How Fast Can Lance Armstrong Run the Mile?

Overall* ------- 3 Mile Run -----T1 ------- 12M Bike -------T2 ------- 3 Mile Run -----Total

Place Name Age Rnk Time Pace Time Rnk Time Rate Time Rnk Time Pace Time

1 Lance Armstrong 31 ***** 18:57.9 6:19 00:45.1 ***** 55:28.6 13 00:37.9 ***** 20:16.0 6:45 1:36:05.5

2 Jason Sager 27 3 20:24.4 6:48 00:38.0 1 53:14.4 13.5 00:36.3 5 23:40.4 7:53 1:38:33.5

=========================================

well, i can see this isn't going to post properly due to fonts and all, but it looks like LA ran 1st leg in just under 19 (Sager=20:24), t1 in 45 sec, 12 mile mntn bike leg in 55:28 (Sager=53:14 - what the hell was that all about !?!?!), t2 in 38 sec, and last run leg in 20:16 (Sager=23:40).

so what does that tell you about how fast LA can run a mile ?? ... ... ... ABSOLUTELY NUTHIN !!!

4:39????

I'll comment on untrained miles, since I took up running just this summer, and two weeks after I first hit the pavement I went to the track and ran a 4:34 1600. Lance is both much more talented and much better trained than me (especially when I ran the time). If I could do the equivalent of a 4:36 untrained, how much better could Lance and his amazing cardiovascular system and lactate tolerant muscles do!

He's not yet on the level of Merckx or Stephen Roche, but I say Armstrong right now could run 4:35 or so. With several weeks of running he'd have no problem running 4:20 and sub-30 10K.

I'm not sure what Joseba could handle but he sure did look good riding his bike next to KK in Chicago.

kartelite wrote:

Lance is both much more talented and much better trained than me (especially when I ran the time).

Now your training is approaching the level of Armstrong?

Certainly not. I was just saying the disparity between his training and mine was greater when I was running 0 mpw as opposed to 50+. My point is Lance is an incredible athlete, both through genetics and training; I am not, yet I ran a 4:34 untrained 1600. I'm sure a lot of people here would have been able to had they started running when they were 18-25 years old. Most of the posters here probably started running at a younger age, so they never had a chance to run a good "untrained" mile. By the time they were old enough to run 4:30 they'd already been running for a couple years. I'm simply speaking as someone who has not been running since the age of 14.

From my extensive research, if he had to do one right now with 3 days warning in perfect conditions (no pace maker):

4:48.56

I can't believe how hard some people apparently think it is to run a 4:30 mile. I've known HS soccer players who will routinely run 4:30 and change in pre-season testing. If you're a half-way decent athlete, it's definately do-able. However, runners don't tend to be the most athletic people in the world, so as a collective group, I suppose we have some trouble. Regardless, either a lot of people are a) underestimating the fitness required to win the Tour, or b) overestimating the difficulty of running a mediocre mile.

Again, I've run 4:28, off of only cycling training, and NO running for months. I was sore as hell the next day, but if I can run that, Lance can certainly get under 4:15.

boy if you think this is a hotly debated topic on a running chat room you oughta wander on over to www.slowtwitch.com and www.coachgordo.com and also on www.duathlon.com. The multisport community tosses this one around all the time. With respect to running it was well-known when Lance was a professional triathlete that running was his weak point. Weak of course was a relative thing and was based on comparison to the very top of the field. When Lance was racing, the top guys would usually run about 33ish for 10K; you had some who could get to around 32 but a bunch who would come in around 34 to 35. Open times for pro triathletes are surprisingly not hugely different mostly becsuse they are very efficient cyclists and do not develop lactate as quickly as undertrained athletes do. So.....for example, Greg Welch and MArk Allen, both contemporaries of Lance's during 1988-1992 and two of the best triathlon runners in history would usually run around 32 in a tri and consistently around 30 opem; I think Greg broke 30 once. Lance was in the 35-36 minute group when he was at his prime as a triathlete. Even back then good age groupers could pull in splits like that. Lance realized his talent lay towards cycling and this was part of the reason he moved on from triathlon. now this is not saying he could not become a good or even great runner esp off the bike where he obviously has it all figured out....but you wouldn't seem him running 2:40 marathons off the bike or sub 32 10ks either....at least not initially.

SO FUCKING WHAT??!

CT Born and Raised wrote:

I know Lance is a bike rider, but considering he is in amazngly awesome shape, I would say he could run the mile under 4:00 if he trained for it, considering his speed and endurance.

.........., but he's in the sport that suits him best.

You think?????

LA's first 3 miles 18:57.9 6:19

Adam Dailey 3 Mile Run 17:22.1

Steve Sisson 3 Mile Run 18:14.9

Adam Reiser 3 Mile Run 18:27.7

If Dailey was in between 14:00-14:30 shape that puts LA at 15:30-16:00

Kiss my ass you know HS soccer players who just step on the track and run 4:30s.

I've known HS tennis players to do it as well. The question is, Andre Agassi vs. LA in a 10k?

I have to somewhat disagree I think the reason that soccer players may be able to do this is because they have good leg speed lance armstrong on the other hand has incredible endurance but i don't think he has much leg speed

I want to see names and numbers.

There are no soccer players out there ANYWHERE running 4:30s at the drop of a hat. Runners who play soccer too, yes perhaps, but Joe Soccer Player put on the track for a bet. NO FREAKIN WAY.

Having known of Lance long before he won the Tour, and I never thought he would win a stage--let alone dominate as he has. He just was no where near the fitness or speed level of the european riders until after he recovered from cancer. Then I guess he put his training into overdrive (so to speak). It is an interesting topic. I do believe that Miguel Indurain would have been the most fittest and capable athlete in his prime for any sport. Still, Lance has made all the nay sayers eat crow--such as me. I think Lance could get just under 4:20 if he trained now for it--but w/o training I would be surprised if . . . I'm not going to say it--leant lesson.

Kiss my ass you know HS soccer players who just step on the track and run 4:30s.

Absolutely. You get HS guys that have been doing low level cardio for years maybe since they were 4 or 5? They weigh 140-155 and can run all day. Overall you get a better class of athlete on a (competitive) soccer team than a typical distance track guy (face the music!). We had guys on the CC team that just didn't have the foot speed to be able to make varsity soccer - and they were told so by the coach. I recall watching a preseason time trial for soccer guys at my high school and at least 3 of them were under 4:40. It blew me away! Practically the whole soccer team was under 5. Foot speed + years of cardio = a very decent mile. - Don't kid yourself.

Lance ran the mile (or should I saw 1600) in the mid 4:30s at Yoakum HS in Texas.

I agree with the fact that soccer players can run 4:30s. One of the top distance runners ever at Lockhart HS was a foreign soccer player who came out and run 4:40 his very first day at practice. Soccer players make the best middle-distance runners.

I'm telling you right now that perhaps1% of PROFESSIONAL soccer players in this country could run a 4:30 and thats being really generous.