Lance Armstrong 5k

I heard that he joined the Oregon Project and is doing training runs with Goucher and Browne.

I hear Lance was a promising triathlete as a younger athlete. Craig Mottram was as well. So, what about a race between Mottram and Lance over say the Olympic triathlon distance?

When it comes to effort in cycling, it all depends on the course, naturally. If you're racing flat courses with a large pack, then you really can just hang out and not push super hard. In that respect, cycling is 'easier' than running.

However, when you start getting some real climbs and the pack strings out, nothing will hurt your legs more. In that sense, I've found cycling to be 'harder'.

Again, it's apples and oranges.

Armstrong vs. Mottram only good post I have seen. It would be an intersting race.

Bekele has big quads and has run 12:37.

http://www.mensracing.com/photos/2005/reebokbostonindoor05/rbig152.jpg

Michael Rasmussen has skinny quads and won the King of the Mountains title and was in the top 10 on GC at the 2005 Tour de France.

http://www.roadcyclinguk.com/news/images/rasmussen.jpg

According to most letsrun posters they are both in the wrong sport.

hah. i love it. touche.

Saying "running is easier than biking" or "biking is easier than running" is like saying shampoo tastes better than laundry detergent. Neither one is easy.

We'll see what Lance is capable of before long.

some of you runners give new meaning to the term 'elitist'.

Listen wrote:

Saying "running is easier than biking" or "biking is easier than running" is like saying shampoo tastes better than laundry detergent. Neither one is easy.

We'll see what Lance is capable of before long.

Why? Do you think he will devote the time and energy needed to optimize his abilities as a runner at his age (33?)? It is not like he was a cycling star overnight. Remember he was a resident athlete in Colorado Springs at about the age of 18. He won worlds at 21 and then it was several more years before he even finished a Tour.

What's the big deal about Lance? He isn't even in the Texas Sports Hall of Fame.

Texas isn't in the USA right now, is it????!

I've been trying to figure out how to compare oranges and apples in the case of running versus cycling and here's one possibility: vis a vis the Tour de France perhaps a possible comparison would be to have your top marathoners race a 10K every day for 3 weeks while including two rest days. Of course, you should add in about 8 days (perhaps a few more) of very hilly" courses. Some of the remaining days could be relatively flat.

Does that help to compare the two?

Cycleist wrote:

Texas isn't in the USA right now, is it????!

I've been trying to figure out how to compare oranges and apples in the case of running versus cycling and here's one possibility: vis a vis the Tour de France perhaps a possible comparison would be to have your top marathoners race a 10K every day for 3 weeks while including two rest days. Of course, you should add in about 8 days (perhaps a few more) of very hilly" courses. Some of the remaining days could be relatively flat.

Does that help to compare the two?

No it doesn't.

Lance Armstrong can divide by zero.

Lance wins ironman

Lance would doubtless have no trouble winning Ironman in record time. The best men cover the 112-mile bike portion in about 4:30. Based on a typical flat Tour-de-France stage of equal distance, Lance would easily post a 3:55. If he were to run a 3:05 in the marathon, and an hour in the swim (10 minutes off leaders):

Total of 8 hours even.

Last year's winner was 8:14.

Nuf' said.

If you really think that Lance can ride 28+mph, solo, for 4 hours, you're out of your mind. 3:55 would require an engine.

He is one of the best time trialists in the world, no doubt. Great engine, decent position, good team backing him with the high tech bikes to give him an incredibly slight edge, whether it be physical/tangible or just in his mind. Cervelo and BMC would argue the latter.

But the fastest ever mass start TdF stage was won by Mario Cipolini in 1999. 50.3kph over 194km. Thats with a huge pack pulling him along in the draft. And as drafting saves you roughly 20-30% (depends on who/how/wind angle, etc) of your energy/wattage expenditure, thats a significant decrease in effort.

I'd give him 4:15-20.

Nike would not let Lance fail. P Diddy had Alberto Salazar work with him for his marathon thanks to Nike. Nike is on a lot of Lance's "yellow" clothing line, do you think they would want that name on their clothing from a guy that runs a 3 hour marathon?

the man can swim 2.4 miles much faster than an hour. he has worked out with the Texas mens swimming team and held his own quite well. the cancer may have rid him of his upper body muscle mass he developed swimming and doing tris as a youth, but he still has the stroke and the capacity to swim fast. trust me, the guy is an absurd freak of nature. many of us were in awe of what he could do in the pool.

sonomaca wrote:

Lance wins ironman

Lance would doubtless have no trouble winning Ironman in record time. The best men cover the 112-mile bike portion in about 4:30. Based on a typical flat Tour-de-France stage of equal distance, Lance would easily post a 3:55. If he were to run a 3:05 in the marathon, and an hour in the swim (10 minutes off leaders):

Total of 8 hours even.

Last year's winner was 8:14.

Nuf' said.

4:14 is actually the record in an ironman by jürgen zäck in roth. 4:21 last year in hawaii by torbjorn sindballe.

in the uk, the 100mi tt record is around 3:22, this would be a ~ 3:47 on 112mi. and lance can certainly beat this time. the question would rather be how fast could he ride 112 and still have a decent run.

Well, it depends where the wind is coming from. If its just just a straight out, point to point course, yeah, its doable.

and i forgot to say it, but yes, my points were hinging on the fact that he would still have to run after this. metering your effort on the bike isn't too hard, with powermeters and HR monitors, but with a swim before and a run after, it's a different ballgame.