How fast could Lance Armstrong run a mile?

I would say in his prime...4:20, now 4:35

I don't care how fast Lance could run a mile any more so than I care how fast El G could bike 20.

Get it?

I am not sure if he could run that fast. I mean he has the lungs and the heart but i think it would be hard to lug those huge quads around very fast for a mile. My bet is that he would go about a 4:40 now.

I would speculate that he would run 9:30. He is an asshole, so who really cares.

There have been multiple threads on this before. In the other threads, several posters cited an article in which Lance was quoted as saying that he would love to be able to run a 5:00 mile sometime as his next athletic endeavor. Now the question that was up for debate was whether or not he was joking when he said this.

My personal opinion is that anything faster than 4:50 or so seems highly unlikely. Cycling and running are two TOTALLY different exercises. And many runners turned cyclists will attest to the fact that they slow down significantly on the track after they spend a significant period of time training on the bike. Lance is certainly a great athlete with incredible aerobic capacity. But without prior training, I doubt anything very much under 5:00 is likely.

I've recently run a 4:24 mile.

Only a racist would think that Lance would run over 4:00 minutes in the mile

I'm gettin along in age, friend. Thanks.

redmeansdead wrote:

There have been multiple threads on this before. In the other threads, several posters cited an article in which Lance was quoted as saying that he would love to be able to run a 5:00 mile sometime as his next athletic endeavor. Now the question that was up for debate was whether or not he was joking when he said this.

This is a man who beat cancer and won the Tour De France many times over. Wanting to break 5 mins HAS to be a joke. Even I broke 5 minutes my first ever 1600m as a 15 y/o and that was when my daily training regimen consisted of laying around at the high jump pits as a high jumper.

You broke 5 mins as a 15 year old in your first race with no training??? What is your 1600 time now?

redmeansdead wrote:

You broke 5 mins as a 15 year old in your first race with no training??? What is your 1600 time now?

Yes. Back then, I was a jumper (6'0") and my teammates and coach suggested I run leadoff on a 4 x mile at the Aquinas Relays in Rochester NY. I figure why not, so I did and ran 4:55. My last season of outdoor track was when I was 18 mostly because of injury issues (1/2 inch leg length discrepancy). I ran a 4:04 1500m splitting the first quarter in 61 seconds (terrible pacing I know, but there were a few real studs in the same race just to put it in context). Convert that how you want. I still have my log books stashed away recording 27 miles/week for that season.

It is just inconceivable to me that Mr Armstrong with all his strength, endurance and accomplishments would be dreaming of someday breaking a sub 5 minute mile.

I doubt Lance could go much faster than 5:00 for the mile if he trained for it, probably 6:00 if he just went out and did one today. He'd be better in the marathon anyways, maybe right around 2:50-3 hr effort if he trained for it for a few months. It's definitely more appropriate for him given his aerobic capacity, mental toughness, and ability to compete for such a lengthy amount of time.

So are we talking RIGHT NOW what he could do? Or what he'd do with a few months of running/training under his belt? That'd make a big difference probably.

I don't believe it. You're a freak if you did. Not only would you not be at a high fitness level but you'd be rusty as hell if you had NO training. There's only a handful of 14 and 15 yr olds in a given city that can break 5:00 and they're all talented AND training.

Sounds impossible, especially at age 15. Now I remember a kid in middle school broke 6:00 for the mile with no training, but there's obviously a huge difference between 5 and 6 minutes.

very very curious wrote:

I don't believe it. You're a freak if you did. Not only would you not be at a high fitness level but you'd be rusty as hell if you had NO training. There's only a handful of 14 and 15 yr olds in a given city that can break 5:00 and they're all talented AND training.

Sounds impossible, especially at age 15. Now I remember a kid in middle school broke 6:00 for the mile with no training, but there's obviously a huge difference between 5 and 6 minutes.

I don't believe it myself sometimes. But when I say no running, I MEAN NO RUNNING. I was very active but I did not run in my spare time and I did not run with the distance runners. I was a high jumper. The very reason I took up high jump in the first place was to be part of a team and AVOID the running. Turned out I was decent so I became somewhat of a runner, albeit a shortlived career. I have no reason to lie.

when I was seventeen I was doing no training whatsoever and ran an 8.40 3k, people find this hard to believe but it's true.

And, what did your final times end up being once you took up training?...

bump

i remember manzano running 4:33 for the mile in 8th grade.

Regarding the people who say he couldn't break 5 minutes or 4:50, I'd like to share a little story. I just finished my freshman year of college. I got hurt about halfway through indoor, developed tendonitis from the injury, and that basically wiped out the rest of my year. I did stationary biking in the hopes the tendonitis would heal and I would have stayed in shape enough to come back and run for outdoor. When I say I biked, I did about an hour a day 5 or 6 days a week. Partway through that time, I went out on the track one night and ran a one mile time trial, and ran 4:59. Now, I'm not very good (2:04 800 pr, 2:39 1000 PR) at running, so I wouldn't say much natural running ability played into that. If I can break five cycling an hour or so a day, I have to believe lance armstrong could easily run under 4:50.