Lance Armstrong 5k

Lance isn't really getting that much attention on this thread, it's mostly this BS argument.

>he will never run under 5 for the mile or 16:00 for the 5k

Wow, those are two completely different challenges. I'd agree that breaking 16 for a 5k might be tough for Lance, but I would put a ton of cash on Lance being able to dip under 5 min for one mile. The dude is 34 with an incredible base of fitness(even if it's not tons of running miles), he's not 54!

At least he finished 3rd in his age group and got a trophy!

I, too, am a lifelong runner who has taken up cycling for most of the last year to rehab an achilles issue. I'm riding around 200 miles a week. Cycling is a tough sport, and Tour riders are phenomenal athletes. I thought perhaps the best endurance athletes out there. But cycling has made me appreciate just how difficult running is. The sheer lack of impact fatigue in cycling means that you can repeat a hard effort almost daily. Just make sure you eat, rehydrate and massage properly. There's absolutely no way that works with running. Also, in cycling there is endless time to recover during that "2 to 3 hours" you mentioned. I rode my first cycling race on Sunday - a 100k - and finished 3rd overall. No, I'm not a phenomenal athlete, but at 40 a sub-17 5k is much much more difficult than a 2:49:16 100K ride. All I had to do was sit in the paceline, take my pulls as needed, and use my excess weight to hit 45mph on the occasional downhill. My heart-rate only hit 140+ on the climbs, contrasted to 150+ for my average 7 mile run. Man, runners have tons more stones than cyclists do. Plus, the fact that some fat dude stuffed into lycra can hang with the group means that fitness and athletic ability are much more important in running than cycling.

HA HA!! Good post. If what you wrote is true, that proves how much harder running is.

Cyclists take TONS of breaks on downhills or coasting in the peloton. Runners NEVER take a break during a race and dowhnhills hurt as much as uphills (think Boston Marathon). That pretty much puts it in perspective.

If it was your first race, that means you're a Cat 5. When you do something in the sport, i.e. hit Cat 3 or higher status, you can talk. The pace you "raced" at is a regular (i.e. not hard) solo ride training pace for many cyclists.

Try making a break, pulling away from the chase, and holding on till the end. Good luck recovering in that 30 seconds that you're not in the wind, and putting out 225+ watts just to stay with the group while drafting. And then taking your 350-400 watt pull again, and again, and again.

yea, well, I was on the track the other day doing mile repeats and I hit 1.21 gigawatts, cranking my flux capacitor in gear and ended up in the 1972 olympic 5k final... it was nuts... I took 4rth...

You runners are SOOOOO dumb

living strong wrote:

My friend at the race and said he ran pretty casual and didn't appear to be working too hard -- supposedly training for Chicago.

Is this rumor true? Is lance going to do chicago? If he is, sign me up!

HE HAS PNEMONIA!!!!!!!! YOU FOOLS!

The real battle in this thread is over the question, "Who is more lame?"

The battle is between the grammar idiots and the Lance-hating neanderthals.

Carry on!

you have no idea what yer talking about. i've seen it from both sides and all anyone can say is that they are both bloody hard. One is not more difficult than the other. Nor are the athletes better in one sport. Reading your dribble makes me wanna tear your legs off. Running or cycling, you choose.

The reality wrote:

I would say that the world's best cyclists are about the physical equivalent of a 15 minute 5 k runner. Decent but worlds apart from guys like Goucher, Bekele and Haile.

I ran a 15 minute 5k and a month later I went to Collegiate Nationals for cycling. I got housed. I bike more than I run.

His 18:20 confirms what I've always known is that Alot of cycling will make you a slower runner despite however big your engine is... He's spent a good part of his life developing muscles for a completely different activity... I think it would take hime a good 2-3 years of intensive running specific training before he could really have an idea of what his potential is as a runner...

I consider myself primarily a runner (30+ years). I bike when injured. I also spent 10 years in my 30's doing Tri's. While biking, it slowed me down. Once I returned to running only - it took me awhile to lose the biking legs. And, I still think my quads are bigger than they would have been If I hadn't put in serious road miles on a bike.

giddy wrote:

yea, well, I was on the track the other day doing mile repeats and I hit 1.21 gigawatts, cranking my flux capacitor in gear and ended up in the 1972 olympic 5k final... it was nuts... I took 4rth...

beautiful

I have run in the 15 min range for 5k's while in college, granted not the best runner, but average. Now 4 years out of college I have taken up cycling. Started with Duathlons, and now cycling full-time. Running is definitely hard, but I don't see cycling as being any different. They are totally different sports. What I can get out of a 45 min run, might take 2-3 hours on the bike. Also, most cycling races aren't at the level of intensity as running races... unless you are doing a Time Trial on the bike, then they are fairly equal. I did a cat3 Road Race last weekend, and yes my average HR was only 144, normally it would be 170+ in a local 5K. I love both sports, but I think cycling is really fascinating due to the team aspects, and all of the different things you have to do to try and win. Running, to a point, is the fastest man wins. But with cycling there is so much more to it.

Glad to see Lance out running, hope he does well. No doubt with some work he can run faster. How fast???

Both sports are tough, and trust me, a nice bike only gets you so far. I have seen guys on the exact bike Lance rides, get dropped on the easy morning rides. It takes a good bit of work to REALLY become great at cycling also.

I've heard from a friend who spectated that Lance took the race out hard,leading for the first mile, and splitting a 4:47 first mile. Maybe with a little more training and self-restraint, Lance will translate his superior aerobic capacity into a stellar running performance.

no no no....it wasn't 4:47...he lead out the first mile and split it in 4:23...then proceeded to die a tragic death the next couple of miles.

All Out Effort For Armstrong wrote:

I've heard from a friend who spectated that Lance took the race out hard,leading for the first mile, and splitting a 4:47 first mile. Maybe with a little more training and self-restraint, Lance will translate his superior aerobic capacity into a stellar running performance.