one theory that explains the evidence is that he was sick but ran the race anyway because it was his ex-wife's race.

Give him a little time. I think we'll see more.

I thought that VO2 max was an indicator of 5k ability. If so, why was Lance's 5k so poor relative to his VO2 max? To athletes register different VO2 maxes depending on if the test is administered on a stationary bike vs a treadmill?

ebrunner wrote:

I thought that VO2 max was an indicator of 5k ability. If so, why was Lance's 5k so poor relative to his VO2 max? To athletes register different VO2 maxes depending on if the test is administered on a stationary bike vs a treadmill?

V02 max alone is not a good indicator of 5K ability. Running economy is also a huge factor, so if someone has a super high V02 max and poor running economy, they will not be a good 5K runner.

Lance's CYCLING VO2max is very high. If he had the same test done on a treadmill, it would probably be much much lower!

The testing for VO2max is very event specific.

Same goes with LT and all of that stuff. Lances muscles are trained for cycling. You use different muscles, different motor units, in a different recruiting pattern when running. Think this doesn't matter? It doesn't matter if muscles he will barely use have a crapload of mitochondria built up because of cycling.

Remember the law of specificity.

Some things will transfer better than others, but the muscular adaptations will take some work.

Not to mention the ligament, tendon, and bone adaptions.