OT: Armstrong's post marathon comments

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

I've been running this fall, looking for a way to get a quick workout
without having to consciously push as hard as would be needed on the
bike.

It took six weeks of short easy runs but now I'm at the point where i
can run for 40 minute or a little more moderately vigorously. It's
different than being on the bike, and not as much fun for me as a good
ride, but about as good as a going-through-the-motions ride.

That said, I'm not sure Armstrong's comments about how hard the
marathon is are fair. Sure, a marathon sounds very hard and I don;t
think I could complete one, but that's due to the problems from the
pounding and not having time to prepare for that. But I think if
Armstrong did it right, and didn't start the thing with shin splits,
it should have been easy for him to do 3:00.

Interesting comments and nice summary.

Thing about running is that location often makes a fair difference as to
the enjoyment. Moving quickly free of equipment, just your body, running
through an old growth forest, or some nice hills in a rural setting. That's
just great. No worries about cars or equipment problems (not that those
things bother me much)...

I also love cycling too, the way you can just gradually push it through the
various ranges using your gearing, moving fast, no noise. I've had some
great days on the bike. But running, being more of a challenge always gave
a greater rush. Going from hardly being able to run a mile to finishing a
fast hilly 10 miler is just to much. ;-)

Hope you have continued success in both.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

nobody said:

Cycling (as well as running at 5min/mile pace) is always going to be
painful. Remember Lemond's quote - it hurts the same, you just ride faster.

Well, riding slowly can be pretty easy.

I'm reminded of something I heard second- or third-hand about some
running clinic or lecture in 1970s or 1980s. This person from the
audience asked one of the speakers -- an elite runner like Alberto
Salazar or someone like that "How is it that you can run a 2:15
marathon? I just can't imagine that." And the elite runner asked the
questioner "How long do you take to run a marathon?" To which the
answer was "About 4 hours." And the elite runner said "I can't imagine
running for 4 hours. That's amazing."

Haha.

I remember one 10K race (fun run for me) that was an out and back. I had
been training for several years having discovered running past 30y.o., so I
was kinda proud of my 7-8 min per mile pace.

When the top guys came back around and passed us heading in, they actually
looked inhuman, like some kind of bizarre hybrid of man and gazelle. I mean
at 7min per mile pace you're not exactly jogging, but compared to their
5min/mile pace we were definite a pack of tortoise.

nobody said:

Cycling (as well as running at 5min/mile pace) is always going to be
painful. Remember Lemond's quote - it hurts the same, you just ride faster.

Well, riding slowly can be pretty easy.

I'm reminded of something I heard second- or third-hand about some
running clinic or lecture in 1970s or 1980s. This person from the
audience asked one of the speakers -- an elite runner like Alberto
Salazar or someone like that "How is it that you can run a 2:15
marathon? I just can't imagine that." And the elite runner asked the
questioner "How long do you take to run a marathon?" To which the
answer was "About 4 hours." And the elite runner said "I can't imagine
running for 4 hours. That's amazing."
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

"nobody" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 00:15:37 -0000, "K-Paws" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"nobody" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In fact it's -more- fun than cycling in many ways.

Uhh, no. No it isn't. It's [censored] boring in every sense of the word boring.
Have you been using mood enhancing drugs whilst running or something? If
running was the only source of exercise I would just get fat and forget
about it.

Go run a hilly 10 miler in under 80 min, and tell me how you feel. Pretty
elated, I'd guess.

Go ride a 30 miler in under two hours. How do you feel? Not too excited.
Heck ride a 50 miler in under 2.5 hours. Still not -that- exciting, though
fun while you're doing it.

I'm not trying to convert cyclists to running. They're both great. But I
don't get the highs with riding I did with running hard courses. <shrug>

dopers, the lot of ye.

jpw
austin,tx

nobody said:

From Yahoo news:
"Now's not the time to ask that question. The answer now is no, I'll never
be back. But I reserve the right to change my mind," he said. "I don't know
how these guys do it."

Odd to hear him say this. Sure marathoning requires training, but it's not
-that- hard at ~7 min/mile pace, even for non-athletes.

??I have run 7 marathons, and none were 'easy'(3:56 to 3:09). WAY
harder than any century I have ridden. Running beats you up, and doing
it for 3 or so hours really beats you up.

Quoted message said:

If you're an athlete and have good cardio, it shouldn't be that difficult
to train up if you love to run and don't have insurmountable biomechanical
problems. In his case, he's totally free to train on his own schedule, and
has access to all sorts of experts and running partners.

In fact it's -more- fun than cycling in many ways. For one thing you get
the runner's high quicker. Interestingly Lance mentions not being able to
find 'the Zone' yet in his running and as he says "talk to himself", but
heck, he's only been doing it for a year at most.

He's got the money to put down a 2-3 mile running path on his property
somewhere using state-of-the art surfacing. Right now he's coming off as a
bit of a whiner, though I give him high props for keeping up with training.

Quoted message said:

??I have run 7 marathons, and none were 'easy'(3:56 to 3:09). WAY
harder than any century I have ridden. Running beats you up, and doing
it for 3 or so hours really beats you up.

I remember a retired Bill Rodgers (sp?) doing commentary for the NY
Marathon after he retired. As the local coverage went on for hours and
folks were finishing in 6, 7 and 8 hours the announcer said something
to the effect "well Bill these guys certainly aren't as impressive as
you were." To which Bill responded something like "are you kidding,
I've never run for more than 2 and a half hours at a time in my life. I
think these guys are amazing to be able to run for this long."

Quoted message said:

??I have run 7 marathons, and none were 'easy'(3:56 to 3:09). WAY
harder than any century I have ridden. Running beats you up, and doing
it for 3 or so hours really beats you up.

just to add yet another point of view- a couple years ago i trained in
the spring for a july century and then after that i trained for a fall
marathon. i thought both were fairly equally awful. (of course i was
riding the bike-of-shame so that didn't help matters, but by the end of
that century my butt was bleeding and i could barely maintain 13
miles/hour because i couldn't put out any power at all.) my marathon
time was a slow and easy 4:45, so maybe that's why it didn't hurt so
much as yours, but then again, my century time was 8 something hours, so
that shouldn't have been too hard either. but it was!

so after that i took 2 years off...
heather

Quoted message said:

nobody said:

From Yahoo news:
"Now's not the time to ask that question. The answer now is no, I'll never
be back. But I reserve the right to change my mind," he said. "I don't know
how these guys do it."

Odd to hear him say this. Sure marathoning requires training, but it's not
-that- hard at ~7 min/mile pace, even for non-athletes.

??I have run 7 marathons, and none were 'easy'(3:56 to 3:09). WAY
harder than any century I have ridden. Running beats you up, and doing
it for 3 or so hours really beats you up.

Many people seriously undertrain for marathon running. They try to run it
often the first time on training you wouldn't even condone for a 5 or 10K
fun runner. So...it hurts a lot and at the 20 mile part many have to drop
out. This gives it a rep for being 'hard'.

But among people who are just decent 'runners', running a marathon even on
the mileage that HS track runners put in (say 60-70 miles/week) is not that
hard if you are not running it at race pace. (note this is different than
'easy'.) Certainly running it at race pace is -very- hard.

It also 'hurts alot' if you have a biomechanical problem, or if you're just
too heavy. Otherwise, it's not that hard.

On the other hand for some people riding a hilly century is nearly
impossible. (depending mostly on training time and body type). In fact some
people couldn't ride a 160km (100 mi) mountain stage in the TdF no matter
how long they train. Even grandmothers can run marathons. ;-)

nobody said:

Quoted message said:

nobody wrote:
??I have run 7 marathons, and none were 'easy'(3:56 to 3:09). WAY
harder than any century I have ridden. Running beats you up, and doing
it for 3 or so hours really beats you up.

Many people seriously undertrain for marathon running. They try to run it
often the first time on training you wouldn't even condone for a 5 or 10K
fun runner. So...it hurts a lot and at the 20 mile part many have to drop
out. This gives it a rep for being 'hard'.

I climbed Mount Timapanogos one Labor Day, and due to a wrong turn ended
up logging 21 miles in 7 hours. That included climbing about 4000
vertical feet. If I can do that, I can do a marathon. Uh, right?

--
Lynn Wallace

If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
speaking German now.

Raptor said:

nobody said:

Quoted message said:

nobody wrote:
??I have run 7 marathons, and none were 'easy'(3:56 to 3:09). WAY
harder than any century I have ridden. Running beats you up, and doing
it for 3 or so hours really beats you up.

Many people seriously undertrain for marathon running. They try to run it
often the first time on training you wouldn't even condone for a 5 or 10K
fun runner. So...it hurts a lot and at the 20 mile part many have to drop
out. This gives it a rep for being 'hard'.

I climbed Mount Timapanogos one Labor Day, and due to a wrong turn ended
up logging 21 miles in 7 hours. That included climbing about 4000
vertical feet. If I can do that, I can do a marathon. Uh, right?

No, you'd be 5.2 miles short.

HTH