Tri Talk Triathlon Podcast

The audio for this podcast can be listened to here.

The website referred to in this podcast can be found here.
The surprising link between running economy and range of motion, significant variation of rolling resistance between tire brands, and hard numbers around the use of latex innertubes. It’s flexibility, rubber, and latex. No kidding. Today, on Tri Talk.

Welcome to Tri Talk your podcast source for triathlon tips, training, news and more. To new listeners in Uruguay and Hawaii, I hope you are enjoying the ride. In Uruguay, I am impressed with the triathlon community that it established in that country. Keep us the great work. In Hawaii, I’m embarrassed to confess to you that up to the age of 30, I thought that pineapples grew on trees. Please forgive me. 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 64.

Today on Tri Talk it’s classic physics and physiology, the scientific comfort food of the triathlete. I’ll be covering some very interesting data regarding the specific costs of rolling resistance by tire brand and width. Some of the data is reassuring, and some of it is disturbing. Plus, is it worth dropping $10 on an innertube? We’ll find out with a look at the speed advantages of latex innertubes. Finally, flexibility is always good right? Right? It turns out that it depends on you goals as an athlete

This episode is sponsored by PowerTri.com. Right now at PowerTri.com you can buy the Rinse-n-Ride T1 Transition Footpool. It has happened to all of us. You come out of the water, run to your bike, and your feet are covered in sand or rocks. You wipe them down as best you can, put on your shoes, only to discover 3 miles into the bike the rocks and pebbles still embedded in your feet. Keep your feet clean and comfy by quickly dipping them into this small, inflatable, portable pool of water. Faster and much more effective than toweling you feet. Check it out today at PowerTri.com.

Don’t forget to visit Tri-Talk.com to check out the Tri Talk forums, read past episode transcripts, plan nutrition intake for your next race with the Nutrition Calculator, or watch some training video.

In episode 63 we discussed the risks of going too hard on the swim, particularly in a sprint-distance event. One listener, William Jenks, pointed out an error on my part when I delivered that information. I frequently used the term “effort” instead of the term “velocity”. The researchers who tested the triathletes were very specific that they had the triathletes swim at 3 different velocities, not 3 different efforts. William reminded me that there is not a linear relationship between effort and velocity. When the researchers found that an 85% velocity was the best velocity for a sprint-distance event, that does not mean the athlete should aim for 85% effort, a term I misused in the podast. 85% velocity might only be 80% effort. Each triathlete needs to time their individual sprint-distance time trial, use that as a 100% velocity base-line, and then aim for 85% of that velocity, not 85% of that effort. Thanks, William for keeping me in check.

Also from episode 63 we looked at performance gains from swim apparel, specifically a speedo vs. a speed suit, with the speed suit coming out ahead by 19 seconds over 750 meters. Carl from Toronto asked if the study done considered any body hair on the athletes, as the speed suit would have covered that hair. Perhaps shaving the chest, back and thighs of an athlete would have the same 19-second advantage as covering that surface area with a speedsuit. Sadly, the study did not discuss how hairy the athletes were, only saying that the subjects were elite triatheltes, but it is a good point. Given the choice between shaving half of your body, or donning a speedsuit, I’d still pick the speedsuit.

Let’s get onto the good stuff! I came across a fascinating report from a site called biketechreview.com. If you have a chance, take some time to visit this site. This is not a commercial for these guys, I have no idea who they are, but I am impressed with what they have done. One of their forums users took the time to test the rolling resistance of dozens of tire brands. A reminder that rolling resistance, which sometimes called rolling friction or rolling drag, is the resistance that occurs when a round object such as a ball or tire rolls on a surface. It is caused by the deformation of the object, the deformation of the surface, or both. The simplest definition is that rolling resistance is the amount of energy required to overcome the friction between the road and tire.

A common misconception on rolling resistance is that to overcome it, you need to have 19mm wide tires and pump up the tire to the maximum PSI, thus reducing the contact patch between the road and the tire. When overcoming rolling resistance, the goal is for the tire to maintain a small but constant contact patch to the ground that can absorb the forces applied to it. Skinny tires with high PSI tend to lose contact frequently, and can’t absorb the forces placed on it as well as a wider tire with some give from a lower PSI. Of course, like anything else, more is not better, and this does not mean that a PSI of 90 is better than a PSI of 130. 120 is widely considered the optimal PSI to minimize rolling resistance.

Also, clincher tires almost universally have less rolling resistance than tubular tires. If you were to take a cross section of a tubular tire mounted on a wheel, you would essentially see a garden hose. If you were to take a cross section of a clincher on a wheel, you would see that the shape is more of a U, as the tire has to constrict at the rim to hook under the rim wheel. That U-shape in a clincher result in less rolling resistance that the perfectly round tubular. Does that mean that clinchers are superior to tubulars? Not necessarily, but I’ll cover that later on in the podcast.

What was most interesting to me from this rolling resistance report was the confirmation that not all tires are created equal. Some have the ability to maintain their shape much better, or have a stiffer sidewall, and the difference in rolling resistance is much more than I thought.

For example, the tire tested with the lowest rolling resistance was the FMB Silk Tubular, which is a bit surprising because it is a tubular, and I would have expected clincher. But, it was one of the only silk tires tested, and was also a very wide tire at 24mm wide. It’s rolling resistance coefficient was 0.00240. To give you an idea of what this means in terms of watts on the bike, if we were to take a trained cyclist, in a good aero position, 180 pounds total weight for bike, rider, fluids, the whole package on the bike, at sea level air density on a flat course, to maintain 24.6 miles per hour would take 340.4 watts.

Compare that to another popular triathlon tire, the Continental Competition tubular, 22mm wide. The rolling resistance coefficient on that tire is 0.00340, which for that same rider on the same wheel in the same aero position would take 349.3 watts to maintain that same 24.6 miles per hour. I find this very disturbing because this is the tire I race on my front wheel, and I race with a 19mm tire as opposed to the 22mm tested, which means the rolling resistance is probably even higher than that 0.00340.

But, I’m not totally depressed, because my back wheel has a Vittoria EVO Corsa tubular, with a rolling resistance of 0.00275, placing it at only 343 watts to maintain that 24.6 miles per hour, just 3 watts off the fastest tire tested. There is also another catch to this test which I’ll go over in a few minutes.

But 11 of the top 12 tires tested are not tubular, they are clincher. The clincher tested with the least rolling resistance was the Vittoria Ultra Speed, which unfortunately is no longer made by Vittoria. The next lowest rolling resistance, which is still easy to find is the Bontrager Race X Lite Pro, 23mm wide, with a rolling resistance coefficient of only 0.00244, requiring just 340.8 watts, or half a watt more than the top tire tested.

Another tire that was tested frequently, with different widths, that consistently came up on top was the Michelin Pro Light and Michelin Pro 2 Light. These tires at any width just dominated the low rolling resistance, with no tire having a resistance greater than 0.003. What is interesting is the Michelin Pro Race series was one of the worst across the board. Michelin makes both the Light series of tires and the Race series, and that Race series does not do well on these tests, but the Light series performs very well.

The Zipp clincher was another good choice, with a 0.00275 coefficient, requiring 343 watts. Overall, however, Michelin, Vittoria, and Bontrager at all widths dominated the top 20 in terms of rolling resistance.

But, there is more data to this that makes a huge difference. These tests were all done with latex tubes in the clinchers. 99% of all tubes that you’ll find in a bike store are the butyl tubes, not latex. In fact, the only makes of latex tubes I know if is Michelin, and at $10 a pop, it is heart-breaking to get a pinch flat when mounting them to your tire. There were some limited tests done with the same clincher tire, but comparing butyl and latex tubes.

Let’s look at that all-around good rolling resistance tire, the Michelin Pro 2 Light. With a latex tube, a rolling resistance of 0.0026, or 342.7 watts using that same rider at 24.6 miler per hour. If you were to switch to a standard Bontrager butyl tube, your rolling resistance goes from 0.00266 to 0.00322, 347.7 watts. A full 5 watts slower, which would equal about 9 seconds over a 40K time trial. At 2 latex tubes at $10 a piece, that is a couple of dollars per second, not the biggest bang for your buck, but definitely a low-cost way to gain 5 watts of power. The report tested several other tires using butyl or latex, and the results were the same, about a 5 watt gain in power from using the latex tubes over the butyl.

Basically, any advantage that clinchers have over tubulars in terms of rolling resistance is wiped out unless you use the latex inner tubes. You can do a search on the internet for latext tubes and cycling, and you’ll find various on-line retailers who carry latex tubes. I wish I could say that PowerTri.com carries them, but they don’t yet. I can tell you that PowerTri.com does sell Vittoria tires, which were one of the best tires tested in this report.

Now, based on this information, should you go out and sell your tubular wheels and go back to clinchers? This data is telling us that we can put out 3-9 watts more if we use a clincher with a latext tube. Here is why I’m not switching:

Wheel weight. While a clincher tire might have lower rolling resistance over a tubular tire, a tubular wheel has a significant weight advantage over a clincher wheel. Since a tubular is glued on, it does not require that extra hook system the outside of a clincher rim requires. That extra rim material can add several hundred grams of weight to the wheel, and it is adding it to the worst part of the bike: the very outside of the wheels where the rotational inertia means that weight is more significant than anywhere else on the bike or rider. A 500 gram difference between two sets of wheels will cost a trained cyclists 20 seconds over 40K. Let’s make that more reasonable and say that a clincher wheelset is 250 grams heavier, and drop that down to 10 seconds. We know that 5 watts for our test cyclist was 9 seconds, and to me the benefit from low rolling resistance matched by the benefit from wheel weight. Plus, as soon as you hit the hills, rolling resistance won’t change, but your wheel weight will suddenly make a significant difference when climbing. That is why the tie-breaker to me goes to the tubular.

It is also interesting to consider the weight of the tires as well. For example, the Bontrager Race Light Tubular weighs in at 300 grams, compared to the Vittoria Triathlon EVO weighing in at only 190 grams. While both have similar rolling resistance ratings, That is 220 grams over both wheels, and that is a 10-second difference just between tubular wheels in terms of weight.

All tests were done at 120 PSI in an admirably controlled environment. You can read this report yourself by visiting the Tri Talk blog and clicking on the URL at the top episode 64, I’d read it to you on the podcast, but the URL is just too long. It is kind of interesting to look up and see if your tire is listed, and where it turns up on the list. This report was done by a gentleman named Al Morrison, and it must have taken and incredible amount of work. Al, wherever and whoever you are, you have done a great service to the triathlon community.

Two weeks ago Joe Friel presented a live e-clinic on how to pace for a steady state event such as a triathlon. If you missed that 1-hour presentation, don’t worry, we recorded it! Just go to TrainingBible.com and click on Camps and Clinics to find out how you can access this webinar. Also, while you are there, register for the upcoming live TrainingBible Coaching webinar on Aug 27th discussing the Paleo Diets for Athletes. Presented by Kelly Cawthorn, this live presentation will include a Q&A session at the end. This is your chance to learn from the expert how to apply Paleo Diet to your training plan and lifestyle.

Moving on. This next topic might ruffle a few feathers. Back in episode 36 I discussed two studies on the effects of flexibility. One concluded that flexibility was linked to decreased risk for injury, and another linked flexibility to increased strength and endurance. Those 3 reasons alone: injury prevention, strength and endurance, were enough to convince me to adopt a more aggressive flexibility routine. However, none of these studies actually linked flexibility to speed. Let’s take a look at a couple of other studies on flexibility and running economy.

The first study from the Int J Sports Med took 34 elite international distance runners and compared their running economy to the sit and reach test. This test will test the flexibility of the hamstrings and lower back. Each runner had their running economy tested at 16kph, or in other words how much of their VO2max were they using at that speed. A lower VO2max for the same given speed would mean better running economy.

The researchers found no relationship between running economy and weight, height, or age. Of course, since all 34 were elite international runners, it goes without saying that they had to all be young and lightweight. The only correlation that the researchers could find between these 34 runners and their running economy was their flexibility.

The runners with the worst sit and reach scores had the best running economy. The researchers concluded that, “stiffer musculotendinous structures reduce the aerobic demand of submaximal running by facilitating a greater elastic energy return during the shortening phase of the stretch-shortening cycle.”

OK, so maybe you are thinking that this only applies to elite runners. They are so fast that flexibility has no meaning at their level. Well, another study from the University of North Carolina took 19 well-trained but not elite 10k runners and assessed 9 measures of flexibility after a 10-minute warmup. They then performed 2 running economy sessions. Once again, even at the age-grouper level, there was no correlation between economy and flexibility. Again, of the 9 flexibility measurements, 2 of the 9 showed an inverse relationship. The less flexible the runners were in their dorsiflexion and hip rotation, the more economical they ran. These researchers also concluded that, “these results suggest that inflexibility in certain areas of the musculoskeletal system may enhance running economy in sub-elite male runners by increasing storage and return of elastic energy and minimizing the need for muscle-stabilizing activity.”

There was even a third study that was cited, but I could not find it. It claimed that 100 male and female subjects across a range of treadmill running speeds (0.9-3.13m per second), had a battery of 11 tests to assess trunk and lower limb flexibility. Analysis of the data revealed that subjects who exhibited tightness in the trunk (limiting turnout of the leg from the hip and trunk rotation) were the most economical at every test speed. Since I could not find the actual study or even the abstract for this, I’m not as confident as I am with the first two studies I discussed, but I still trust the source that cited it.

In summary, there is no study that I could find that links increased flexibility to increased speed or running economy. In fact, all the studies I found showed the opposite in terms of running economy. Now, one could argue that increased running economy does not necessarily mean increased speed. But this is a pretty weak argument to me. If someone can run at 16kph at 80% of their VO2max, vs someone running at that same speed at 85% of their VO2 max, all the first athlete has to do it go to 85% of their VO2max and they will pull ahead of the second runner. If running economy is not the holy grail of predicting run race performance, I don’t know what is.

However, I do believe that increased range of motion and flexibility is important in the following circumstances. First, in swimming, flexibility is critical. I don’t have anything yet to confirm this, but from what we know if the differences in swimming and running, I’m confident that this is the case. I do think that upper body stretching is important for swim performance. I don’t have an active upper body stretching routine, but after 10 years of putting on my own sunscreen on my back, I have managed to accidentally have great upper body flexibility.

Second, if you have a history of injury, or if avoiding injury is critical to you, continue with an aggressive stretching routine that targets those areas at risk. Missing 3-4 weeks of running from an injury does not seem worth any increase in running economy. But, if you have no history of injury, and you don’t stretch currently, maybe you are on the right track.

I recognize that at this moment, dozens of coaches are franticly loading their e-mail to write me. I hope this data is wrong, and that there is some data to backup flexibility and running economy. I just couldn’t find it.

That’s all for this month. Don’t forget to support Tri Talk by purchasing your very own Tri Talk CD, which includes all episodes not currently published on the podcast. Or, you can also download individual episodes for just a dollar. Visit PowerTri.com for your CD or electronic download. See you next time.

Int J Sports Med. 2002 Jan;23(1):40-3. Running economy is negatively related to sit-and-reach test performance in international-standard distance runners. Jones AM. Department of Exercise and Sport Science, Manchester Metropolitan University, Alsager, United Kingdom.

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1996 Jun;28(6):737-43. The association between flexibility and running economy in sub-elite male distance runners. Craib MW, Mitchell VA, Fields KB, Cooper TR, Hopewell R, Morgan DW. Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, USA.

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!