What would a Tour de France cyclist run on a Mile / 5 K / 10 K / Half / Marathon

Lance barely squeaked a 3:00 marathon. There's your answer.

Contador would have a hard time finishing the marathon simply because he isn't used to all the pounding. His legs would give in before he even starts breathing heavily. But if we're talking about pure aerobic power, you're probably right

Piano_Man87 wrote:

Lance barely squeaked a 3:00 marathon. There's your answer.

Yhea but when Lance ran 2h50 (Paced by famous fiend Al Sal)he gained like 15 pounds after his break from cycling and then start building up again for his comeback.

And he stopped drugs when running

The Borguo wrote:

Let's take a random but elite cyclist that has no base or backround in running (not like L.A) and show up on the line of a running race when at his peak.

For exemple Contador, I bet could run the following :

Mile : 4'20-4'30

5K : 15'20-15'40

10K : 32'-33'

Half Marathon : 72-74

Marathon : 2h30-2h40

Obviously, someone like Contador is very explosive so I bet he would be more like a miler /5k type runner.

Cavendish would be more like a 400/800 as they are quiet exposive and are used to push long sprints.

Climbers like Quintana would have more the profile of a half marathon and marathon runner.

Froome could be a a good 5K/10K runner also, as he is very good a time trials so he can keep his heart rate high for 15-45 minutes effort.

Your thoughts?

I'm guessing a bit faster than that after, say, 6 months of running-specific training. That opinion is based on my happening to meet a guy by the name of Philippe Viau-Dupuis [I believe in 2008]. When I met him, he was a serious amateur cyclist who ran occasionally. At that time he had really ugly running form but could just kind of jog at 5:30 - 6' pace when he showed up at a running workout. He started getting into triathlons and then decided to focus on running. I've found results for him of 14:56 for 5k, 31:39 for 10k, 68:37 for 1/2 marathon. [Haven't seen him run in years, but I'm guessing his form has improved a lot.]

If this kind of non-pro cyclist with no particular running background can get down to these kinds of times [while working ft as a lawyer], I've got to believe a top pro like Contador could go a bit faster if he made it a real focus.

Too bad Lance didn't put in a more serious effort at running during his first retirement from cycling.

Your conclusion doesn't logically follow. Could be that elite cyclists are so biomechanically suited for their specific task that they'd struggle more than a "pretty good" rider. As others have noted, Lance didn't run anything special. (Whether he stopped doping or no, some of the advantages are lasting.)

Your thoughts?[/quote]

I'm guessing a bit faster than that after, say, 6 months of running-specific training. That opinion is based on my happening to meet a guy by the name of Philippe Viau-Dupuis [I believe in 2008]. When I met him, he was a serious amateur cyclist who ran occasionally. At that time he had really ugly running form but could just kind of jog at 5:30 - 6' pace when he showed up at a running workout. He started getting into triathlons and then decided to focus on running. I've found results for him of 14:56 for 5k, 31:39 for 10k, 68:37 for 1/2 marathon. [Haven't seen him run in years, but I'm guessing his form has improved a lot.]

If this kind of non-pro cyclist with no particular running background can get down to these kinds of times [while working ft as a lawyer], I've got to believe a top pro like Contador could go a bit faster if he made it a real focus.

Thank you for this great insight !

Too bad Lance didn't put in a more serious effort at running during his first retirement from cycling.[/quote]

Matthew Busche (TdF rider for Trek) ran in college, so you can find times for him.

http://www.runcolo.com/content/interview-matt-busche-252/

"PR’s- 8k(CC)=? Indoor: 5k: 14:48, 3k: 8:40, 2kSteeple: 6:29; Outdoor: 10k: 30:46, 3kSteeple: 9:08"

Now obviously he doesn't quite fit your profile of a cyclist with no running training, but it should serve as a rough fitness guideline. Plus, a cyclist with absolutely no running acclimation at all might struggle to even finish a mile. Tyler Hamilton, in his book, described barely being able to walk around town with his wife.

Lance ran 2:47 the second time at New York. He also ran a 34:56 10K. Nothing earth shattering, but better than 3:00.

Rolf Aldag (good pro cyclist but not exactly a household name) ran 2:43 in retirement. Abraham Olano (former world champion) ran 2:39. All of these were after retirement in their late 30s.

Fair point. All I'm saying is that this guy was quite a good cyclist - I believe cat 1 - but presumably didn't have quite the VO2 max of a pro cyclist + didn't give any indication of being naturally suited to running and got down to those times.

To turn it around, is there anything obvious about Contador that would make him poorly suited to running a fast 5k?

dkny64 wrote:

lfk wrote:

Your conclusion doesn't logically follow. Could be that elite cyclists are so biomechanically suited for their specific task that they'd struggle more than a "pretty good" rider. As others have noted, Lance didn't run anything special. (Whether he stopped doping or no, some of the advantages are lasting.)

Fair point. All I'm saying is that this guy was quite a good cyclist - I believe cat 1 - but presumably didn't have quite the VO2 max of a pro cyclist + didn't give any indication of being naturally suited to running and got down to those times.

To turn it around, is there anything obvious about Contador that would make him poorly suited to running a fast 5k?

Not that comes to mind. But running economy is hard to see. Plenty of people with "bad" mechanics run world class times.

I know guys who bike 40-60 miles a day at 20-22 mph and can barely run 3-4 miles sub 10 pace.

There isn't a big correlation between the two. If you do both(like a triathlete) sure they compliment each other, but just doing one is not indicative of success in the other.

agc5k wrote:

I know guys who bike 40-60 miles a day at 20-22 mph and can barely run 3-4 miles sub 10 pace.

There isn't a big correlation between the two. If you do both(like a triathlete) sure they compliment each other, but just doing one is not indicative of success in the other.

No you don't. There is definitely a correlation. A decent cyclist can certainly run shorter distances significantly better than that. As a guy that was did those exact sorts of rides, I entered a 5k run on a lark and ran 7:10 pace with NO RUNNING. And I'm a chump.

Cyclists can't do running races with good sustained pace, their calves just can't take it.

It takes a lot of running mileage to transition from cycling to running.

Piano_Man87 wrote:

Lance barely squeaked a 3:00 marathon. There's your answer.

___________________________

2:44 is barely squeeking

Yes he had a private coach, and yes he is said to have an extroidinary cardio and respiratory system.

But he did run a 2:44 in NYCM.

But, he was 34.

I ran 2:40 at 41.

Just saying. Eat THAT EPO man!!

Me2 wrote:

Piano_Man87 wrote:

Lance barely squeaked a 3:00 marathon. There's your answer.

___________________________

2:44 is barely squeeking

Yes he had a private coach, and yes he is said to have an extroidinary cardio and respiratory system.

But he did run a 2:44 in NYCM.

But, he was 34.

I ran 2:40 at 41.

Just saying. Eat THAT EPO man!!

My bad. I only heard about his 3 hour 'thon.

But...

I really don't get this thread. Obviously some cycling conditioning will transfer to running, but not enough to make accurate predictions about finishing times. Plus, are we talking trained or untrained? How much training? 1 year? 10 years?

People love to speculate on this forum for no reason. Might as well look at people on the street and wonder how fast they could run a 5K.