NYC Marathon & Lance

Jean S. Barto said:

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

yeah, but he's not going to announce it, because he doesn't want to create the
impression that he's part of the elite field.

Quoted message said:

though he may not be an *elite* competitor like the top marathoners. He
will have a very good performance, and *will not* embarrass himself!

That's the problem though -- for an athlete of Lance's stature, anything short of
an elite performance is probably below expectations.

Quoted message said:

Lance will easily break 2:40.

Nah. Apparently he ran 18:20 for a 5k recently. That's a 2:35 pace, for 5k. He needs
to hit 16 low for 5k to break 2:40. He's capable of that, but he needs to train to
do it.

Quoted message said:

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

Runners don't really think in terms of power to weight. In distance running,
you basically want to be as light as you can get without it hurting your
training. The only power that matters is running-specific VO2 (your VO2 is different
depending on what activity you're performing).

Quoted message said:

the most efficient aerobic engines on

An aerobic engine has power, not efficiency. I know you may not have meant
"efficiency" in a completely literal sense, but in this context the difference
is important enough to be worth addressing. Efficiency in running is highly specific,
mostly a neuromuscular/gait efficiency issue (so no transfer from cycling)

Quoted message said:

the planet--most folks can't even come
close to performing aerobically at the level where Lance likely is now--as

Well yeah, an 18:20 is still a whole lot better than average.

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

Dan Stumpus said:

"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

> 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.

I don't believe it. Even with lousy newbie pacing, even dying, he should be much
faster off that split (I'd say around mid 16s)

Quoted message said:

My guess is he'll be sub 2:40 by October if he wants it (those last 4 words

Yeah, I'd put him in the 2:36-2:40 range if he works reasonably hard at it. Anything
under 2:36 would be impressive. It's possible he'd be much faster than that, but I
don't think there's compelling evidence for it.

btw, if his VO2 max were measured on a bike, he doesn't automatically get the same
VO2 max measured while running (in particular, if he trains and tests on a bike, his
cycling training is going to inflate his score).

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

Quoted message said:

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

(1) it doesn't imply a *genetic* link unless they find a way to separate
social factors from genetics (growing up in the same household, etc)

(2) even if there was a significant effect of *genetics* on BMI, this does
*NOT* imply that other variables (like diet, lifestyle, etc) do not also have
an effect.

So in conclusion, BMI *is* a factor that you do indeed have some control over.

Quoted message said:

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

This is misleading. Performance rapidly declines after age 35. You will get
very few winners over 35 years of age and even fewer over 40.

Quoted message said:

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).

Well yeah, fat people run slowly.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BMI is controlable = accurate and true.

_

No, not accurate or true.

Tis so. Na.

Quoted message said:

You're failing to appreciate the genetic
correlation of your leptin genes -> BMI.

No I am not failing to appreciate it, I said precisely that much if you
took the time to read stuff correctly. I know it's hard on a bloody
Blackberry but make an effort man.

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Quoted message said:

Large
field 10K can produce 25 yr old winners and 35 yr old winners. The

This is misleading. Performance rapidly declines after age 35. You will get
very few winners over 35 years of age and even fewer over 40.

Indeed, lance has argued precisely that in his threads about ageing
feat-achievers "the old guy doesn't stand a chance against the young guy
if the latter just turns up". Wonder why he changed tack? :->

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My guess is he'll be sub 2:40 by October if he wants it (those last 4
words

Yeah, I'd put him in the 2:36-2:40 range if he works reasonably hard at
it. Anything
under 2:36 would be impressive. It's possible he'd be much faster than
that, but I
don't think there's compelling evidence for it.

btw, if his VO2 max were measured on a bike, he doesn't automatically get
the same
VO2 max measured while running (in particular, if he trains and tests on a
bike, his
cycling training is going to inflate his score).

Here's a citation that indicates that trained cyclist's vo2 max on the
treadmill is about 8 less than bike vo2 max:

springerlink.comcontribution.aspOpen ↗

Of course if they train for running, I would expect it to more closely
approximate cycling vo2.

Soon after testing to my 76.4 vo2 max back in '81, they measured my vo2 max
when I "arm-pedaled" a bicycle crank. I had skinny arms (5-8 and 140#), and
never did any weightwork or swimming. Despite that, I measured 45 vo2 max
with my arms. I exceeded every player on the LA Rams; a female national
class swimmer scored higher. This is not to brag about my arms, but it is a
data point around the hypothesis that vo2 max is kind of a meta-quality that
is available to even untrained muscle groups.

Another study notes that if you combine arm + leg exercise, the vo2 max is
about the same; this implies that vo2 max may be a lung-circulatory system
capacity. If you spread out the workload, each component of work gets a
smaller piece of the energy pie.

I read an article about Lance that said that soon after his chemo ended,
that his *untrained* vo2 max was in excess of 70.

-- Dan

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

Quoted message said:

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?

Because Lance is aging, chubby and past his prime always wants to site
BMI and age as his reason for underachieving. Haven't you grown tired of
beating this dead dog.

-DF

Quoted message said:

Because Lance is aging, chubby and past his prime always wants to site

BMI and age as his reason for underachieving. Haven't you grown tired
of
beating this dead dog.

-DF
_

Are you capable of putting your money where your mouth is? You've
also said, " I'll go as far to say you won't break 4 hours which would
be 40th place". I'll have $1K in your hands on Tuesday against your
words, in that race. Email me any address up your way and I will have
it Fed'ex'ed.

Here's where you usually employ diversion of topic and illustrate
you're incapable of and unwilling to, support your words. Fair unbiased
people can draw their own conclusions. Washington Irving once said,
?There is never jealousy where there is not strong regard? . Thank
You Doug van Winkle and have a great day.

Can you step up and demonstrate your talk is not cheap? Simple
question.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because Lance is aging, chubby and past his prime always wants to site

BMI and age as his reason for underachieving. Haven't you grown tired
of
beating this dead dog.

-DF
_

Are you capable of putting your money where your mouth is? You've
also said, " I'll go as far to say you won't break 4 hours which would
be 40th place". I'll have $1K in your hands on Tuesday against your
words, in that race. Email me any address up your way and I will have
it Fed'ex'ed.

Yawn. The old "internet tough guy" routine again.

Just do it, chubs. Don't even try to pretend that you wouldn't get
more than $1K worth of satisfaction out of making Doug eat some crow.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because Lance is aging, chubby and past his prime always wants to
site

BMI and age as his reason for underachieving. Haven't you grown tired
of
beating this dead dog.

-DF
_

Are you capable of putting your money where your mouth is?

A reply typical of a fourth grader. Unless you can tell us you are 5%
body fat and you fall outside the typical BMI assertions you have one
simple problem, every time you elbow bends you mouth opens - to much
food. Sounds like you don't have the self control to get you body to
match your verbal ambitions.

And then to get another injury, well, I don't expect you to ever make it
to a starting line without some sorry ass woe is me excuse. Another
month on the disabled list - how many double whoppers will that be?

Quoted message said:

Are you capable of putting your money where your mouth is? You've
also said, " I'll go as far to say you won't break 4 hours which would
be 40th place"

I'm too much of a nice guy to take your money. I will get more pleasure
out of laughing at you when you cross the finish the line like spanked
puppy. I know what it takes to run sub four on that course I know you
don't have the brains, balls, ambition nor genes. I think you're all
smoke and mirrors with a big esteem problem looking for attention.

-DF

Quoted message said:

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.

Semantics, whatever.

Quoted message said:

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

Other people have answered this already, but here is my opinion:
Genetics may determine how "easy" it is for someone to loose weight or
their tendency to gain weight. However, something that is true for
anyone is that if your caloric expenditure is less than your intake, you
will gain weight.

Quoted message said:

Will this be the day you become informed on this topic Ylan?

Maybe, do you think that you are the authority I should listen too, Lance?

Quoted message said:

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?

Yes, that is my opinion. Otherwise why would I post it? English is not
my first language, but I thought that preceding a statement with "to
me..." is a clear indication that the following is my opinion.

Quoted message said:

It's very fulfilling to beat people whose frames are ideal for the
endeavor, when yours is not.

If that is fulfilling to you, good for you.

--
Ylan

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

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:24:56 GMT, "Doug Freese" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Are we going to be fair and even handed on this newsgroup? Are we
going to be honest with ourselves? Doug, if you characterize me as
an
"underachiever".

You are an underachiever by you own admission

MEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW! CAT FIGHT! CAT FIGHT!

[email hidden] kirjoitti:

Quoted message said:

World Champion Cyclist Laurent Jalabert, perfect 22 BMI, 36 yrs old
clocked a 2:55:39 at NYC in '05. (...)
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.

It might "not impress you much" further still to know that Jalabert
finished this year*s London Marathon in 2:57:39 and it would appear
that this time he actually must've attempted a sub-2:45 but ended up
with a positive split of <ouch> 14 minutes (1:21:40 and 1:35:59; 10K
splits of 38:49, 38:42, 40:01 and 48:39, the last two Ks at
5:20min/km).

Then again, we don't know zilch about his training - he might be the
kind of guy who goes into these things with very little training and
not all that much of his past competitive urge and ambition - and
almost nothing about his general (natural or post-injury) aptitude for
running.

BTW in any case he beat the ex-tennis great Yannick Noah, who finished
in 4:11:52:-)

Anders

[email hidden] kirjoitti:

Quoted message said:

Talk is cheap and yours is exceptionally so. So with no risk, like one
thousand of your dollars, you're free to "talk" and that's what you do.

What I think is cheap, is to pretend that this is a game of poker and
to up the ante. The (in)famous "dare" was about a hundred bucks, a sum
which to me seemed entirely appropriate for fiendly and light-hearted,
but not frivolous, bet between friends and colleagues. I'm not exactly
a poor man myself, but I find that thousand dollars is an obscene sum
of real or hard-earned money to put to such use - and I find that even
suggesting, let alone insisting on that kind of sum smacks of flaunting
your money or your balls.

(What Charlie IIRC suggested was that he and other posters could add to
the pile that you could win with your $100 so that you would have
better than even money to match what he and others believed were very
unfavourably even odds for you.)

Quoted message said:

You "talking" and characterizing me as an "underachiever"? When Donnie
says this, it comes from personal insight he is privy to and I respect
that. When you say this it only illustrates the hard-on you have for
me. I'm 43, BMI of 26, coming off 6 months of not racing, 4 months of
not running, in recovering from long term injury, completely de-trained
I clocked 6:17 min/mile in a 4 Miler & 72.4% AG.

Quoted message said:

Charles Anderson? aka Pendejo? 38, BMI of 22, training hard, he's
clocking 6:25 min/mile on the same course and has yet to crack 70% AG.

You are confusing what I'd call "raw talent" - for lack of a better
word, no matter how silly and ill-fitting it might seem when talking
about (near-)40-year-olds - and "level of achievement".

You are also choosing to neglect factors other than age and BMI that
quite possibly might work in your favour. I can understand why you
should prefer to do so or why you would tend to fall in that trap: I
have the chest diameter of a tuberculotic Parisian poet of the late
19th century and the average member of the Bahaman U21 female long
relay team is muscularly better-developed than I am, but I still manage
to surprisingly well in XC skiing races where the advantages of my kind
of physiognomy are somewhat limited - and I quite enjoy when I beat
bigger guys with stronger arms and wider shoulders. I, too, can be "the
little engine that could":-)

I believe that the reason why I'm so wimpy is "partially determined by
genetics" and I know that there are guys who - compared to me - barely
need to sniff iron to gain muscle mass and strength, but I also know
that my BMI would be higher, so to speak, and I would cease to
"underachieve" in XC skiing races, if I spent more time in the gym.

I don't think I really will, but at least I keep my little chuckles of
pleasure to myself and draw the line at bubbling up the level of my
achievements...

Anders

anders said:

I find that even suggesting, let alone insisting on that kind
of sum smacks of flaunting your money or your balls.

[...]

at least I keep my little chuckles of pleasure to myself and
draw the line at bubbling up the level of my achievements...

Oh anders, you're hopeless - you'll never become a good American! ;-p

Has anyone been able to dig up whether or not Lance (Armstrong) has run a
marathon before and, if so, what is PR is? I did some searching but none of
the palmares lists I saw contained anything from his tri days. You'd think a
competitive [censored] like him would have run a marathon before just to test
himself.

-Tony

tony, i was reading burfoot on RW (for some dumb reason)...

So how fast could Armstrong cover 26.2 miles? His coach, Carmichael,
says, "Lance will probably rip me when he hears this, but I don't think
he'd run faster than 2:30 to 2:40.
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,5033,s6-78-0-0-6573,00.html

most of the comments are made blind of the course and though he's great
i think he's going to pay a 3 - 4 min. penalty due to NYC's course v.
Chicago for example.

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

Quoted message said:

tony, i was reading burfoot on RW (for some dumb reason)...

So how fast could Armstrong cover 26.2 miles? His coach, Carmichael,
says, "Lance will probably rip me when he hears this, but I don't think
he'd run faster than 2:30 to 2:40.
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,5033,s6-78-0-0-6573,00.html

most of the comments are made blind of the course and though he's great
i think he's going to pay a 3 - 4 min. penalty due to NYC's course v.
Chicago for example.

Good point. Hills are hills even to Mr. bike-climber Armstrong. Should be a
great show in any case. If he screws up and runs slow it will be funny to
watch, or if he smokes it (sub 2:30?), then it will renew calls for him to
go for the hawaii IM.

-Tony

There is an unofficial record set by a tour de france rider in a
marathon, that is Lance's motivation in all of this, I know what his
goal time is, but can't share it..