NYC Marathon & Lance

Quoted message said:

World Champion Cyclist Laurent Jalabert, perfect 22 BMI, 36 yrs old
clocked a 2:55:39 at NYC in '05. He is one of the all time great
cyclists, winning World Championships, prestigious classics, stages in
all the major tours
http://www.cyclingnews.com/interviews/jalabert01.shtml

I'm not impressed with this peformance, in context, all things
considered. He BQ'ed by 19 Minutes and 21 Seconds. I would expect a
guy of this caliber to have clocked at least a 2:45.

Lance Armstrong? He'll be 35, on a high he'll come in at a 23 bmi,
perhaps a 22 bmi. I gotta figure he's got top notch trainers, etc.
prep'ing him. He's going to be the biggest and most focused on runner
at the NYC Marathon. I'll be stunned if he does not cut 2:50

Dean Karnazes, Lance Armstrong, and oh yes, the elites. Gotta love
NYC! The greatest show on earth!

didn't lance's ex wife kristin run a 3:40 or in that range in her first
marathon a year after her divorce? since then she has run in the new york,
boston and chicago marathons. well it looks like lance is following in
kristin's footsteps. i wonder if she is giving lance any pointers when it
comes to training. well if lance is motivated and i think he will be i see
no reason why he can not run between a 2:40 - 2:50 new york city marathon.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

World Champion Cyclist Laurent Jalabert, perfect 22 BMI, 36 yrs old
clocked a 2:55:39 at NYC in '05. He is one of the all time great
cyclists, winning World Championships, prestigious classics, stages in
all the major tours
http://www.cyclingnews.com/interviews/jalabert01.shtml

He's not considered an all-time great by any of my cycling friends. Having
watched him in fairly recent tours-de-france, he would take off on long
break-aways on mountain stages -- and *always* get caught before the finish.
He started his career as a sprinter until he was involved in a horrific
crash during a sprint finish. He was no doubt an excellent rider, but his
talent was mainly as a sprinter and a classics guy, not a pure talent with a
big aerobic engine like the truly great GC contenders.

Quoted message said:

I'm not impressed with this peformance, in context, all things
considered. He BQ'ed by 19 Minutes and 21 Seconds. I would expect a
guy of this caliber to have clocked at least a 2:45.

How can you even know if he trained his ass off to do the best time
possible? btw, your link above doesn't say anything about him running the
NYC marathon.

Quoted message said:

Lance Armstrong? He'll be 35, on a high he'll come in at a 23 bmi,
perhaps a 22 bmi. I gotta figure he's got top notch trainers, etc.
prep'ing him. He's going to be the biggest and most focused on runner
at the NYC Marathon. I'll be stunned if he does not cut 2:50

He's planning to run it? I'd be surprised if he did, but I could see him
running trail races or ultras, however, since he used to do trail running in
the off-season. If he does do NYCM he won't take it seriously, so we'll
never know what he really would have been capable of.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

Dean Karnazes, Lance Armstrong, and oh yes, the elites. Gotta love
NYC! The greatest show on earth!

I disagree--if Lance announces he's going to do the NYC Marathon, you can
make sure he'll be as well-trained and prepared as he possibly can be--even
though he may not be an *elite* competitor like the top marathoners. He
will have a very good performance, and *will not* embarrass himself!

Lance will easily break 2:40. Getting to 2:30 or better will take some more
focused preparation, and maximizing his power-to-weight ratio, something
he's very familiar with doing thanks to his cycling regimen. He has one of
the most efficient aerobic engines on the planet--most folks can't even come
close to performing aerobically at the level where Lance likely is now--as
close to being a couch potato as he's ever been.

My two cents--

Jean in VA

Tony S. said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

World Champion Cyclist Laurent Jalabert, perfect 22 BMI, 36 yrs old
clocked a 2:55:39 at NYC in '05. He is one of the all time great
cyclists, winning World Championships, prestigious classics, stages in
all the major tours
http://www.cyclingnews.com/interviews/jalabert01.shtml

He's not considered an all-time great by any of my cycling friends. Having
watched him in fairly recent tours-de-france, he would take off on long
break-aways on mountain stages -- and *always* get caught before the finish.
He started his career as a sprinter until he was involved in a horrific
crash during a sprint finish. He was no doubt an excellent rider, but his
talent was mainly as a sprinter and a classics guy, not a pure talent with a
big aerobic engine like the truly great GC contenders.

Quoted message said:

I'm not impressed with this peformance, in context, all things
considered. He BQ'ed by 19 Minutes and 21 Seconds. I would expect a
guy of this caliber to have clocked at least a 2:45.

How can you even know if he trained his ass off to do the best time
possible? btw, your link above doesn't say anything about him running the
NYC marathon.

Quoted message said:

Lance Armstrong? He'll be 35, on a high he'll come in at a 23 bmi,
perhaps a 22 bmi. I gotta figure he's got top notch trainers, etc.
prep'ing him. He's going to be the biggest and most focused on runner
at the NYC Marathon. I'll be stunned if he does not cut 2:50

He's planning to run it? I'd be surprised if he did, but I could see him
running trail races or ultras, however, since he used to do trail running in
the off-season. If he does do NYCM he won't take it seriously, so we'll
never know what he really would have been capable of.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

Dean Karnazes, Lance Armstrong, and oh yes, the elites. Gotta love
NYC! The greatest show on earth!

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Lance Armstrong? He'll be 35, on a high he'll come in at a 23 bmi,
perhaps a 22 bmi. I gotta figure he's got top notch trainers, etc.
prep'ing him. He's going to be the biggest and most focused on runner
at the NYC Marathon. I'll be stunned if he does not cut 2:50

I just spent a lively 1/2 hour reading a thread on this race on let's run:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1297500&page=0

Quoted message said:

World Champion Cyclist Laurent Jalabert, perfect 22 BMI, 36 yrs old
clocked a 2:55:39 at NYC in '05. He is one of the all time great

Why do you mention the BMI?

--
Ylan

"The universe is not required to be in
perfect harmony with human ambition"
~ Carl Sagan

Quoted message said:

Why do you mention the BMI?

I also mention age, why have you not asked why I mention age? Can you
tell me why you omit concern over age being mentioned, by have interest
of bmi?

My answer to you, there is a direct nexus between performance and age -
bmi, they're bothg meaningful in projecting results (racing).

Can you answer my question to you?

Lance did tri's as a teenager, so he has done some running, just went
for the big bucks.

Tony S. said:

He's planning to run it? I'd be surprised if he did, but I could see him
running trail races or ultras, however, since he used to do trail running in
the off-season. If he does do NYCM he won't take it seriously, so we'll
never know what he really would have been capable of.

-Tony

Quoted message said:

Dean Karnazes, Lance Armstrong, and oh yes, the elites. Gotta love
NYC! The greatest show on earth!

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Lance Armstrong? He'll be 35, on a high he'll come in at a 23 bmi,
perhaps a 22 bmi. I gotta figure he's got top notch trainers, etc.
prep'ing him. He's going to be the biggest and most focused on runner
at the NYC Marathon. I'll be stunned if he does not cut 2:50

I just spent a lively 1/2 hour reading a thread on this race on let's run:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1297500&page=0

Entertaining. 18:20 huh...

-Tony

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you mention the BMI?

I also mention age, why have you not asked why I mention age? Can you
tell me why you omit concern over age being mentioned, by have interest
of bmi?

My answer to you, there is a direct nexus between performance and age -
bmi, they're bothg meaningful in projecting results (racing).

Can you answer my question to you?

Sure, I will give a try:

It seems to me that you use BMI as a a way to adjust your results in the
same manner that most runners use age. Performance surely degrades with
age and in my view the reason age grading tables exist is to make us
feel better about our selves (in the same way that age groups do) about
a factor that is out of our control: the passage of time.

Now, performance is also affected by BMI, but adjusting scores to BMI is
another thing entirely: BMI is under our control. If you want to loose
weight, you can. It might be difficult, but certainly under our control.

So, to me there is a huge difference between saying "That guy beat me,
but he is younger than me" and saying "That guy beat me, but he is
lighter than me".

--
Ylan

"The universe is not required to be in
perfect harmony with human ambition"
~ Carl Sagan

"Tony S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:S692g.50$bU6.42@trnddc06...

Quoted message said:

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Lance Armstrong? He'll be 35, on a high he'll come in at a 23 bmi,
perhaps a 22 bmi. I gotta figure he's got top notch trainers, etc.
prep'ing him. He's going to be the biggest and most focused on runner
at the NYC Marathon. I'll be stunned if he does not cut 2:50

I just spent a lively 1/2 hour reading a thread on this race on let's
run:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1297500&page=0

Entertaining. 18:20 huh...

Then you have one "witness" saying he lead the race at the mile with a 4:47,
then died, so who knows.

Someone else claims to have seen him kick butt with a 15 and change when in
high school, but that was a long time ago. (15:30 predicts 2:32 with
marathon training)

My guess is he'll be sub 2:40 by October if he wants it (those last 4 words
are key). Something about that 83 VO2 max sez to me he can do it. I'm very
inefficient, and could still break 2:40 with a 76 Vo2 max, so even with a
few extra lbs, and if he isn't a natural runner, he's still going to post a
good time by rr standards.

Quoted message said:

It seems to me that you use BMI as a a way to adjust your results in the

same manner that most runners use age.
_

Adjust? No. Place in meaningful context, yes.

Quoted message said:

Performance surely degrades with age

Not accurate or true. Lots of runners perform better at 30 than they
did a decade earlier at 20 at all distances, sprints to marathons.

Quoted message said:

BMI is under our control <snip> certainly under our control.

Not accurate or true. "BMI in middle age partially determined by
genetics". Obesity Genomics and Genetics: Maria G. Essig, MS, ELS,
senior medical writer - Genetics plays a role in the body mass index
(BMI) a person attains in middle age, according to researchers in the
U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/flknj

Will this be the day you become informed on this topic Ylan? How about
the other flat-earthers (Ten K Babe, etc. and so forth) who constantly
assert the same position?

Quoted message said:

So, to me there is a huge difference between saying "That guy beat me, but he is younger than me" and saying "That guy beat me, but he is lighter than me".

Is your opinion formed from real world experience? IMO there is more
of a consistency in results of races aligned w/BMI than age. Large
field 10K can produce 25 yr old winners and 35 yr old winners. The
variance of winners might range a decade and a half if not two in a 5K
or 10K.

The variance of BMI of the winners will not have this magnitude of
range. IMO BMI is a better gauge/indicator/measure of performance than
age (within a typical field of a couple thousand runners).

It's very fulfilling to beat people whose frames are ideal for the
endeavor, when yours is not. It's like watching the 5'8" NBA Player
Slam Dunk over Shaq O'Niel. There's a "Rocky" factor and feel when
you're hanging those you are not supposed to. If you've never been the
underdog, the outsider looking in, you can't relate. Even with
women's ice skating & gymnastics the older women with mature bodys are
not supposed to hang with the immature jumping bean girls of 15 and 16.
Their body has disadvantaged them to the endeavor. So when you
achieve, in light of the uneven playing field per the task, it's
produces the "little train that could" feel.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Performance surely degrades with age

Not accurate or true. Lots of runners perform better at 30 than they
did a decade earlier at 20 at all distances, sprints to marathons.

Horseshit. Plot age and performance on a graph (say for a thousand runners)
and note they are highly correlated. No one said perfectly correlated but
highly correlated. Seen any 50 year old Olympic champions in the marathon
lately. Didn't think so.

BMI is also highly correlated with calorie intake and exercise but don't let
science interfere with your fantasies.

Robert said:

Horseshit. Plot age and performance on a graph (say for a thousand
runners)
and note they are highly correlated. No one said perfectly correlated but
highly correlated. Seen any 50 year old Olympic champions in the marathon
lately. Didn't think so.

Joan Benoit Samuelson recently qualified for the Olympic Trials marathon at
the age of 48. I doubt that's exactly what you mean by "50 year old
Olympic champions in the marathon," but it counts for something.

Quoted message said:

BMI is also highly correlated with calorie intake and exercise but don't
let science interfere with your fantasies.

I'm surprised lanceandrew didn't mention that Lance Armstrong is white.

Karen

--
live! vicariously!

"joe positive" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Robert said:

Horseshit. Plot age and performance on a graph (say for a thousand
runners)
and note they are highly correlated. No one said perfectly correlated

but

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

highly correlated. Seen any 50 year old Olympic champions in the

marathon

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lately. Didn't think so.

Joan Benoit Samuelson recently qualified for the Olympic Trials marathon

at

Quoted message said:

the age of 48. I doubt that's exactly what you mean by "50 year old
Olympic champions in the marathon," but it counts for something.

It sure does. Joannie Samuelson was awesome but even she succumbed to
father time. Who was the '84 men's champion? Was that the 37 year old
Lopez dude? That would have been the year of the old marathoner then.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BMI is also highly correlated with calorie intake and exercise but don't
let science interfere with your fantasies.

I'm surprised lanceandrew didn't mention that Lance Armstrong is white.

Nice call.

Quoted message said:

Karen

--
live! vicariously!

Quoted message said:

Not accurate or true. "BMI in middle age partially determined by
genetics".

Partially. Not wholly, nor largely, nor predominantly, nor majoritarily,
nor... Why do you think the word "partially" was chosen rather than the
others?

BMI is controlable = accurate and true.
BMI is entirely controlable = not accurate, nor true.

But then Ylan didn't say "entirely" or even "easily" did he?

Lance and distance runners are a perfect match...........they have no
balls either.

Quoted message said:

BMI is controlable = accurate and true.

_

No, not accurate or true. You're failing to appreciate the genetic
correlation of your leptin genes -> BMI. Your statement is saying
"Leptin Genes are Controlable" and I am not sure that is accurate and
true.

The world is not flat, Gay people don't choose to be gay, and these old
world notions of BMI expressed on this ng is little more than
misinformed speech.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BMI is controlable = accurate and true.

_

No, not accurate or true. You're failing to appreciate the genetic
correlation of your leptin genes -> BMI. Your statement is saying
"Leptin Genes are Controlable" and I am not sure that is accurate and
true.

The world is not flat, Gay people don't choose to be gay, and these old
world notions of BMI expressed on this ng is little more than
misinformed speech.

Do you have a clue as to what correlation means? Pick up a science book
during your lifetime.

Quoted message said:

Tony S. said:

He's planning to run it? I'd be surprised if he did, but I could see him
running trail races or ultras, however,

Nah, that's a fringe sport (-; The only reason he'd do that is so that he could
hang with a bunch of other ~2:40s marathoners and still look good.

I think Lance (Smith) is onto something with this idea that he'll run a respectable
but distinctly non-elite time.

Quoted message said:

If he does do NYCM he won't take it seriously, so we'll
never know what he really would have been capable of.

I'd expect him to pre-emptively say he won't be "taking it seriously", because
to do that would create (unrealistic) expectations and many would be disappointed
because he doesn't break 2:15 (or 2:20 or 2:30 ... or 2:40). So I think the whole
point of "not taking it seriously" is a way to pre-emptively duck expectations.
Usually, I'd call this a copout, but when those expectations are unrealistic, I'd be a
bit more circumspect.

What he means by "not taking it seriously" is that he's not trying to run a sub
2:15 (because he probably can't).

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/