Lance Armstrong is getting faster...

1:19 x 2 = 2:36? hahaha

another angle wrote:

Don't get all butt hurt dude. You didn't say that in so many words, you implied it. I wasn't trying to correct YOU as much as attempting to clarify the obvious. You couldn't seem to say it in a way that other posters got the meaning. I fixed it for you. also, I wasn't paying attention to the all the posters names since, frankly, I don't care enough to do that with people who don't post with real names or identifiers anyway. Get It?

You're telling him not to get upset?

Seriously though, Funk It merely stated that he had friends who would struggle with the workout. This may be true. In fact, most people would struggle to run a 14-mile fartlek at a pace faster than their marathon PR pace. I know that I would.

Right on. A HM at M pace is a difficult and taxing workout. That's why a lot of people use a HM RACE as a training run. Then again, during such race it is difficult to hold back and not run faster.

162430 wrote:

1:19 x 2 = 2:36? hahaha

Sorry! Really, I can carry out simple arithmetic normally.

Anyway, the fact that 1:19 x 2 = 2:38 only further proves my point: 1:19 HM pace for 14 miles should NOT be difficult for a 2:40 marathoner.

Not it's not.

162430 wrote:

Seriously though, Funk It merely stated that he had friends who would struggle with the workout. This may be true. In fact, most people would struggle to run a 14-mile fartlek at a pace faster than their marathon PR pace. I know that I would.

This. The fact that it was a fartlek and not just a steady 6 min pace makes it harder. A lot of the run was done at 5:10 to 5:40 pace.

Here's a serious question - how fast of open marathon would he need to be capable of to run 2:40ish after the swim and bike in an Ironman? I'm thinking 2:30 at least?

Funk It wrote:

Here's a serious question - how fast of open marathon would he need to be capable of to run 2:40ish after the swim and bike in an Ironman? I'm thinking 2:30 at least?

2:45 PR in an open Marathon is plenty fast enough to run a 2:40 Ironman Marathon leg, since the distance is only roughly 40k (24 point something miles). The rest of the run is mostly in T1 and T2 so it ends up being roughly Marathon distance. The point is, however, that the timed run at the end is not 26.2 miles (=42.2km).

Funk It wrote:

Here's a serious question - how fast of open marathon would he need to be capable of to run 2:40ish after the swim and bike in an Ironman? I'm thinking 2:30 at least?

Probably 10-15 minutes faster in an open marathon. That said, Lance doesn't need to run 2:40ish to win because of his strength on the bike leg. 2:50 would almost certainly do it and 2:55 is probably still good enough. Chris Lieto, a similarly strong cyclist, was 2.5 minutes off the winner at Kona in 2009 with a 3:02 marathon.

I hate LA as much as the next guy, but I have to admit that is a pretty solid workout for a triathlete. Most marathoners would be happy to hit a workout like that in their build up.

Given the blow up in Galveston, I think LA's real adversary at Kona is going to be the elements and fueling. He needs to drop weight to reduce his calorie burn rate. No more Chuy's. He also needs to do some workouts in the afternoon in the Austin summer heat to get acclimated. He won't win Kona, but might be very impressive for a 40 year old retired pro-cyclist.

Lemon Harangue wrote:

Damn wrote:

I feel like I should quit if one ball runs a faster marathon than me.

I see his participation as only a good thing for our sport. He's an endurance machine, why would you feel like quitting if a guy who is likely already better than you, and most of this board myself included, beats you? That's like being a high school quarterback and quitting after Junior year because Andrew Luck threw more touchdowns in his Junior year of college than your entire high school campaign.

He's not faster than me, but he's getting close. He is almost 10 years older than me and just doesn't look like a natural runner. He's a cyclist and I'm a runner... a runner should never get beat by a cyclist.

TriDude wrote:

since the distance is only roughly 40k (24 point something miles). The rest of the run is mostly in T1 and T2 so it ends up being roughly Marathon distance. The point is, however, that the timed run at the end is not 26.2 miles (=42.2km).

According to ITU rules there can be a 10% margin of error when measuring the "marathon" portion of a triathlon. This means the run portion can be short, not necessarily that it is short.

Magic 8 Ball wrote:

According to ITU rules there can be a 10% margin of error when measuring the "marathon" portion of a triathlon. This means the run portion can be short, not necessarily that it is short.

IM races don't necessarily operate under ITU rules. Kona goes by USAT rules, which are different from ITU.

Precious Roy wrote:

I hate LA as much as the next guy, but I have to admit that is a pretty solid workout for a triathlete. Most marathoners would be happy to hit a workout like that in their build up.

Given the blow up in Galveston, I think LA's real adversary at Kona is going to be the elements and fueling. He needs to drop weight to reduce his calorie burn rate. No more Chuy's. He also needs to do some workouts in the afternoon in the Austin summer heat to get acclimated. He won't win Kona, but might be very impressive for a 40 year old retired pro-cyclist.

Are we really hating people we don't even know in person? Do you really have that much information about him from balanced sources to make this decision?

Magic 8 Ball wrote:

According to ITU rules there can be a 10% margin of error when measuring the "marathon" portion of a triathlon. This means the run portion can be short, not necessarily that it is short.

Also Hawaii is so hot that it's only fair that the run course is a bit shorter.

nerp wrote:

IM races don't necessarily operate under ITU rules. Kona goes by USAT rules, which are different from ITU.

Thanks, but irrelevant. Please tell us where it states that a marathon in running (42K) is only 40K in triathlon.

Magic 8 Ball wrote:

nerp wrote:

IM races don't necessarily operate under ITU rules. Kona goes by USAT rules, which are different from ITU.

Thanks, but irrelevant. Please tell us where it states that a marathon in running (42K) is only 40K in triathlon.

Well, 10% really is 4km, so it would be 38.2km. Now another up to 1.2km can be used in the T1 and T2, that leaves 37km.

Of course a runner with a 2:45 Marathon PR should be able to run 37k in 2:40. No big deal.

I'm the boss wrote:

162430 wrote:

1:19 x 2 = 2:36? hahaha

Sorry! Really, I can carry out simple arithmetic normally.

Anyway, the fact that 1:19 x 2 = 2:38 only further proves my point: 1:19 HM pace for 14 miles should NOT be difficult for a 2:40 marathoner.

14 miles, done fartlek style, at under marathon pace, is most definitely going to be difficult. If it's not then you're massively underperforming on race day.

You know the Hanson's big peak simulation run is ~16 miles at marathon pace, done even paced? But you think 14 miles with uneven pacing at FASTER than marathon pace should "NOT be difficult?"

nerp wrote:

IM races don't necessarily operate under ITU rules. Kona goes by USAT rules, which are different from ITU.

Magic 8 Ball wrote:

Thanks, but irrelevant. Please tell us where it states that a marathon in running (42K) is only 40K in triathlon.

The discussion at this link suggests that the Kona course as run in 2011 is about a half mile short of the marathon distance: