How Fast Can Lance Armstrong Run the Mile?

I think that would be pushing it. I'd say 4:15.

I think that he would have to put in some pretty big time training to break 4 I think that he could come and run a 4:20ish pretty easily though

I think that is a little fast. Granted he is in amazing cardiovascular shape and an amazing athlete, it is a completely different sport. I think there is one important thing to consider. In the original post, the poster stated "if he trained." That is an important thing to consider. IF HE TRAINED, there is no telling what he could do. BUT I think if he were to hop on the track right now he would be hard pressed to break 4:20.

Think about this: How many sub 4 minute milers can keep a 30mph pace on a bike for 50 or 60 miles through the Pyrenees? Probably not many.

Sorry I dunno.

We must have been typing our posts at the same time. I agree with you (as my post stated).

The question shouldn't be how fast can Lance run the mile.

The question should be: how fast could Art Siemers ride the Tour de France?

Nuff of this nonsense. get to the real isue here, do cyclists shit in the woods?

Yeah, I'm saying he could maybe run 4:15 if he trained for it. He's a great athlete for sure, but he's in the sport that suits him best.

I ran summer all-comers meets in Vermont in the mid to late 60s with various members of the US Ski Team. The perennial national champ cross country skier ran a 4:20 mile every time, essentially by himself. And he was not even remotely competitive at the world level, finishing way back at every Olympics. He was training in the off-season by running.

Based on that, I?d peg a comparable training level by Armstrong to produce 4:10. But hard to say, since we don?t know what his mechanics might look like - they might be really inefficient, with resulting worse times.

Hard to know without seeing Armstrong run one. It could be that that "not even remotely competitive on the world level" skiier was in the wrong sport. Just because Armstrong is better at his sport than your skier was at his doesn't mean that Armstrong would be better at running.

Honestly, I sometimes don't think most runners give yourselves enough credit for how hard it is to run the times you've run. Not everyone can do it, even if they are a STUD in another sport.

My family just joined a newly-built community center complete with indoor pools, indoor track, weights, cardio equipment, the whole nine yards. We joined mainly so we could take the kids swimming. Anyway, as we were walking through the cardio section, a fellow stepped off the treadmill after running hard, and I heard one of the staff people brag that this guy just ran at 10 MPH (6 minute pace) for a quarter of a mile. The staff guy then said he was the fastest one he had seen. I'm way past my peak now, but this past summer I ran a 10 mile training run in 1 hour (6 minute pace) and I wasn't pushing it, and many of you have marathon times way faster than that pace. Granted, the fitness center workout people aren't anywhere near Lance Armstrong's level, but once you get to running even under a 4:30 mile, it takes a bit of talent and some training to run that, when for most people, running a 90 second 400 (10 MPH or 6:00 mile pace) is very very hard.

right now, i.e. without training, i'd peg him at somewhere around 4:35. maybe much faster, maybe much slower, but there's no real reason to think he'd be a world class miler (which i would put around 4:15 without training)

This topic seems to be brought up every July. Anyways, LA ran some pretty quick times on the track in HS (I recall something in the 9:20s...). Since he is unquestionably in better shape now than he was then, and since running constitutes a good part of his off-season training, I don't think he'd have a problem running a 4:15, given a month of training, and I don't think 4:10 is at all unreasonable Hell, I've run a 4:30 after the cycling season, without any running prior to the race, and I'm just a club rider. If you're in any sort of decent shape, it's not hard to pop a good mile.

As for the guy who wrote about the xc skier, well, the sport just puts you in nasty aerobic shape. In HS I ran xc, xc skied in the winter, and ran track. At the end of ski season (after not having run in months), I would hop in some all-comers indoor meets and pretty easily run times that would win the outdoor state meet. Then, after three months of serious running training, I would just barely hit the same times in June. I think that there is nothing that gets you in better shape than competitive nordic skiing. It would be pretty interesting to see Bjorn Daehlie in his prime race Lance in a 5k on the track.

I have raced BJØRN DÆHLIE on the track a few times (I beat him once in a 3k). He might be the best XC skier the world has ever seen (also has the largest VO2 max ever measured), yet his track times are not overly impressive. They are good, but not great. I think around 8:20 for 3,000 8:50+ range for 3k steeple, and 14:20 for 5k. Off course I am sure that if Bjørn ever focused on running he would have beaten me handily.

This has to due with his training. For XC skiing they don't really use miles (or km) to keep track of the training, they use hours per day instead. Pure leg speed is of little importance, and the goal is to develop endurance and strength. When I trained heavily for skiing and tried to run I always felt very heavy and slow. Since I wasn?t great at skiing (by Norwegian standards) I started to focus more on running, and it took quite a few months to develop the speed needed for shorter track races (800-3,000). I also think that the share upper body development of a top XC skier will limit their times on the track as well. Top XC skiers like Ulvang, Smirnof, and Svan are all big heavy guys.

My 2 cents.

-Clay

Well, then considering Hichem El Gurrojou is also in awesome shape - with his (quote) endurance and strength, isnt it feasible that he would rip strips off Armstrong in the Tour de France??? - of course not. Armstrong would be lucky to run 4min30. F$#king American idiots.......

Lance won a duathalon in Texas this weekend according to his site. Came off the mountainbike in 2nd place and won the race by almost 2 1/2 moinutes. THere are some running photos of him here too!

http://www.dirtyduathlon.com/

Excellent!

Linford,

Your logic makes no sense. No one said that LA would beat El Gargamel in a 1500m. But he could throw down a nationally-competitive time, just as El Gargamel would probably be a damn good regional local cyclist if he took up the sport. But of course, neither will beat the other at the others main sport.

Armstrong is one of the biggest aerobic freaks of nature who has ever walked this earth....to say that he'd be "lucky" to run a mediocre HS time for the mile (particularly when he would pretty much run that pace for 2 miles when he was a kid) is just stupid.

I can't see him not breaking 4:20. 4:10 wouldn't surprise me, considering his ridiculous VO2 max.

I read in an article a few years back that he ran a mile in 4:12 back in the mid-90s. This was after some friends of his bet him that he couldn't run a mile in under 4:30. Keep in mind also that this was when Lance was big and bulky. I'd say he would do better now.

Joseba??

Are you out there?

Enlighten us.

I peg Lance at 4:39 right now, only because he does some running in the offseason. And I think that is generous.

He is a phenomenal cyclist, but that has nothing to do with running mechanics.

I'd say he could run 4:15 with a years worth of running, MAYBE eventually run sub 4:10. If he had the capability to break 4minutes (which very few humans have) it would take him at least 4 years of running training, and he is already 31....

Now Cipollini on the other hand.....

Bob Roll, care to comment?