Tri Talk Triathlon Podcast

The audio for this podcast can be listened to here.

Is your tri suit slowing you down? Results from 3 wind tunnel tests and what we can learn from them, and the rare swim condition known as SIPE. Plus, a brief review of the Women’s US Olympic Trials. It’s wind, water, and women…with a Warden, today on Tri Talk.

Welcome to Tri Talk your podcast source for triathlon tips, training, news and more. Welcome to new listeners from Sweden and the one listener from Venezuela. In Sweden I hope you are ready for the Göteborg triathlon coming up on June 15. And in Venezuela, I’m positive I know who that listener is. It’s Hugo Chávez. I’m positive. Can’t you just see the guy in a wetsuit? My goal at Tri Talk is to help you swim, bike, and run faster, to meet your personal triathlon goals. Whether you are an elite or amateur triathlete, we cover sprint distance to Ironman distance. I’m your host, David Warden, and this is Tri Talk Episode 62.

That was Thinner from the Black Dahlias. Today I am excited to go over some wind tunnel data that was provided to me by Colorado Premier Training. Some of the data will strengthen what you already now about aerodynamics, and some of it will challenge what we thought we knew, plus a very interesting wind tunnel test on a piece of triathlon apparel. Also, it’s common to panic during an open water swim, particularly your first, but when the panic moves beyond psychological to physiological, it may be a rare condition known as SIPE. We’ll talk about this at the end of the show. Also, I want to let you know that during this episode I’ll be recording the entire show in one take. That’s right, no more using the crutch of covering up my mistakes by recording a section over again. I’ll be doing live play-by-play at a few major triathlon events this year, and there won’t be any “do-overs” there. Plus, if I ever want to break into radio, it’s time to step up to the plate and be a true professional. As a result, this episode could get ugly, but it’s for my own good.

This episode is sponsored by PowerTri.com. Right now you can get 15% off any regularly priced item at PowerTri.com by using the discount code tritalk15. Last episode I challenged you to contact me if you were not completely satisfied with your purchase from PowerTri.com, and I would force the owner, one of my coached athletes, to pay the price in his training volume. It’s been a month and tens of thousands of dollars worth of orders later, and no complaints. Needless to say, I’m a little disappointed. If you’re not satisfied with the color of the packing tape when your package arrives, you let me know and I’ll stick it to the owner. That’s 15% off any regularly priced item for Tri Talk listeners, use the discount code tritalk15.

Before we get onto the good stuff, I want to briefly talk about how impressed I was with the win of Julie Swail Ertel at the US Olympic Trials in Alabama a couple of weeks ago. I recognize a lot of Tri Talk listeners are from outside the US, but there is a lesson from this event that I think we can learn from.

I know that many of you race against yourself, and are satisfied with simply using races as a method to benchmark your own progress. But if you are like me, racing is all about establishing a pecking order and beating as many other guys as possible. Plus, I hope you can appreciate the pressure on me as training “expert” to be fast and get to the podium frequently.

What I learned from watching Julie Swail Ertel was the psychological importance of taking the lead. Julie stayed with the lead pack on the bike and came out of T2 much faster than her 10k pace. She shot out of there and was going hard for the first 100-200 meters, and opened a nice gap rest of the field. There is something to be said about holding onto first rather than catching up from second. In fact, Julie Swail Ertel has very little running background. The woman who came in second, Sarah Haskins Kortuem, attended the University of Tulsa with an athletic scholarship for cross country and track. You had Julie Swail Ertel, a swimmer and former Olympic Silver medallist in water polo, open up the gap on the run against the athlete with the strong running background. That gap seemed just too much. That little surge at the beginning of the run seemed to make off of the difference.

Now, very little of us will ever have the opportunity to lead a race. But, if you are racing for your age group, and you can identify your competition, consider the advantages of taking and holding the lead.

Let’s get onto the good stuff. I’m so grateful to Colorado Premier Training for getting me this information. What I have is the complete wind tunnel results from 3 athletes of various sizes and abilities.

Let’s begin with athlete #1. This cyclist has a good threshold of 350 watts. A reminder that when training with power, your intensity threshold is no longer measured in terms of HR, but in terms of watts. This athlete can maintain about 350 watts for an hour, so his threshold is 350 watts. 350 watts may seem pretty high, but this athlete is also pretty big. Your wattage output should be compared to your weight to determine if it is a “good” output or not. This athlete is big, but he is tall and lean. I’d estimate about 175 pounds and well over 6 feet. Hunter Allen and Andrew Coggan have a chart in their book Training and Racing with a Power Meter that looks at a weight to power ratio and takes that ratio to determine your cycling level. At 175 pounds, or 79.5 kilograms, this cyclist pushing 350 watts as a threshold has a weight to power ratio of 4.4, which according to Allen and Coggan, places him as a very good cyclist, about a Category 2 cyclist if using the categorization guidelines from USA Cycling. This would place this cyclist in about the top 5-10% of the cycling leg of any given triathlon.

Now that we know a little bit more about this cyclist, let’s look at the evolution of his positioning in the wind tunnel. Athlete #1 comes into the wind tunnel with a baseline speed of 44.17 kilometers per hour. That speed is based on his current drag in the tunnel and the assumption he can maintain that 350 watts over an hour. Over a shorter or longer distance, his wattage would obviously be different, but all the speed data we’ll be looking is based on wattage threshold, or an hour of cycling, or about an Olympic-distance triathlon cycling leg.

The first notable change is that the athlete raises his cockpit by 2cm, or just adding one more ring to the stack at the base of the stem. While one would expect the outcome to be a less aerodynamic position because he is up higher, the consequence is not that bad. Those 2cm change his speed from 44.17 to 44.12 kph, or costing him just 3.4 seconds over 40K. The take-home for me initially was that if this athlete is far more comfortable in the neck and shoulders at that slightly higher position, it may well be worth the 3.4 seconds to get into a more comfortable position where you can also potentially generate more power.

However, his next position is more significant. He then drops 4cm off of his cockpit from his original position. This changes his aerodynamics dramatically and increases his speed at that given 350 watts to 44.69 kph, which is a savings of 38.15 seconds over a 40K. That is a solid increase in speed. He then drops his position another 2cm for a total of a 6cm drop, which increases his speed even more saving him 65 seconds over 40k from dropping 6cm on the stem. For this athlete, if he can maintain power in that position, and is comfortable in that position, this is a very good change to gain 65 seconds in a race.

This athlete also experimented with what is known as the “turtle” position. This is where the athlete drops his head at the neck as low as possible. I find this position uncomfortable at best. The idea is to get your head as low as possible. This athlete was actually 6 seconds slower with the head on the turtle position compared to the 6cm drop with normal or natural head positioning.

Next, the cyclist rotated his hands in so that they were touching on the aerobars, and brought in the elbow pads a centimeter. Still with a 6cm drop up front, that narrower position actual lost 12 seconds. But, as soon as the athlete went into the turtle position, it became his fastest position of the day so far, shaving ½ of a second off the regular position with a 6cm drop. Let me repeat that. A 6cm drop with elbows and arms in normal position was ½ second slower than elbows in 1cm and head in the turtle position. For ½ of a second, I would imagine that this athlete would want to stay in the far more comfortable non-turtle, wider hands and elbows position.

So now this athlete is thinking they need to go to a 6cm drop for his best aerodynamics. Regardless of the head or arm positions, that 6cm drop has provided the best aerodynamic gains so far. But they decide to do one more test with a 2 cm drop. Astonishingly, that 2cm drop is faster than the 4 or 6cm drop. The 2cm drop is 40 seconds faster than the 6cm drop, and 106 seconds faster than the baseline position he came in with. It looks like the reason this is the best position for this athlete is due to the fact that he can maintain a flatter back with 2cm of drop compared to a more arched back with the 4 or 6cm drop. I know that everyone knows about Lance Armstrong’s hump, and how much faster it made him, but for this athlete, a less aggressive, flat back is more aerodynamic than the more aggressive 6cm drop with introduces a slightly arched back. It just goes to show that more is not always better, and having a huge drop in your cockpit is not always faster.

Another eye-opener on this athlete is helmet setup. This athlete used the Rudy Project helmet. I’m a big fan of Rudy Project sunglasses, but I have been skeptical of their helmet. It is so small compared to the other helmets. You might think that is good, but it reminds me of a thick tapered downtube compared to a small round downtube. The bigger, thick downtube is more aerodynamic, and the Rudy helmet seems too small to displace the air.

What the Rudy Project helmet does have is something called the Supercomp. This is an attachment to the helmet that covers the ears. They are also called “sideburns”. It significantly increases the surface area of the helmet. For this athlete, the difference between the sideburns on and off was 109 seconds. Don’t let anyone tell you that an aero helmet’s design does not make a difference! 109 seconds from adding a little piece over your ears.

Now, what I like about the Louis Garneau helmets is that the “sideburns” are built in, and the ears are well covered with the standard Rocket helmet.

So, this athlete was able to shave off 106 seconds from learning that a 2cm drop was his best change. Let’s say that he spent $1,000 for an hour in the tunnel, and another $500 in travel. That’s $14 per second saved, which places it as a more economical investment than either aero wheels or a tri bike. Essentially, $1,500 will get you either a nice set of aero wheels, or an hour in the wind tunnel with travel. The aero wheels will shave off 60 seconds or so, while the tunnel shaved 106 seconds off this athlete’s 40K. However, the obvious difference is that the aero wheels will almost universally save you about a minute, while the wind tunnel results will widely vary. It’s a risk/reward decision.

Let’s move onto athlete #2. This athlete has a threshold of 200 watts, but is a much smaller athlete. I’d say by looking at him only about 150 pounds. Based on Allen and Coggan’s power to weight ratio, this places this athlete at about a category 4 cyclist, or top 50% of the cycling leg in any given triathlon. Compared to the 45 kph from athlete #1, this athlete’s baseline is about 39kph over a 40k ride.

The first test with athlete #1 brings his reach back by 3cm, so that his elbows are much further behind his ears. This could be accomplished by reducing the stem length by 3cm. It makes almost no difference in his aerodynamics, but in fact makes him almost 7 seconds slower from shortening his cockpit. But, when the athlete goes into a turtle position and chokes up on the aerobars, he suddenly saves 118 seconds! That is 2 minutes from chocking up on the aerobars, or bringing the arms way in towards the body where the forearms are resting on the armpads closer to the wrists than the elbows, and lowering the head into that turtle position. So, that 3cm shorter cockpit was a detriment to him if he kept his elbows on the elbow pads, but was an aerodynamic advantage to him when he choked up and lowered his head.

This athlete then moved in the bars and elbow pads as close together as they would go. Now, for this athlete, although it was in as far in as they could go, they were not that far in. I would still not consider this an aggressive elbow and hand position, with the elbows still placed at shoulder width. But, his elbow position before was actual slightly wider than the shoulders. This other subtle changed shaved off another 38 seconds on top of the 118 he already gained from chocking up with a turtle position.

So, this athlete gained 151 seconds from his wind tunnel experience. For a $1,500 investment, that is less than $10 per second saved for this athlete.

One more fascinating result with this cyclist was that he also tested 2 other helmets. On this athlete, the LG Rocket helmet was 27 seconds faster than the Rudy helmet, but that is the Rudy helmet without the sideburns. If we can assume the same savings with the sideburns that we saw with athlete #1, the Rudy with sideburns would potentially be 82 seconds faster than the LG Rocket, but this is purely speculative. All we know is that the LG was faster than the Rudy on this athlete.

On to athlete #3. This athlete can push 300 watts for an hour, also averaging about 44kph. You might be saying, “hey how come athlete #1 could push 350 watts and athlete #3 is at 300, but they both have the same 40k velocity?” The answer is that athlete #3 came into the tunnel very aerodynamic already, with an initial drag coefficient much less than athlete #1. It is an interesting example that you can have two athletes be at the same speed, but have totally different wattage numbers because one is so much more aerodynamic than the other.

This athlete started by raising his cockpit by 3cm, with an unusual result of saving 14 seconds from going up 3cm. However, when dropping 2 and 4 cm, the athlete gained 37 and 52 seconds respectively. So again, a consistent increase in speed with at least a moderate cockpit drop.

The athlete then did an interesting experiment. He slid forward riding on the nose of the saddle and gained another second. Does not seem worth the discomfort.

The turtle position for this athlete did save 4 seconds. Interesting that both for athlete #1 and #3, the turtle position did not help much, but it seemed to make a huge difference for athlete #2.

Athlete #3 then experimented with different elbow and hands width positions. The first position was the pads 12cm apart and the extensions 6cm apart. The second was slightly wider, with the elbow pads 14cm apart and the extensions for the hands 8cm apart. There was less than a 4 second difference between the two positions. A third position placed the elbows actually touching, and that ended up being 14 seconds slower than having them 12cm apart. Again, a more aggressive position in arm width does not always lead to better aerodynamics.

Possibly the most fascinating experiment of all 3 was the athlete’s decision to test different sets of racing apparel.

Using arm covers, or sleeves that cover the arms from wrist to shoulder made absolutely no difference. No change at all with those arm covers.

But, the athlete did try cycling in both a cycling suit and a tri suit. Both appeared to be one piece suits. I wish I could tell you the brands of the clothing, but I only have these small pictures to go off of, and although I can identify the helmets, I can’t identify the clothing.

Anyway, the difference between the cycling suit and the tri suit was a whopping 80 seconds. That is a scary thought to me, that what you wear can have as much effect as the wheels, or an aero helmet, or positioning.

So, this athlete, by dropping 2cm and narrowing his arm width slightly was able to drop 55 seconds from his 40k time, or $27 per second on his $1,500 investment. If you count the alarming discovery that his tri suit was another 80 seconds slower, then he saved 135 seconds for the wind tunnel analysis, or just $11 per second saved.

By the way, this is the only wind tunnel test I am aware of that ties a specific aerodynamic consequence to different types of apparel. I’m sure someone else has done it, but I have not found one.

Back to the discussion of apparel, I would imagine that any one-piece tri suit that is truly a skin suit meant for improved water hydrodynamics, could be a good investment for the bike. This would include the Xterra Velocity , 2XU Kona Fusion, Blue Seventy Pointzero, the Ultra SpeedZoot, Sailfish Furious, DeSoto LiftFoil, and the Speedo Fastskin. These are not your basic one-piece tri suits, but represent true focus on hydrodynmics, which may or may not translate into aerodynamics. But, let’s imagine that it does. A $200 investment into one of these suits that might save you 80 seconds would be $2.5 per second saved, which is the same magnitude as an aerohelmet in terms of value. The disadvantage of these suits is that they are so aerodynamic, there are no pockets and there is no mesh material for venting. They are built for speed.

By the way, I love the DeSoto LiftFoil. It is the only tri suit I have used, so I can’t really compare it to the others, but it feels wicked fast for both swimming and cycling, and I look really good in it. Plus, you can get your LiftFoil from PowerTri.com.

Again, I have to thank Colorado Premier Training for providing me with this invaluable information. For more information on what Colorado Premier Training can do for you, or to get into their wind tunnel yourself, visit http://www.coloradopremiertraining.com

Before we move on, can I ask you: What do Conrad Stoltz, Xterra World Champion, Robin Benincasa, World Class Adventure Racer, John Howard, US Cycling Hall of Fame member, and other elite athletes all have in common? They are all breaking personal records and barriers with Acid Zapper. Acid Zapper is an all natural alkalizing sports supplement that breaks barriers that limit performance giving athletes a safe, legal, and effective edge. Acid Zapper is a product which truly deserves to be called a break through. For more information and to purchase go to Tri Talk.com and click on the Acid Zapper logo to see how you can break barriers too.

Moving on. I hesitate to even bring up this next subject. When I did a piece on hyponatremia, I got more e-mail from scared athletes than from any other subject. Should I drink? Should I not drink? What I failed to mention in that piece was that any well-trained athlete who has practiced nutrition in their training and sticks to that plan has an extremely low chance of developing hyponatrimia.

This next topic is exactly the same. Swimming Induced Pulmonary Edemia is very rare. The only reason I am even bringing it up is because one of my athletes had it happen recently, and so I did some research on it and felt it was at least worth a mention on the podcast.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t know any triathlete who did not have a bit of a panic attack the first time they swam head-down in open water. It is almost universal, even it if it lasts only a few moments, there is a big difference between swimming in the pool and swimming in the near pitch dark of open water. That sort of distress is common, and is usually easily overcome after a few minutes.

However, there is a more rare condition brought on from swimming that can have more serious results. Swimming Induced Pulmonary Edemia, or SIPE, is a pulmonary edemia, or a swelling or fluid in the lungs, brought on by swimming. It is caused when the blood gas barrier in the lungs fails under high pressure, and blood is allowed to flow back into the lungs. The bloog gas barrier in the lungs has a tough responsibility. It has to be thin so that gas can route from the lungs to the circulatory system, but it has to be strong enough so that under stress, that blood can’t get back into the lungs. This high-pressure condition is easily met when exercising in the water, as that extra pressure on the body tends to squeeze the blood into the weakest point of the circulatory system, the capillaries.

The most common symptom of SIPE includes coughing up pink, frothy spittle and mucus, which separates it from the more common panic attack of an open-water swim. Other symptoms include respiratory distress, wet-sounding popping or crackling in the lungs when breathing. These specific symptoms can help you determine the difference between normal open water distress and SIPE.

I would not have even brought this up were it not for a one piece of a study I found on SIPE that concerned me. A look at 70 cases of SIPE over 3 years was published by the Israeli army. They measured the oxygen saturation before and after the SIPE occurred. Before the attack, the swimmers oxygen saturation was 98 ± 1.7%. After the attack it was 88.4 ± 6.6%. Oxygen saturation is the measure of the amount of oxygen carried in the blood. Anything below 90% is considered clinical hypoxemia. I have a child who suffers from asthma, and from experience, I know that after a sever asthma attack, he can’t even leave the hospital until he is breathing on his own with 90% oxygen saturation. The fact that these swimmers were coming out of the water at 88% is alarming.

The whole reason I bring this up is to let you know that if you experience this problem, you should consider your day done. Being a hero and getting on the bike with the potential of a sub-90% oxygen saturation is an ugly prospect. Not only in terms of the rest of that day, but in terms of your recovery as well.

What can you do to avoid SIPE? It is really unknown but there seems to be good evidence that swimming on your back can attribute to this problem. Many athletes who start out with normal open-water distress naturally flip over to their back. The Israeli researchers hypothesize that this increases the pressure difference between the lower extremities and the thorax. Also being over-hydrated, and swimming in extra cold water.

Again, I don’t want you to worry about having a SIPE experience, I only want to let you know that if you ever do have it, remember to call it quits for the day.

Hey, I did it. One take, no stops. Bring on the music.

I want to provide a quick shout-out to my fantastic group of athletes. To Carl, John, Paula, Rob, Steve, Kim, Damon, and Darren, I just want to tell you how lucky I am to be able to coach you all. You are a fantastic and dedicated group of athletes.

A quick reminder that Tri Talk has moved to a monthly schedule for the race season. Look for episode 63 in June. Don’t forget, 15% at PowerTri.com. I’ll see you next time.

Swimming-Induced Pulmonary Edema. Clinical Presentation and Serial Lung Function
Yochai Adir, MD; Avi Shupak, MD; Amnon Gil, MD; Nir Peled, MD; Yoav Keynan, MD; Liran Domachevsky, MD and Daniel Weiler-Ravell, MD, FCCP

From IDF Medical Corps (Drs. Adir, Shupak, Gil, Peled, Keynan, and Domachevsky), Israel Naval Medical Institute; and the Division of Respiratory Physiology and Chest Disease (Dr. Weiler-Ravell), Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel.

The audio for this podcast can be found here.

Don’t forget to take advantage of the free month of coaching from TrainingBible Coaching! Just fill out the application and tell them Tri Talk sent you, and they will waive the startup fee and give you a no-obligation no-contract free month of coaching.

Compression sock research and dimpled aero bottles. It’s aerodynamics, speed and spandex. A podcast for superheroes and triathletes! Today on Tri Talk.

Welcome to Tri Talk your podcast source for triathlon tips, training, news and more. To the bulk of new listeners from Southern California and London, thanks for checking out the podcast. In Southern California, I’m getting excited for Ironman California just a few weeks away. You triathletes in San Diego have a great local coaching resource there in Jim Vance. In London, thanks for being the #1 Tri Talk demographic outside the US. My goal at Tri Talk is to help you swim, bike, and run faster, to meet your personal triathlon goals. Whether you are an elite or amateur triathlete, we cover sprint distance to Ironman distance. I’m your host, David Warden, and this is Tri Talk Episode 59.

Today on Tri Talk we are going to talk about specific data supporting compression socks. They were all the rage in Kona this year, and the image of Torbjorn Sindballe in his knee-high white compression socks running to a third-place podium finish certainly fueled even more interest. We’ll look at some studies on compression socks. Also, we know dimples help golf balls soar and even help aero wheels cut through the air, but what about dimples on water bottles? I was lucky enough to get some data tested by John Cobb on whether dimpled water bottles actually improved aerodynamics. Also, stick around later in the podcast to find out how you can get some incredible free one-on-one coaching.

Before we get onto the good stuff, I’d like to review some feedback from Episode 57 and 58. In my excitement from publishing that episode, I had billed it as possibly the best Tri Talk Episode ever. The feedback from you the listener was a resounding, “huh?”

From listener Phillip in the UK, he points out the difference between correlation and causation and observed the following:

“I just want to point out that a correlation does NOT imply a causation. It might help to prove causation, but not on its own. If A is correlated to B, it means just that - they are correlated. It does not prove A caused B in itself. For example, if you want to find out what causes house fires, you could try correlating “fires trucks in operation” to “fires that happen in a year”, for 100 cities. You’d find a positive correlation, but that does not prove that fire trucks cause fires”

Phillip also pointed me to a site that through the process of correlation could link global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters as a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. Since pirates are indeed in decline for the last 200 years, and since natural disasters are on the rise, they are technically correlated, but that does not imply one causes the other. The same judicious approach has to be applied to the correlation research that I’m trying to do. Although mathematically and scientifically we can’t firmly prove causation between triathlon performance and spending, age, height, weight, etc. if we can accept that there is likely causation as well as correlation, then there may be some benefit to the research.

William, a professor at Iowa State University wrote to point out that although this was a correlation exercise, the values may not be significant.

“Your R2 values are SO LOW that to me they are almost meaningless. I really couldn’t tell you off the top of my head of whether an R2 of 0.05 even means ANYTHING AT ALL! I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if you had enough data, you would find much GREATER correlations by breaking the data down more. For example, you might find different correlations between experience and performance as a function of age. You might find different correlations between performance and height or weight outside certain norms (e.g., outside 135-180 lbs for men) or in different age groups. But the bottom line is that in order to do that, you really need a ton of data to sort through!”

Both Phillip and William are correct in their observation, and it is important to me that if you are going to take the time to fill out this survey, that you understand its limitations. ut Buf you listen back in episode 58, I think I spent a good 3 minutes discussing all the flaws in this survey process. I hope that it never came across as a true scientific study, and that I used the term for what it really is: a survey for which I applied a correlation analysis. The only way we can get the most value out of this is to, as William pointed out, get more samples and break down the data even more to see if we can find greater correlations in more granular data comparisons. To do that, I need your help in getting thousands of surveys back, and you can do that by visiting tri-talk.com and clicking on research. Thanks to the hundreds of you who have taken the 10 minutes to fill that survey out. Please keep them coming!

One thing I did learn from this episode is to avoid the superlatives. “Best episode ever” is something that a producer should never bestow on his own work, and it erodes credibility. Another reason why I am not a professional radio host.

One more comment that came in on the cycling to run faster topic in Episode 57. From long-time listener and two-time guest on Tri Talk, Dr. Bill Thompson of Florida State University wrote:

“I feel obligated to share my disappointment in your shallow comments regarding the book *Run Less Run Faster.* It is not so much your opinion, but the fact that you hadn’t read the book, that puzzles me. We, your listeners and supporters, have come to know you as meticulous and thorough. You are correct in that world class, elite athletes will probably not benefit from this (this being cycling to run faster). But as shocking and painful as it may seem, I don’t think the Kenyans are listening to your podcast!”

If I portrayed the topic of cycling to run faster as a review of the book Run Less, Run Faster, then I apologize. The interest surrounding the book was the reason I wanted to research the topic on my own. It was not intended as a review of the book, but rather an independent look at one of the many reasons how cycling could be used to run faster. Perhaps I should not have even mentioned the book title to avoid the confusion.

Before we get onto the good stuff, I wanted to let you know about a way that you can help raise $100,000 for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. At 140miles.com you can not only donate to this important cause, but track the progress of two amazing athletes as they link their Ironman training to raising money for this charity. If you are training for an Ironman, or even thinking of training for an Ironman, why don’t you follow Chris Elmore and David Miller’s training on their website and blog, and compare what they are doing to what you are doing. And, of course, please consider donating to their fight against blood cancer. They have already raised more than $2,000 of their $100,000 goal in just a couple of weeks. That’s 140miles.com.

Let’s get onto the good stuff! I know I billed the compression socks topic as the lead on today’s itinerary, but I’m feeling more like starting with the dimpled water bottle story. You can imagine that I get lots of requests from manufacturers to review and talk about products on Tri Talk. They send me samples, they make claims, their product is the best in the world, on and on. One company notified me of a product they were interested in me talking about on the podcast, specifically a dimpled water bottle that they claimed was more aerodynamic that a standard water bottle. I gave them my standard reply, which was, “thanks, I typically don’t review products unless I know for sure they are a benefit, can you send me any data.” I didn’t hear back for a few weeks, but then one morning I received an e-mail from the company that included data. Not only data, but wind tunnel data on the product from John Cobb himself, possibly the leader in wind tunnel testing for cycling. I’ll give you those numbers in a minute, but first let’s review why dimples could make a difference in a water bottle.

Cylinders and spheres are very convenient and strong shapes when designing bicycle frames and components, but it turns out they are terribly un-aerodynamic. I know they look all smooth and round, how could the air not just flow right on by them? Part of what makes an object aerodynamic is the object’s ability to keep the air attached to the surface as long as possible. As soon as you have what is called flow separation from an object, drag increases. This is why deep rims and disk wheels are more aerodynamic, because the air stays on surface longer, and the flow separation takes place much further along the flow of that object. The same with those thick downtubes that almost all tri bikes have now. More surface area on certain parts of the frame mean less flow separation and improved aerodynamics.

It turns out that with a cylinder or sphere, that flow separation takes place very early as the air travels over the object. But, please dimples on that sphere, like a golf ball, and something changes. Those dimples increase turbulance, which normally you would want to eliminate in aerodynamic design. But this turbulence, or “dirty air” on a sphere has the effect that it actually speeds up the airflow and gives it more forward momentum. As a result, flow separation takes place much later in the flow over the sphere. Even though there is increased turbulence, the trade off is that the increased speeds in airflow has a net benefit on the aerodynamics of the sphere, and the air stays attached to the surface much longer.

It is also important to note this is why we don’t put dimples on just any shape or object for which we are trying to improve aerodynamics. If dimples improve aerodynamics on a ball, why don’t we dimple the wings of an airplane? Or make the bike frame itself dimpled? The reason is that those dimples increase turbulance, and on a wing or aerodynamically tapered bike frame, the flow separation is already fairly good. The net result of increasing turbulence on a shape that already has late flow separation is decreased aerodynamics, while the net aerodynamic result of turbulence on a sphere is positive, because the turbulence contributes towards delayed flow separation.

This is also why there are critics of the dimpled rim of the Zipp 404 wheel. That deep rim already has good flow separation, so why add the dimples and more turbulence? I don’t know, but it is hard to argue with the results of the wind tunnel test of the 404s. It’s possible that the rim is just shallow enough, and the dimples just shallow enough, that the combined result is improved aerodynamics on that wheel.

So, back to this particular product. In theory then, since a cylinder is such a similar shape to a true sphere, the dimples could actually help airflow over a water bottle. And with the typical water bottle much wider than the down tube and seat tube, it certainly sticks out like a sore thumb in the bikes total aerodynamic profile.

The data on this particular water bottle is quite surprising, and I would have been skeptical of it had I not seen John Cobb’s actual comments. He found that over a 40K time trial, the savings from this dimpled water bottle over a standard water bottle was 53 seconds. At a cost of only 19 cents per second saved, that is a very economical aerodynamic purchase, and if it were on the Tri Talk Top 20, the #2 most economical purchase you could make. From the test, most of that savings took place when the water bottle was placed on the downtube, as opposed to the seat tube.

Now, before you get too excited, remember that this was a 53 second savings over a conventional water bottle. The data I did not get was the baseline aerodynamics of the bike without any water bottle. Yes, the dimpled bottle was faster than the standard, but I would guess that it would be slower than no water bottle on the frame at all, depending on the frame, or the bottles mounted behind the seat.

Way back in Tri Talk episode 18, I talked about another water bottle study that John Cobb did, which found that a water bottle mounted on the downtube was in fact actually more aero than no bottle at all, with John Cobb speculating this was due to the air breaking around the down tube before it got to the seat tube. So, you might be saying that this means if a standard water bottle on a frame is good, than the dimpled much be better.

That test that John Cobb did was from 2003. Much has changed since then. It is hard to find a real tri bike now that does not have a true aero seat post. Very few tri seat posts and tubes are cylinders any more. In 2003, when the first tests were done, this was not the case. If your bike is a true tri bike with an aero down tube and seat tube and seat post, I would not place a water bottle on the frame. You are best with the aero drink up front and high mounted water bottles in the back. If it is a standard road bike that you have converted to a tri bike, and the seat and down tube are standard rounded cylinders, then yes, a dimpled water bottle seems to be the way to go. Or, if you are doing an Ironman, and you need lots of fluids with you, you may have to use the water bottles on the frame even on your tri bike, and then these dimples aero bottles would be a good idea.

The company that makes this product is Rocket Science Sports and you can check out their very inexpensive dimpled water bottle at www.rocketsciencesports.com.

And I though I was going to spend just 2 minutes on that topic.

Moving on. You’ll remember that I am now affiliated with Joe Friel’s new company, TrainingBible coaching. I have two exciting announcements regarding the launch of this company. First, TrainingBible.com will be launching their own podcast which will include the current writing and research of Joe Friel. Plus, the podcast will include interviews with the experts from TrainingBible’s coaching staff. But best of all, it will be hosted by me! It’s like putting my voice on Joe Friel’s mind, it’s a thrilling combination. Look for the release of the TrainingBible podcast to release on February 23, just a few days from now.

The second announcement is this: I just came back from Arizona for a seminar with Joe Friel and Adam Zucco, the co-founder of TrainingBible Coaching. Adam was so pumped up about how well the seminar went, that he pulled me aside and said “Hey, David, how can we find a way to get more athletes to try our coaching services?” I said “Let’s give it away free for a month.” In his excitement, Adam said “Great idea! Let’s do it!” So before he changes his mind, right now for the first 50 athletes who sign up, you can get one month of free personal, customized, one-on-one coaching with a TrainingBible coach, and TrainingBible will waive the startup fee. This is 100% free for their Level 1 coaching service for one month. There is no commitment, there is never any contract with TrainingBible coaching, and you can always quit at any time.

Imagine sitting down with a TrainingBible coach and have them review your goals and annual training plan for the year, come up with 4 weeks of customized workouts, with the ability to followup by e-mail. Many of these coaches have been personally trained by Joe Friel with his latest research in training physiology. You have nothing to lose with this offer, and so much to gain. This offer is only for the first 50 athletes, and only for new TrainingBible athletes.

All you have to do is visit Tri-talk.com and click on the free coaching offer and follow the instructions. Or, send me an e-mail to david@tri-talk.com and I will answer any questions you have about the offer, and ensure you that this is in fact a 100% free month of coaching with no continuing obligation.

Speaking of TrainingBible coaching, Joe Friel provided me with some data on behalf of TrainingBible.com for another hot triathlon topic: compression socks. They look cool, they feel pretty cool, and they are relatively inexpensive. But do they really work?

There are 3 proposed advantageous of compression socks. First, improving blood flow back to the heart during exercise. Second, preventing muscles from moving unnecessarily as with excess vibration meaning less fatigue. And third, speeding recovery through that same benefit of increased circulation.

Compression socks have actually been around and used for quite a long time. But they have been primarily used in the medical field for patients with circulatory problems. In fact if you do a Google search for “compression socks”, 90% of the hits will be for the medical use of compression socks. Therefore, almost all of the research has been done on less-then-fit subjects, and almost none of it has been done on actual athletes. Even the data that has been done is contradictory. Two primary studies from 2003 had conflicting results. One showed that the socks did not improve athletic ability, but most patients reported reduced swelling when wearing the socks. But, all of these subjects were suffering from thrombosis, or blood clots, to begin with. The other study from 2003 did show some improvement when wearing compression socks when walking, but the subjects in this test were again, patients, and the maximum speed that they walked as 1.5 miles per hour. Not athletic speed.

In short, there really is no research to support the athletic benefits of compressions socks on athletes, yet.

However, in terms of recovery, there is some good data. From just last year published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery, which I keep on my coffee table right next to Sports Illustrated, there was a study of 14 runners who performed 2 strenuous 10K time trials while wearing the compression socks, and another while not wearing them. 13 of the 14 runners who ran without the socks reported muscle soreness after the run, while only 2 of the 14 reported muscle soreness after the run when wearing the compression socks. That’s pretty good data to support recovery!

However, this same study noted no performance benefit in that 10K time trial. Since this is one of the only compressions sock studies done on athletes, so far the evidence for performance in athletes is neutral. There was no performance improvement when running a 10K with compression socks with these 14 athletes.

But for recovery purposes, almost all the studies support compression socks for recovery.

Here are a couple of other things to consider. Do compressions socks really reduce vibration and therefore muscle fatigue? Many athletes claim that they do, but at least in this 10K study, there was no performance improvement. Also, I question the use of compression socks when performing regular endurance training. If they truly do limit muscle fatigue, are you limiting the amount of soft tissue strengthening by wearing them all the time? In the course of trying to reduce injury by wearing them for every run, are you simply conditioning the muscles to not tolerate race-level vibration and fatigue? Would you do all of your running year round on a cushy treadmill, and never subject your legs to the realities of running on the road? Would you stay on your trainer for every ride and never subject yourself to hills or wind? This argument is not bullet-proof because unlike wind, hills or running surface, you actually can control what you wear on race day. Technically you could train with compression socks 100% of the time race with them 100% of the time. But again, long term the effects to soft tissue strength and tolerance are suspect.

I suspect that the best use of compression socks would be during breakthrough workouts where intensity is high, like racing, and recovery takes longer. But for use during Zone 2-3 endurance running, when you might have 2 days to recover before the next run, that seems excessive. Just like taking supplements, just because a little is good, a lot is not better. Reserving compression sock use for intense workouts and racing, running on a recently recovered injury, or for after your workout during recovery, may give you all the benefits of racing and recovering with compression socks, without the risk of pampering your legs and soft tissue unnecessarily.

I suspect that in the coming months and years there will be much more research on compression clothing and this will have much more clarity. For now, I say get them and try them out. I’m actually wearing a pair of compression tights that I got for $32 at Walgreens in their pharmacy section, far cheaper than the full tights you can get online. But these do look kind of funny when you run. PowerTri.com sells some killer black compression socks for $40 from Skins that look very cool when running. More expensive than the tights from Walgreens, but you look much faster. By the way, I learned a new term when researching this subject. You know that there is aerodynamics, and hydrodynamics, the study of the flow of air and water. There is also hemodynamics, the study of the flow of blood.

That’s all for this episode. If you have not checked out the Tri Talk forums, you are missing out on some fantastic discussion. It’s clean, it’s friendly, it’s current and it’s informational. Have your training question answered on the Tri Talk Forums.

But what is better than the Tri Talk forums? How about a month of free personal coaching from a TrainingBible coach. Go to tri-talk.com and follow the link and instructions on how you can get 1 month of free coaching by a real person at no cost or obligation.

Finally, don’t forget that you can get access to all the old Tri Talk Episodes back to Episode 18. If you have not listened to all 59 episodes, your education is incomplete. Would you only watch Episode 4, 5, and 6 of Star Wars? Would you only read the last 3 books in the Harry Potter series? Of course not! Complete your Tri Talk collection today by visiting tri-talk.com and access all the old episodes. See you next time!

The audio for this podcast can be found here.

The slowtwitch.com article referenced can be found here.

Conjugate sequence training, aerodynamic aerobar positioning, and cycling for a running PR? No kidding! All that, today on Tri Talk.

Welcome to Tri Talk your podcast source for triathlon tips, training, news and more. I want to specifically say hello to listeners from Mason City, Iowa and Columbia, Missouri. In Iowa, I have heard great things about the Mason City Multisport Club, also known as MC-squared. In Missouri, I can’t thank the Columbia Multisport Club enough for their loyal following of Tri Talk, and want to say hello to one of the stars of Columbia Multisport, “Ted Z”. My goal at Tri Talk is to help you swim, bike, and run faster, to meet your personal triathlon goals. Whether you are an elite or amateur triathlete, we cover sprint distance to Ironman distance. I’m your host, David Warden, and this is Tri Talk Episode 57.

If I had a theme song, I think that would be it. Just like me it is groovy, a little bit cheesy, and made in the ‘70s. That’s cjacks with Rolling in the Hoopty. It is good to back after 6 weeks away from the show. I can’t thank Eric Schwartz enough for covering for me and for doing such an outstanding job for the last 2 episodes. As much as I love my coaching, writing, and training in the world of endurance sports, being away for the last 2 episodes made me realize how much I do love doing this podcast. Mainly, I think, because I love the sound of my own voice.

Today on Tri Talk we have three hardcore, scientific topics to indeed help you swim, bike, or run faster. We’ll lead off the show with a review of data that is from tri-geek heaven. How the position of your aerobars affects your overall aerodynamics and power. Also, have you had enough on periodization over the last 2 months? We’ll that’s too darn bad! Because I have some research on an alternate periodization technique called conjugate sequence periodization. For some athletes, this method of training could be the missing piece to their peak performance. It’s risky, but we’ll take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of this different form of training. Finally, lot’s of talk lately around running less to run faster. I’ll spend a few minutes on some research around why this might work for you.

You can send in your questions or comments to david@tri-talk.com.

Before we get onto the good stuff, I’d like to take a moment and talk to you about two charitable organizations that need your help. Picabo Street’s Ski Challenge and the Sangamon County Child Advocacy Center. Both charities are working for a goal we can all agree on, and that’s combating and easing the pain of child sex abuse. These charities have teamed up with beginnertriathlete.com to form a silent auction on the beginnertriathlete.com forums. If you have triathlon gear sitting in your closet, please donate it to the auction. If you are looking to get a good deal on new and used triathlon gear, with the proceeds going to a good cause, you wont’ want to miss this auction. The auction runs for the month of February on beginnertriathlete.com forums. For more information on how you can donate, please go to the Tri Talk website and click on the link to the auction information, or visit beginnertriathlete.com. The proceeds from this auction will go exclusively to Picabo Street’s Ski Challenge and the Sangamon County Child Advocacy Center.

Let’s get onto the good stuff! Many of you may have already seen this data, but it is worth a prime spot on today’s episode. Slowtwitch.com is probably the coolest site out there for a triathlete. Tri-talk.com is pretty cool too, but if I spend the next 10 years building up my website, I hope that it is 1/10 of what slowtwitch.com is today. Back in November of last year, John Cobb from slowtwitch.com published some data on aerobar positioning and the impact to aerodynamics which included, if not necessarily startling results, at least some very interesting results. All the data listed below is based on a moderate 40K ride at 19.17 miles per hour, or your basic age grouper speed.

For example, completely unrelated to aerobars, they wind tunnel tested the impact of leaving your jersey’s zipper open while riding on the brake hoods. You know those guys who ride with the jersey zipped all the way down? They probably shave their chest just for the occasion? They look cool, but it turns out it is not so fast. You’ll lose 56 seconds over 40K from leaving the zipper down. Yikes! So, it is better for you, and it is better for the rest of us to keep your chest to yourself on the ride.

Now what about aerobar positioning? When I talk about aerobar positioning, I’m referring to the angle of the aerobars in relation to the ground. A flat aerobar position would be the bars close to parallel to the ground. John Cobb took a look at bars high, bars medium and flat, with high having the wrists being just a few inches from the head, and medium being a more reasonable 20 degree angle in relation to the ground.

In these first 3 positions, the elbows pads were placed about thigh width, or fairly wide. What was somewhat surprising was that the fastest times were recorded with the high hand position. That’s right, not flat, but very high. In fact it was 9 seconds faster than the flat position over 40K. It is interesting to note that this article came out in November, but back in September I met with Steve Hed of Hed cycling at Interbike, who spent time trying to convince me that the high aerobar position was in fact the best position for many cyclists. I never included that interview in the podcast, because frankly I didn’t believe him. This wind tunnel test helps support Steve Hed’s theory that the high aerobar position can be faster.

However, there is more. John Cobb also tested aerobar position with the arm rests fairly tight, no longer at thigh width, but bringing in the arms in to a very narrow position. At that point, the fastest position was not the high aerobar, but it was still not he flat position either. At that point the best position was the medium position, this time by a significant 35 seconds over the flat position. That is some serious time savings, getting awfully close to he savings from an aero wheel over a 40K. Note that in both tests, again, the flat position was never the fastest compared to the medium or high.

Does this mean that you should go and move your aerobar positioning to a medium or high position? Not necessarily. First, although the medium aerobar height was the fastest with the narrow arm position, it was the slowest with the wide arm position. If you ride with the elbow pads at thigh length, this test would indicate the medium is not so good. The medium was only the fastest with the narrow arm position.

Second, since we are talking about as much as 35 seconds in aerodynamics, the best aerodynamic position also needs to be weighed against your power output. Your ability to generate power could also be significantly different in each of those aerobar positions. A best-case scenario would be for you to look at your power output for a given HR in each of the 3 positions, even if you had to use the poor-mans power meter setup from episode 54. If you have significant power drop in the medium or high aerobar position, its not worth it.

Finally, comfort. Especially for long-distance racing. If you can’t handle the narrow arm position for more than 90 minutes, just set the arm pads wide. It’s no good to be in aggressive aero position if you keep coming out of the aero position because its not comfortable. The best aero position is one where you are even more comfortable in the aero position than you are on the hoods or drops.

Going back to the power generation from your aerobar position for a moment. I have ridden with my aerobars at medium height for 2 years now. I did it because I found that for speedy time trailing, such as for Olympic distance or less, I can generate more power when my aerobars are up a bit, and not flat. This is because I really grip those bars and use my upper body to generate power, even in the aero position. Now, distance triathlete purists will say, “no, no, David, your hands and biceps need to be relaxed on the aerobars.” Yes, for half and full Ironman racing, I would be worried about energy expenditure. But, for Olympic distance racing, I’m only going to burn 2,000 calories, which I have already stored as glycogen and ready to use. I can afford to be less efficient and more fast. When I grip those bull horns, and really use my upper body to help generate power, it makes a huge difference in my power output. Again, I bring this up because for me, I can generate more power as a result of the medium aerobar position than the flat position. I just can’t engage my upper body as much when the aerobars are flat. By the way, this is also exactly how Tour rider Levi Leipheimer sets his aerobars up when he time trails.

Moving on. I recognize that 3 of the 6 podcasts prior to this episode all already had at least one periodization topic in the episode. Tri Talk has indeed been heavy with periodization topics, but there is no better time to discuss periodization than early in the training season (with all due respect to our great listeners in the southern hemisphere). Plus, periodization is so broad and so deep, that it touches many of the elements we incorporate in our day-to-day training. However, this periodization discussion will be very different from what you may have heard before.

The classic periodization process is also referred to as “linear periodization”. This is due to the staggered but ultimately linear increase in volume over a period of several mesocycles, a single mesocycle typically representing a 4-week block of training for an age-grouper in classic periodization. Again, the concept of classic periodization is to progressively shock the body into an adaptive response that ultimately increases performance on race day.

There is a proposed alternative method to linear periodization called conjugate sequence periodization. This method of periodization follows the same broad look at periodization, which is planning the year around peaking at competitions, separating the training year into periods of microcycles and mesocycles with early gradual increases in volume. But, there is a difference in how those mesocycles are managed. By the way, if you are new to Tri Talk or to periodization definitions, you may want to listen to Episode 52 as a refresher course on the definition of periodization cycles, which might make this next part easier to understand.

In linear and in conjugate sequence periodization, the mesocycle is broken up into 4 distinct microcycles. But unlike linear periodization, where the 4 microcycles are essentially the same with small increases in volume, conjugate sequence uses an almost reverse volume increase technique. Also unlike linear periodization, where the microcycles are all the same duration, let’s say 7 days each, conjugate sequence has varying durations among the 4 microcycles. Before I give you an example of what a conjugate sequence mesocycle would look like, let’s discuss the science behind why it would work.

Conjugate sequence takes advantage of a phenomenon called the Long-Term Delayed Training Effect, or LDTE. LDTE occurs after a period of high training volume, when training volumes return to “normal”. At that time, strength and endurance improve. Although this effect was first observed in weightlifters, two studies in 1992 from the European Journal of Applied Physiology and Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise both revealed the existence of performance gains from the LDTE in endurance runners and cyclists. LDTE occurs basically after a dramatic drop in volume. Unlike a classic taper, where the volume decreases gradually, LDTE occurs after a fairly immediate drop in volume.

LDTE is unlikely occur in classic periodization, because there is never a long enough drop in volume for the phenomenon to occur. A typical rest week in a 28-day linear periodization mesocycle is about 7 days, and then the athlete returns to the previous volumes. In conjugate periodization, the drop in volume lasts up to 20 days of a 28-day mesocycle cycle, allowing enough time for LDTE to occur.

But, most of those 20 days are not easy days. While taking advantage of the performance improvement from LDTE, the amount of intensity increases in that microcycle far more than would occur in linear periodization.

So let’s look at an example of conjugate periodization mesocycle. In this example, the mesocycle is 28-days, or 4 weeks, similar to a linear periodization mesocycle. The first microcycle of the mesocycle would last 8 days. And those 8 days would be devoted to volume, training at low intensities of 60-80% of your aerobic capacity. This is Zone 2 and very low Zone 3 types of intensities for those 8 days. The second microcycle lasts from 2-5 days, and the focus is speed sills and rejuvenation. This is the time to focus on swim drills, cycling drills, like one-leg drills, and running drills. The volume is cut in half from the previous 8-day microcycle. The purpose is not only to focus on speed-specific drills, but some recovery needs to take place from the accumulated fatigue of the previous cycle to prepare for the upcoming intensity of the next cycle. After the second speed skill microcycle, an intense 5-8 day intensive endurance cycle begins. Again, the volume is half of the volume from the first 8-day endurance microcycle, but the intensity now includes race-specific intermittent or intervals training, or competing in low-priority races. It is critical that during this 3rd intense cycle that recovery is watched carefully, which will be a real challenge. The final microcycle is essentially and easy week focusing completely on active recovery, lasting 4-7 days. The total conjugate sequence mesocycle would therefore last up to 28 days, or 4 weeks.

Just like in linear periodization, these 4-week blocks can be repeated and placed back-to-back, creating a 12-week cycle that can easily be placed into your annual training plan. You should not do more than 3 of these mesocycles for a total of 12 weeks.

OK, now that we have defined conjugate sequence, and how it could increase your performance through taking advantage of the Long-Term Delayed Training Effect, should you really use this?

This is a risky training alternative. It is risky because it is rarely used, and therefore it is tough to gauge how well it really works. It is primarily risky because of those 5-8 days of significant intensity. Injury red flags are flashing all over the place.

So who should consider conjugate sequence periodization? I would only recommend this training technique under a few conditions.

First, only for advanced athletes with several years of training and racing. These athletes know their bodies, know how to listen to their bodies, and are better in tuned to how this change will effect them. Second, only athletes without a history of injury from intensity. Some athletes are more injury prone from volume, but some are more susceptible to injury from intensity. The density of the intensity used in conjugate sequence is significant. Third, only after you have spent several months developing a solid aerobic base in the season. Going straight into conjugate sequence at the beginning of the year introduces many risks. It is best reserved for the Base 3 or Build mesocycles. Fourth, only if as an advanced athlete, you have found that after using the classic linear periodization for a few years, you feel that you have maxed out and are burned out with the same training routine, and just aren’t getting any faster. Some athletes simply respond better to higher intensities, and you’ll never know if you don’t try.

If you found yourself getting lost in this topic, you can read everything I just said at tri-talk.com, where all the recent Tri Talk episodes have transcripts on the Tri Talk blog.

I have to thank Joe Friel who provided me with the data behind conjugate sequence periodization. This is the kind of information that the coaches from TrainingBible Coaching have access to. If you are interested in becoming a TrainingBible Coach, or would like to be coached by a TrainingBible coach, send me an e-mail or visit TrainingBible.com.

Can I also just tell you that I accidentally referred to conjugate sequence as “conjugal sequence” about 50 times when I tried to record this topic. I can’t tell you how many takes of this section I had to do as a result. This is why I am not ready for prime time radio. For those of you who don’t know why conjugal sequence is funny, then bless your heart and your beautiful clean mind.

Let’s wrap things up. I’d like to spend a few minutes on a topic that has generated quite a bit of buzz lately. There is a book out from Runner’s World called Run Less, Run Faster. I have not read this book, but I love the concept. The idea is to train at only 3 runs per week, with the other 2 workouts being a quality cross-training workout. Is it just me, or have we triathltes known this for years. I should have written this book first. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen this take place, where a triathlete is only running 3 days a week, and still makes a marathon PR because he was training for a triathlon at the same time. In fact, the free on-line running plans out on Runner’s World have gone as far as reducing the runs from 5 to 3 in their plans, with 2 days of cross training. I totally believe in this concept.

Having not read the book yet, I thought I would do a little research of my own into why this would work. There are probably a ton of reasons. Injury prevention, recovery, mental variety to name a few. But, I found at least one link between cycling training and a reason behind how that could help you on the run.

A 1996 study in the International Journal of Sports Medicine took 204 well-trained cyclists and runners and measured the size of their hearts. The size of cyclists hearts was overwhelmingly larger than that of the runners. It is probably because you can cycle for much longer than you can run, thus spending more time in a highly aerobic state. OK, you say, that’s nice. But so what? When you combine that with a second study published in the American Journal of Cardiology which took a look at the correlation between heart size and VO2max, then things get interesting.

There are many variables that determine your VO2max, unfortunately most of it is genetics. But, this second study I just mentioned found a high correlation between heart size and VO2max. In the fact the mathematical correlation was r=.80. A quick review on the how the correlation expression works: All correlation is measured between –1 and +1, with –1 begin a negative correlation, +1 being a positive correlation, and 0 being no correlation at all. A r=.80 correlation is considered a very high correlation, and would be sufficient enough to conclude that large heart size is linked to a high VO2max.

So to bring this topic back full circle. Theoretically, if you were to spend some serious time cycling, probably years of cycling, this could change your heart size, and therefore increase your VO2max and subsequently your run times improve. Lance Armstrong’s first marathon, which he completed in under 3 hours, is a pretty notable example of how cycling cardiovascular endurance can translate into other sports.

There are a few problems with this argument. First, there are lots of ways to increase your VO2max other than increasing your heart size. You could invest just as much time in interval run training and get the same results. Second, it goes against the principle of specificity, which says that you will always perform best when spending the most time training in your specific sport. The truth is that Olympic runners spend 95% of their aerobic workouts just running. This Run Less Run Faster concept has not been proven beyond the age-grouper or even lower-level elite athlete. I think this does work well for new runners, but for runners who are looking to squeeze out that last 15 seconds of speed off of their 32-minute 10K, you don’t need to bike, you just need to run.

But again, for us mortals, I think that this concept has huge potential for application, and is worth incorporating into your next running plan. Even if not for the potential in increased VO2max, which might take years, as mentioned, the injury prevention, recovery, mental variety in your training might make it all worth it.

That’s all for this episode, I’ll be back at the end of January for Episode 58. You know, I spent time today telling you about slowtwitch.com and beginertri.com, but you know what, Tri-Talk.com is a pretty darn cool website too! Come check out the Tri Talk Forums and get your individual triathlon question answered today.

A quick hello to the rest of the TrainingBible coaching team! I hope to see you next month at our TrainingBible Coaches Meeting in Arizona! See you next time!