Lance Armstrong and the Marathon

quick correction wrote:

KnowItAll wrote:

I don't know what the TOUGHEST 3 mile course in the world is, but the last 3 miles of the Pikes Peak Ascent will take ANYONE longer than 19-20 minutes.

However, I doubt Armstrong's course was that difficult, and I seriously doubt Armstrong could run 2:15. It would take him forever just to get in top marathon shape and he's not getting any younger.

Actually it will take anyone longer than 30 minutes. There is also a much steeper 1 MILE COURSE called the Incline on which no one has ever broken 18 minutes.

Anyway, this is off topic, but an interesting discussion.

I thought Carpenter's best split from the A-Frame was under 35 minutes during his record setting Ascent. This is a complete guess because I got it as his split from A-Frame to summit on his pace calculator. My guess is Carpenter could go under 30 minutes if he started from the 3 to go fresh. But just barely.

100.

wejo send me my shirt.

If Lance wants a normal life, he can forget a 2:15. I don't know he'd have the physical make up to run one anyway. He's 160 lbs. at his withered tour weight and that ain't gonna get you a 2:15! I say 2:45 at best.

Also, it's gonna take some time to get used to the pounding that running does to the body. To run sub 2:40, you've gotta put in some big miles, I don't care who you are!

Can you read jackass?? I said improbable but not impossible. Trying to make a point that people thought 7 Tours was impossible like people used to think running a sub 4 mile.

I can read just fine. My point still stands, and you are only making it look stronger. His winning 7 tours has nothing to do with running a 2:15 marathon. Can YOU read?

KnowItAll wrote:

quick correction wrote:

Actually it will take anyone longer than 30 minutes. There is also a much steeper 1 MILE COURSE called the Incline on which no one has ever broken 18 minutes.

Anyway, this is off topic, but an interesting discussion.

I thought Carpenter's best split from the A-Frame was under 35 minutes during his record setting Ascent. This is a complete guess because I got it as his split from A-Frame to summit on his pace calculator. My guess is Carpenter could go under 30 minutes if he started from the 3 to go fresh. But just barely.

His split was 34:53 in the record setting race. But this split is to the finish line and not the sign at the top of the trail (this is where the 3 miles is measured to). I seem to remember him saying he never broke 30 even when he was fresh. This would be like asking a marathoner to take 5 minutes off his final 10K in the marathon; my gut feeling is that this would be very, very difficult.

The earth is flat and nobody will ever set foot on the moon too right? If he puts out the effort and has the desire, he runs in the 2:20's. End of story. He's much fitter and built better than one Mark Allen who tried marathoning and ran in the 2:20's.

ok...... wrote:

His split was 34:53 in the record setting race. But this split is to the finish line and not the sign at the top of the trail (this is where the 3 miles is measured to). I seem to remember him saying he never broke 30 even when he was fresh. This would be like asking a marathoner to take 5 minutes off his final 10K in the marathon; my gut feeling is that this would be very, very difficult.

Yep, I just ran the numbers and under 30 minutes does seem extremely unlikely. Even for fresh Carpenter at his peak.

Nope, the world is not flat and man has already been to the moon. Again though, thats got nothing to do with running. Maybe NEIL Armstrong could run 2:12ish by virture of being the first man on the moon though? Your aware thats basically the same as what you tried to argue? Yes, I'm aware of the difference between the moon landing and biking and how Lance could run well and blah, blah, blah. Your really making yourself look silly. There is also a world of difference between a 2:20's marathon and a 2:15.

A runner wrote:

I can read just fine. My point still stands, and you are only making it look stronger. His winning 7 tours has nothing to do with running a 2:15 marathon. Can YOU read?

Are you kidding? Sure it does. Winning 7 TDF demonstrates you have incredible cardovascular fitness and leg muscle endurance. Both of these things are evry important in the marathon. True we don't know how efficienct Lance's form is while running and how much training will improve that (my guess is significantly) or how his joints will hold up to the pounding of running but to say that demonstrated advanced fitness at an endurance sport involving ones legs means nothing for another endurance sport involving ones legs is simply illogical.

If these things didn't correlate than cross training wouldn't work either.

Runningart2004 wrote:

You all talk like 2:30 is some cake walk. Somewhere on the board is a list of marathon times for last year or the year before and 2:30 was top 200. I predict a 1:15/1:25 split for a 2:40, maybe a 1:15/1:20 split for a 2:35. That eccentric muscle damage will drop him at around 20 miles.

6, 7, 8, 9, 10 hours of running doesn't present the eccentric muscle damage that 2.5 hours of running will. Cycling is very low impact. He could probably run a decent 5k though, say around 16 flat or even down to 15:30. You give people too much credit to Vo2max. It don't mean shit. My Vo2max is 79.4 and I haven't even broken 15:00 in the 5k.

Alan

Alan, are you an alien?? Only in YOUR world is 2:30 some super-great time. So the USA is horrible at marathoning, and you still don't even show up as a dot on that map......what does THAT have to do with Lance Armstrong, one of the greatest, most driven, most talented distance runners ever? I will tell you: NOTHING.

And you don't think Lance could beat YOU in a 5k if he trained seriously for it? R U OUT OF YOUR MIND?? YOU SUCK, LANCE IS AN ALL-TIME GREAT. See the difference?

Wow, the egos on this board.

As a side note, I'm willing to bet had Lance said he would like a 2:10 or even 2:08 many on this board would have said it was possibe and likely. Am I the only one here who realizes he isnt taking up 100 mile weeks and serious running? Hes retiring and plans to do some running to stay fit.

It seems like A runner and many other runners feel threatened by this. I don't think that he'll have any problems with 2:30 and I give him a 80 / 20 shot at the Trials "B" standard.

The problem here is that many who fancy themselves "hardcore runners" are not as talented as they think and severely overestimate the difficulty of this sport. Give Lance a year to convert the musculature of his legs to running, I say he gets to the Trials if he wants it. Lord knows that a guy with a measured 80+ VO2 certainly has the aerobic capacity. That will snap quite a number of Let's Runners back into the real world - and watching the race on TV.

lance is 33. regardless of vo2, it takes years to become a good marathoner. he doesn't have enough years left to start training and become a good marathoner. 2:15- no way, 2:30 - maybe.

Are you kidding? Sure it does. Winning 7 TDF demonstrates you have incredible cardovascular fitness and leg muscle endurance. Both of these things are evry important in the marathon. True we don't know how efficienct Lance's form is while running and how much training will improve that (my guess is significantly) or how his joints will hold up to the pounding of running but to say that demonstrated advanced fitness at an endurance sport involving ones legs means nothing for another endurance sport involving ones legs is simply illogical.

If these things didn't correlate than cross training wouldn't work either.

I couldn't have said it better myself. You obviously do not got the point of saying something is impossible when it clearly isn't. By the way Einstein, show me where I said he would run 2:15. I said it is not impossible but is improbable. 2:20's is more reasonable as I clearly stated. I don't think you can actually read.

A runner wrote:

As a side note, I'm willing to bet had Lance said he would like a 2:10 or even 2:08 many on this board would have said it was possibe and likely. Am I the only one here who realizes he isnt taking up 100 mile weeks and serious running? Hes retiring and plans to do some running to stay fit.

Agreed.

And: regardless of whether Lance runs 2:05 or 3:05, the fervent believers here -- who would nod credulously if Lance promised a 2:08 -- will NO DOUBT insist that he'd have done better if he hadn't been relaxing in retirement.

Yep. Jack Foster needed something like two or three years to go from club level cyclist to 2:11 marathon runner in his 40's.

But Lance? Just another yuppie down on the community bike path.

People keep talking age here, well I know a guy in NYC who started running late in life and hit 2:29 at the age of 41. He is still an awesome runner as a masters in NYC. NYC runners know who Alan Ruben is so come on someone at the age of 33 is not some washed up guy who should throw in the towel!