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.

How your swim pacing affects the rest of your race, specific performance gains from swim apparel, and is it ever too warm to wear a wetsuit? It’s a swim special edition, today on Tri Talk.

Welcome to Tri Talk your podcast source for triathlon tips, training, news and more. New listeners since episode 62 hail from Kansas and Moscow, Russia. In Kansas, my guess is the increase in listeners comes from the upcoming 70.3 Ironman event less than a week away, best of luck to you at that event. When I saw my download stats I did a double-take assuming that Moscow meant Moscow, Idaho. But no, there are really new listeners from Russia, where I spent 6 unforgettable weeks in my youth. 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 63.

That was Os Improvaveis with Walking in the Sunshine, from podsafeaudio.com. I know that the last thing that those of you from the Midwest United States want to hear about right now is more water. If you are from that area and were caught in the middle of that terrible flooding, I wish you a quick recovery. Bear with me as we spend this episode exclusively on swim-related topics, that have, however, a direct impact on your bike and run as well. For example, in our lead topic we’ll find out if swim pacing has a much larger influence on your overall triathlon performance that you may have previously thought. We’ll also look at a study that places a specific time savings on wearing a speedsuit in the water, and the implications for wearing one out of the water. Finally, we’ll briefly look at some numbers around wearing a wetsuit in warm water, and if that leads to the risk of overheating.

This episode is sponsored by PowerTri.com. Right now at PowerTri.com, not only can you get 15% off regularly priced items using the discount code tritalk15, but now you can order the new Velotak bracket. Are you sick of trying to decide where to put your race number on your bike frame? Do you put it on the seat tube, the downtube, the top tube…and then trying to get that sticker off after the race with that messy sticky residue. No more with the Velotak bracket. The bracket attaches to the seat tube or top tube, then attach your number to the bracket. With a pivoting head, you can display your race number vertically or horizontally. You really have to see it to believe it. Check it out right now on the home page of PowerTri.com.

You can contact me at david@tri-talk.com, or better yet visit the Tri Talk forums off the Tri Talk home page and be a part of the Tri Talk community that has posted thousands and thousands of posts to help you swim, bike, and run faster. And while you are on the Tri Talk website, don’t forget to complete your Tri Talk collection by either downloading all the episodes individually, or purchasing your own CD. There are over 1,600 minutes of Tri Talk audio. That’s 27 hours, but 1,600 minutes sounds a lot better. All previous episodes are available for download all except for episode 1-17 because frankly they really, really sucked.

In triathlon news, I’m guessing that the increase in listeners from Russia had something to do with the drama surrounding which country would end up with 3 Olympic slots rather than two, with a virtual tie between the US, Russia, and Australia going into the final race to determine those slots. The dramatic ending to the men’s Olympic triathlon qualifying slots took place at the ITU World’s at Vancouver this past week-end. Congratulations to both Russia and the US for their strong finish, and squeaking in enough points to qualify 3 men for this summer’s Olympics. If you would have told me last year that Australia would only qualify 2 men’s slots into Beijing, I would have never believed you.

Episode 61 introduced Joe Friel’s decoupling protocol, and the feedback from that episode was significant. There are 2 particular comments on decoupling that came in I’d like to review. First, from Roger Behle of Anaheim Hills, California who writes:

“When testing for decoupling, what period of time should be allotted for warm-up? I raise this question because I have personally noticed a gradually increasing heart rate – sometimes lasting up to 30 minutes – before leveling off at a steady pace (running). I assume you would not want to include increases in heart rate attributable to warm-up when assessing decoupling.”

Roger brings up an excellent point, because since the decoupling protocol is based on the changing delta between Zone 2 HR and power output. An unusually high upward drift in HR during the first 30 minutes of warmup could artificially indicate high decoupling, when in fact it was only due to the time it took for the athlete to even initially reach Zone 2. There is a significant variation in the amount of time it takes an athlete to warmup. Some can do it in 10 minutes and some, like Roger take 30.

For athletes performing a 3-4 hour decoupling test, I would suggest very little warmup for 3 reasons. First, the test is so long that any front-loaded HR data will have minimal effect on the overall results. Second, performing a long warmup places the athlete at risk of fading too early in the protocol. A solid 30-minute warmup followed by a 4-hour ride could cause the rider to not be able to sustain as much power at the end of the test, and have artificially low power at the end. Third, dehydration is a large factor in cardiac drift, and that extra 30 minutes places you in a position to potentially be more dehydrated at the end of the test, elevating the HR.

For short decoupling tests of 1-2 hours, I don’t see a consequence of a Zone 1 warmup helping the athlete achieve high Zone 1 or low Zone 2 before officially starting the test. Particularly doing a warmup on the bike before performing the run. Great question, Roger.

Another comment came from my friend and former USAT Head Coach, Marc Evans who lists a few other snags with decoupling:

“1)Heart rate is NOT an absolute indicator of intensity. How, are athlete’s determining one 2? That’s a very difficult number to determine.
2)Dehydration during the second half of the test will affect Hrate.
3)Muscle glycogen at start
4)Sleep and rest before the test
5)Temperature and other environmental considerations such as humidity, pollution, inclement weather
6)Improvement or decreases in mobility, flexibility and core strength (those glutes we’ve talked about…)
7)Rest between workouts and pre-testing protocol so the results can be more consistent
8)Motivation

I respect the science and find it very interesting, but there are of course, many variables at play. Triathlete’s often hope for that “little blinking number” to tell them they’re on track with training.”

Thanks, Marc for your expertise and input. And by the way, the next time I have you assess my strength and mobility, you’re going to be amazed at my gluteus medius. My gluteus medius will become legendary within the medical community. In fact, I have already submitted a proposal to the American Medical Association to have the gluteus medias renamed to gluteus Warden-ius.

Also, I should point out that Roger Behle, who asked about decoupling and warm up, also pointed out that dehydration could skew the test in his e-mail to me.

Let’s get on to the good stuff, shall we? I’m going to relate a quick story of why I chose to research this next topic, and how it really hit home for me. I participated in a sprint triathlon this past week. I came into it with high expectations of finishing near the very top of the event. The course played to my strengths with a challenging canyon bike course, and a slightly shorter swim course than a typical sprint distance event.

However, the morning of the race, the weather was in the 40s and raining at the race. The race director’s decided, justifiably, to cancel the bike portion and make it just a swim-run. This was pretty devastating to me, because my swim is still my weakest sport, and I count on the bike to get myself back into position in the race. I had been popping off all week about how well I was going to finish the race, my 2 brothers had come to watch me race, one all the way from Hong Kong. Those of you with brothers know exactly how competitive that can be. I was determined to finish as strong as I had predicted.

So, I decided I had to go all out on the swim, holding nothing back. The result was excellent, a full minute faster than I had done in the past at that same distance. However, when I hit the run, everything fell apart. And we are only talking about a 5k run here. The whole race took less than 30 minutes, but I literally bonked on the run. So what happened?

Well, lot’s of things could have happened, but the following is a fascinating study on how swim intensity affects your overall triathlon performance.

A study by the University of Western Australia had 9 skilled triathletes perform a 750-meter swim time trial to establish their fastest swim pace for that distance. That 750-meters is, of course, the typical true sprint-distance swim length. Having established their swim time trial at that distance, the triathletes performed 3 sprint-distance triathlons in a controlled environment, but with varying swim pacing before the 3 triathlons. The 3 paces were at 80-85% of the time trial velocity, 90-95% of the time trial velocity, and 98-102% of the time trial velocity. We’ll refer to them as S80, S90, and S100.

The times for S80, S90, and S100 were 734, 673, and 619 seconds respectively. S80 was a full 114 seconds slower than S100, and over a minute slower than S90. Initially, you might be thinking what I am thinking, “hey, I can be a full 2 minutes faster if I lay it all out on the swim!”

But, the subsequent cycle times were very interesting. S80, S90, and S100 were 1654, 1682, and 1808 seconds respectively. Meaning, the cycling time after the 80% swim effort was 154 seconds faster than the cycle time after the S100 effort on the swim. The S90 was 126 seconds faster than the S100. The researchers concluded that the difference between the S80 and S90 cycling efforts was not statistically significant, but that the difference between either the S80 or the S90 and the S100 was statistically significant.

So, at this point we might be saying, since both the S80 and S90 are statistically the same result on the bike, the S90 should be the best swim effort because it had a one-minute advantage over the S80 on the swim. We’ll come back to that.

Let’s add the run onto these sprint tests. There was a difference in run performance, again with the faster run times occurring after the slower swim efforts. But, the difference in run times between the 3 trials was not statistically significant, and the researchers rightfully concluded that the run was unaffected by the swim intensity.

However, when it came to the mean overall triathlon times for S80, S90, and S100 there is where the real good stuff is. The times were 3658, 3681, and 3763 seconds respectively. The S80 was a full 105 seconds faster for the overall event than the S100. Even though the S100 was almost 2 minutes faster than the S80 on the swim, those 2 minutes were easily gobbled up by the decreased performance on the combined bike and run. Again, while there was not enough of a delta on the run between the 3 swim intensities, there was enough of a statistical difference on the combined bike and run for the researchers to conclude that the S80 swim intensity was significantly higher than the S100. Also the researchers noted that overall triathlon time of the S90 was faster than the S100, it was not enough of a difference, and therefore the only statistical improvement in performance came from the S80 swim effort.

How do we apply this to our training? First of all, I think that this means we need to practice swimming at 85% of our time-trial effort for sprint-distance racing, and to do that, we need to test a 750-meter time-trial frequently to know what 85% of that is.

One of the theories from these same researchers was that going beyond a lactic threshold too early, even only for a short period of time, places the athlete at a serious disadvantage for the remainder of the race. The researches noted another study which had shown that intense arm exercise that raises circulating lactate concentrations can impair subsequent leg exercise, and this is one of the primary reasons for the case of the negative split. Going out too hard early taxes your system too high, and it can’t recover. To review really quick, a negative split refers to finishing the second half of a steady-state endurance event faster than the first half.

But this study makes me think of a negative split not just in terms of a negative split for a single discipline, but a negative split strategy for the entire race. Meaning, maybe we should not be looking to negative split the swim, and then negative split the bike, and then negative splint the run, but rather look at your entire race as one big negative split. Treat the swim and first half of the bike as one lap, and the remainder of the bike and run as the second half of that negative split. I have not specific research on this, but I would imagine that even swimming the second half of the swim at high levels of lactic concentrations could result in similar consequences on the overall race to what we saw with the entire swim at high intensity.

Does this apply to longer swim distances? Does this mean 85% intensity is the optimal swim intensity for all distances? Probably not. Although this is good evidence for sprint distance events, 90% effort of a 1,500-meter time trial pace is going to be much less than 90% of a 750-meter time trial pace. Or, on the extreme, 90% of your Ironman swim pace is probably well below lactic threshold, whereas 90% of 750-meter pace is probably at or above your threshold. I feel like it is safer to push the percentage higher of your time trial pace for the longer swim events. The key is to find a pace that is below your lactate threshold. For sprint distance, I’m liking this 85% number.

One last thing on this study. The overall power outputs on the bike for S80, S90, and S100 were 304, 298, and then it dropped all the way down to 278 watts for the S100.

Before we move onto the next topic, I have a question for you. As a coach and athlete, can you guess what piece of training equipment I access more than any other? If you guessed a HR monitor, a bike or shoes, you’d be wrong. The number-one piece of equipment I use is TrainingPeaks.com. Not a day goes by that I am not taking advantage of the features of TrainingPeaks.com. No more spreadsheets or carrying around copies of training books, or looking up workouts in training magazines. I can schedule my annual, weekly, and daily training plan. Create and store my own workouts or use the workouts in their amazing workout library. Historical reports and workout reminders from automated e-mails. Nutrition planning. Upload and analyze your workouts from devices such as Garmin, Polar, SRM, Nike, Timex, Computrainer, Cateye and many more. Whether you are a coach or a self-coached athlete, spend your time time planning and analyzing more efficiently with TrainingPeaks.com. Signup today for a free 7-day trial.

I have two more quick swim studies I wanted to share with you. This first one is sort of a followup from last week, where I discussed the interesting wind tunnel test from one athlete who shaved 80 seconds off of his 40K time trial just by switching from a two-piece tri top and bottom to a one-piece suit. Yes, all of the speed-suit manufacturers claim that their suit will make you faster on the swim. There is also a ton of interest in the Speedo skin suits because some swimmers are complaining to FINA, the world governing body for swimming, that the suits are so fast that they introduce an unfair advantage.

It was nice to find a study that actually looked at the performance of a skin suit to contemporary race apparel on the swim. In this study, published just last year in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, researchers took 8 triatheltes and compared a swim brief, basically a Speedo, to a modern speed suit. Again, just like the last study, this was done over a 750-meter time trial. The speed suit was 19 seconds faster than the racing brief. Not a huge difference, but considering it costs about $200 for a decent speed suit, that is only about $5 per seconds saved if we can assume 38 seconds over a 1,500 meter time trial. But, only for indoor or warm water swims when you don’t have a wetsuit.

I keep coming back to the notion that although the speed suits were designed for increased speed in the water, can I assume at least some improvement on the bike wearing the speed suit? The only concrete data I have is from that one wind-tunnel test on one athlete, but the concept makes sense. Yes, water has much more drag than air, but did you know that because you are going so much faster on the bike and exposing so much more surface area due to positioning than on the swim, that the drag co-efficient for a swimmer and cyclist are almost the same? Drag plays every bit as much a role in cycling as swimming, and again I can’t help but think that the design for decreased drag in the water translates onto the bike.

Let’s look at it this way. If you save 19 seconds over 750 meters of swimming as this last study proved, let’s assume 19 seconds for every 15 minutes of swimming, which is 76 seconds per hour.

Now, how much did the athlete save over an hour time trial in the wind tunnel from wearing a one piece? 80 seconds, or 20 seconds per 15 minutes. At the very least, that is a curious coincidence.
By the way, I need to thank Tri Talk listener Martin Thow from Australia for sending me this study.

All right, one more swim study. I decided to research this study because of some concern that swimming with a wetsuit in relatively warm water put the athlete in danger of overheating, either on the swim or with overheating consequences later on the bike or run. Some athletes were choosing to not wear a wetsuit in water that was below the legal wetsuit temperature threshold of 78 degrees F.

It is likely that if you are swimming in water that is let’s say, 77 degrees F, that the ambient temperature that you will be cycling and running in is probably going to be much higher than 77 degrees at some point during the race, so I can see why this would be a concern.

A study published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise took 5 male triatheltes and had them perform two Olympic-distance triathlons in a controlled environment. For both swims, the triathletes swam in 25.4 degrees C, which is just below 78 degrees F, for 30 minutes in a flume. One swim was performed with a neoprene wetsuit, and the other a regular swim suit. The bike and run portion of the race were performed in a hot and humid environment at 89.6 degrees, just below 90 degrees F with 65% relative humidity, which is pretty dang humid. It’s pretty rare that an athlete will come out of the water and immediately start racing at 90 degrees.

During the entire triathlon, core body temperature did not differ between the wetsuit and swimsuit tests. However, skin temperature was higher during the swim portion of the test when wearing the wetsuit by about 4 degrees C. But, by 15 minutes into the bike this temperature difference had dissipated, and temperatures stayed the same for the duration of the race for both the wetsuit and swimsuit tests. More importantly, there were no differences in VO2, heart rate, or rating of perceived exertion between the wetsuit and swimsuit tests. Additionally, no significant differences were found in cycling, running, or total triathlon times.

At least for Olympic distance racing or shorter, there appears to be very little risk of wearing a wetsuit in any temperature under that 78 degree limit. Even for half-Ironman racing, these athletes swam for 30 minutes, which is about the time it takes for a good swimmer to finish the 1.2 mile half-Ironman swim. My guess is that even for full Ironman racing, any overheating is also likely to be gone within 15 minutes on the bike. Unless you just hate wearing wetsuits in general, it looks like you are safe from overheating in wetsuit legal water temperature.

Thanks for listening to the podcast today. Before we end, I’d like to ask you to consider what would happen to you if you lost your site. This is the reality for over 10 million Americans who suffer from retinal degenerative diseases, such as retinitis pigmentosa, macular degeneration, and Usher Syndrome. There are currently 7 clinical trials in progress that are having amazing results. Imagine that we are only minutes away from curing these dreadful diseases. It goes far beyond blindness as most of the people who suffer from these diseases end up with severe depression and obesity. Please support our many athletes who are blind, or becoming blind from one of these conditions by either making a donation or consider racing for this amazing cause. If you have any questions or interest please visit www.racetocureblindness.org or contact Michael Stone, Ironman Triathlete at mstone@stonegrp.com. Michael also has one of these diseases and although still races as an age-group triathlete, this is a time bomb for him. Help Michael and other athletes by visiting racetocureblindness.org. Thanks for listening to the podcast, I’ll see you next time.

J Sci Med Sport. 2007 Oct;10(5):327-33.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998 Jan;30(1):99-104.
British Journal of Sports Medicine 2005;39:960-964

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.

Introducing the decoupling protocol as a method to determine sufficient aerobic base, and how kick drills and circadian rhythms affect your swim performance. Today, on Tri Talk.

Welcome to Tri Talk your podcast source for triathlon tips, training, news and more. New listeners since episode 60 primarily hail from Wisconsin and welcome to our new listeners from Mumbai, India. In Wisconsin, it is a little known fact that Ironman Wisconsin 2009 will take place on my 35th birthday! What better time for me to try and qualify for Kona in the M35-39 division. That is if I can actually get in to the race. In India, I have fond memories of the 2 weeks I spent in Mumbai in 2006. Although, there was a minor episode where a monkey stole my lunch right out of my hands and then taunted me from a nearby tree. That really happened. 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 61.

Hey, I know it has been a month, since the last episode but I’ll make it worth your wait. By the end of this episode, you’ll be armed with the information you need to determine if you have a sufficient aerobic base before moving on to higher intensity training. We are going to take out all the guesswork in determining if your aerobic base has been achieved. Absolutely fascinating information. Plus, we have not discussed a swim topic in a long time on Tri Talk, so we will make up for lost time by covering 2 swim-specific research studies. This will allow me to maintain the claim to help you swim, bike and run faster.

This episode is sponsored by PowerTri.com. You know PowerTri.com as the finest Internet retailer of triathlon wetsuits and apparel, but did you also know that they carry the new Zoot triathlon running shoe, disk wheels, rollers, tires, pumps, aero helmets, goggles, paddles and fins, the list goes on and on! Everything from just finishing your next triathlon to finishing your next triathlon fast, visit PowerTri.com. And since I coach the owner and founder of PowerTri.com, if you are not completely satisfied with your experience, let me know I’ll make him run an extra 50 miles each week.

You can contact me at david@tri-talk.com, or have your questions answered on the Tri Talk forums. To access the Tri Talk forums as well as access to archived episodes individually or from the Tri Talk Archive CD collection visit www.tri-talk.com.

Let’s get onto the good stuff! And I do mean good stuff in this episode.

One of the fundamentals of classic periodization training is that the macrocycle, let’s say 6 months, is divided into Base and Build phases. The purpose of the Base phase is to establish an aerobic base prior to introducing higher intensities in the Build period. The Base period is therefore filled with higher volume and lower intensities until that aerobic base is met.

As an athlete, one of the challenges is how to determine when that aerobic base has been met before moving onto higher race-simulation intensities. Yes, in a classic periodization training plan, there are 3 Base mesocycles, or about 12 weeks of aerobic base building before moving into the Build periods. However, what if an athlete is able to achieve their aerobic base after only 10 weeks of training? That would allow 2 more precious weeks of higher intensity training prior to their first A race. Or, conversely, what if an athlete has gone through a full12 weeks of base building, and assumes that they have achieved that aerobic base when in fact they have not.

Also, another risk of classic periodization is that it has a tendency to fit all race distances into one program. How much of an aerobic base do you really need for sprint-distance triathlon? Do you really need to work 12 weeks on the Base periods for sprint-distance racing? What if you just need 8 weeks and can spend the remainder of the time leading up to your A race with more focus on intensity?

Or, on the other extreme, with Ironman training, how do you know that you are ready to stop working on the long, slow rides? Maybe you need more than 12 weeks, even 16-20 weeks of base building without ever even flirting with those Build period intensities.

There is a method to determine if you have a sufficient aerobic base, and I want to thank Joe Friel of TrainingBible coaching for providing me with this information.

This test protocol simply compares your power or speed with heart rate over an endurance ride or run. There is some research to indicate that when aerobic endurance improves there is reduced heart rate drift relative to constant power or constant speed. And, of course, the reverse of this is that when heart rate is held steady during extensive endurance training, output may be expected to drift downward.

For example, the next time you download a workout from your training device, you probably have the ability to graph HR and power or speed on the same chart. In a perfect endurance ride, where there were no intervals or significant intensity, just a nice long Zone 2 ride, these two lines would run relatively parallel to each other.

However, you may have noticed that on some of these long rides, your HR tends to drift up even when output remains the same. Or, if you are trying to maintain a Zone 2 effort, you may notice that when you look at the graph that even though HR remained the same, out (power or speed) went slowly down. In those cases, the lines on the graph representing HR and output no longer run parallel, but begin to drift apart.

The parallel relationship between heart rate and output (power or speed) is referred to as “coupling.” When they are no longer parallel in a workout they have “decoupled.” Excessive decoupling would indicate a lack of aerobic endurance fitness.

But how much is excessive? There is an acceptable amount of decoupling that can take place and still indicate a solid aerobic base. A good indication that a base fitness has been met is less than a 5% decoupling over a Zone 2 workout.

That statement simply generates more questions. How do you calculate that 5%, and how long does the endurance workout need to be? Let’s review.

To determine the % of decoupling that took place in an endurance workout, you will need to be able to get the average HR and output (again output means power or speed) for the first and second half of the endurance workout. You then calculate the ratio of output to HR for each half, and determine the % difference between those two ratios, the ration from the first half and the ratio from the second half. Let me give a specific example. On a flat course, let’s say you performed an hour run in Zone 2. For the first 30 minutes your HR average was 150, and for the second half your average HR was 153. Your average speed for the first half was 7.5 miles per hour, and for the second half it was 7.4 miles per hour. You can already see that there was some drift in that workout. But was it too much?

The power to HR ratio of the first half of the run would be 7.5/150, which equals a ratio of 0.05. For the second half, the ratio is 7.4/153, which is 0.0484. The difference between these two ratios is 3.2%, which is an acceptable amount of decoupling, under that 5% goal.

Another quick example: on a 4 hour Zone 2 bike ride an athletes averages 230 watts for the first 2 hours and 220 for the second half. His HR averaged 141 for the first 2 hours and 149 for the seconds half. His power to HR ratio for the first half was 230/141, or 1.63. For the second half the ratio is 220/149, or 1.48. The difference between those two figures is a 9.3% decoupling. That would be an indication that this athlete’s cycling at that distance has not yet met an appropriate aerobic base.

I gave examples of an hour run and a 4 hour bike ride, but you certainly don’t have to get to a 4-hour aerobic cycling base for Olympic-distance training and racing. Joe Friel also sent me his recommended durations for running and cycling to test for decoupling, for each of the triathlon distances.

Bike decoupling portion of a long ride
Sprint - 1hr
Oly - 2hrs
HIM - 3hrs
IM - 4hrs

Run decoupling portion of a long run
Sprint - 0.75hr
Oly - 1hrs
HIM - 1.5hrs
IM - 2hrs

By the way, Joe is still experimenting with these numbers, and they could change as he refines his decoupling process, but this is what he is using now.

Now, there are a few more points to cover regarding this decoupling protocol.

First, when on the bike, you really have to use power. If you try to use speed as a measure of output on the bike, your numbers, of course, will be totally off. A slight tailwind for the first half and a slight headwind for the second will make your decoupling % artificially soar. Unless you can pull off a flat, windless ride, which we all know the cycling gods would never allow, you have to use power on the bike.

However, recall our discussion on the poor-man’s power meter in episode 54. It would be possible to use speed when on a trainer or set of rollers, where the topography and wind conditions would not be a factor. In that indoor environment, you could take your average “speed” for the first and second half of the ride and get the speed to HR ratios.

On the run, there is a similar problem. You would need to do this endurance run on either a very flat course, or on a two-loop course where the ascent and descent for both halves of the run were identical. What you would need to avoid was an out-and-back run with significant change in total ascent or descent, as this would really mess with your pace data for the first and second half of the run. And although wind does not play as much of a factor on the run as the bike, doing this protocol on an exceptionally windy day could influence the decoupling data. For the shorter endurance run decoupling tests, doing this on a track would be perfect.

But, you could also use some software from trainingpeaks.com called WKO+ which will take the GPS data from your run and calculate your actual output factoring in those ascents or descents. For example, if you did an out and back run that had a total of 300 feet of descent on the way out, and 300 ascent on the way back, WKO+ would know that a pace of let’s say 7:30 on the way out was the same output, or run power, as 7:40 on the way back, factoring in the total grade of that net ascent on the way back. WKO+ will also automatically calculate your decoupling rate for any given workout, and can adjust for topography if it has GPS run data.

Another item that is blatantly missing is swim decoupling figures and durations. Joe Friel did not supply me with any swim decoupling data, but based on the theory of decoupling, and what we do have, I think we can create a rough estimate for the swim. Joe, if you are listening, I hope you’ll allow me some scientific license.

As with the bike and run, you can perform a swim and get both the average HR and average pace for the two halves of the workout. It can be tough to find a HR monitor and strap combo that works well in the water. But, let’s say that you perform the first half of a 30-minute swim with an average HR of 145 and the second half in 149, with an average pace of 1:55 per 100 meters for the first half, and 2:00 even per 100 meters for the second. The two ratios become 0.79 and 0.81, a decoupling rate of 2.5%.

The remaining question becomes what is the endurance swim workout duration to perform the test at? Here are some recommendations which are totally of my own making, simply based on the figures Joe provided on the bike and run.

Swim decoupling portion of a long swim
Sprint 0.5hrs
OLY 0.75hrs
HIM 0.75hrs
IM 1hrs

Of course you’ll note that I have both HIM and Oly distances the same duration for the decoupling test. Since the swim distances of these two events are only a few hundred meters apart, I didn’t see the point of getting anymore granular than that between the two distances.

So there you have it! I would suspect that for Tri Talk listeners in the Northern hemisphere, many of you are just about to start your higher-intensity Build periods since we are into the Spring season. This information is very timely, because doing this test will give you the confidence that your aerobic base is solid before moving onto the Build period.

Before we move on, I need to put on my commercial hat for a moment to ask: 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! Do you do kick drills regularly? Do you feel like they help you? Let’s talk about a 2007 study published in the International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching that looked to objectively answer that question.

Fifteen male competitive swimmers were randomly assigned to either a control group or an experimental group, 7 in the control group and 8 in the experimental group. Both groups swam 3 times per week for 6 weeks. The experimental group spent 20% of their training distance performing kick drills, while the other group just did kick drills for 4% of weekly training distance, or only 1/5 the amount of kick drills as the experimental group. Before and after the training program, all swimmers performed a 200 m leg-kicking and a 400m freestyle time trial. After the 6 weeks of training, there were improvements in leg-kicking time in the 200m kicking-only time trial by about 6 seconds for the experimental group, or the group that spend 20% of their time with kicking drills. The control group did not see any improvement in their kicking times. But what was interesting was that neither group changed their 400m time trial over those 6 weeks. All the extra kicking, or the lack of kicking, had no effect on their swim times. The researchers concluded that, “These results suggest that normal leg-kicking swimming does not improve middle-distance, full-stroke, swimming performance.”

Based on this study, performing kick drills in your workouts appears to improve your ability to…perform more kick drills.

Seriously, I’m not very objective when it comes to this subject. This may be a case of me searching for the answer I wanted to hear, because I have always felt that kick drills were a waste of time. One could argue that this study really does not apply to triathletes, since our swim distances at any triathlon event would almost always exceed 400 meters. However, the amount of kicking that you do only decreases as the distance increases, so I don’t think this is an applicable argument.

On the flip side, it did not appear that the kick drills harmed performance in any way. If you continued to do kick drills, it looks like it would not hurt your swim performance. However, if you could be spending your time on other swim weaknesses, the risk of kick drills is that even if they do no harm, it takes away from other skills you could be doing that do have an established benefit.

Also from 2007 from the Journal of Applied Physiology, researchers from the University of South Carolina wanted to find out if swim performance was influenced by circadian rhythms, or in other words, if you swim better during different times of the day. To do this, they convinced 25 athletes to spend 50-55 hours in a lab environment.

The researchers were concerned that if they simply allowed the swimmers to sleep on their own schedule, that the variance would be too great between all the swimmers. What time a subject goes to bed, what time they get up, would be significantly different between all 25 participants. So, they kept them in the lab, and moved them all to a 3 hour sleep cycle. 1 hour of sleep and 2 hours awake for 50-55 hours. This way they could control the circadian rhythms of all 25 swimmers. Each swimmer did 6 200-meter time trials separated by 9 hours within that 50-55 hours at different times during the new “day” that had been introduced on them.

The researchers also knew that despite the temporary 3 hour sleep cycle, the subjects bodies were still primarily functioning on a 24-hour cycle. They way they decided to determine where they were in their true 24-hour sleep cycle was to measure the swimmers body temperature before each swim. Body temperature is one way to measure where an individual is in their normal circadian rhythm. Body temperature begins to drop as a person gets closer to their normal sleep time, and rises as they approach their normal wake time

So the 3-hour sleep cycle was only introduced to level the playing field in terms of the amount and timing of sleep between all 25 swimmers, but the ultimate goal was to determine how the swimmers performed in relation to their regular circadian rhythm, and they used body temperature to determine that.

What the researchers found was that the best swim performances took place 5-7 hours before the body reached it’s minimum temperature, and was the worst within the 1 hour before and after minimum body temperature.

Since the average adult reaches their minimum body temperature between 4-5am, this would indicate that the worst swim times for the average adult who sleeps from 10pm-6am, would be either from 3-4am, the hour before minimum body temperature, or 5-6am the hour after. The best times appear to be 9-11pm. The different in swim performance between these two times was 3 seconds per 100 meters, which is a significant amount of time.

I know that this information is interesting, but I’m concerned that it is not very helpful. It is unlikely that you can regularly swim that late in the evening, and the fact is that virtually all triathlons start early in the morning.

What this does assist with is perhaps deciding between morning or evening masters classes, if you have the choice, or even deciding between morning or evening swim sessions. Even then, since your swim racing will take place in the morning, training with evening swimming may not do you much good at all.

I think the real benefit from knowing this potential link between swim performance and time of day is that it is another one of numerous environmental factors you can be familiar with to truly interpret your training and help you understand why you might have completely different results from one training session to the next. Plus, now you know that you can also probably perform your kick drills even better at night, and as a result you’ll get even better at…performing more kick drills! See there I go again. Let’s queue the music.

If you listen to podcasts, and something tells me that you do, may I recommend the newly published TrainingBible podcast and get information from the real experts in triathlon. Interviews, Q&A sessions, content from Joe Friel’s blog conveniently for you packed into an audio format. You can access the podcast from iTunes or directly from the trainingbible.com website.

I want to congratulate Cameron Lasky of Highland, Utah and Jason Crompton of Evanston, Wyoming for their first and second place finishes at the recent 350-participant USAT sanctioned Icebreaker Sprint Triathlon. After guaranteeing an overall 1st place at the event to all my family and friends who came to support me, I was humbled by these two athletes, and I came in a distance third. Ouch.

A final warning to you, the Tri Talk listener! Shaving your legs can be fatal. After nicking myself with a razor while shaving prior to the aforementioned event, I developed a staff infection that spread almost to my groin before successful treatment stopped the spread. Yes, I almost died from shaving my legs. I’ll be back next month with some outstanding wind tunnel data from Colorado Premier Training. Don’t miss episode 62. See you next time!

The gluteus medius strengthening exercises can be found here.
Rethinking lactic acid and the cause of muscle soreness, the most under-rated muscle in endurance runners, and an on-site report from a first duathlon. From lactate threshold to calcium threshold, today on Tri Talk.

Welcome to Tri Talk your podcast source for triathlon tips, training, news and more. I want to say hello to listeners from Reno, Nevada and Newfoundland and Labrador. Reno is home to one of my favorite Tri Talk forums users, Nate, and congratulations to Newfoundland and Labrador for a successful inaugural 70.3 Ironman series event. I hope it is the first of many more. 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 60.

That was the finale to the William Tell Overture by Gioachino Antonio Rossini, played today in honor of his recent 216th birthday. Rossini was born in leap year on February 29, 1792.

Today on Tri Talk it is a physiological cornucopia. We’ll discuss just how important the gluteus medius really is to an endurance runner, why you should care and how you can strengthen this muscle group. Also lactic acid. The very name sounds ominous and evil to an athelte, like something a super-villain would use on the innocent citizens of Gothem city. Oh no, Batman! He’s using lactic acid! But, is it really so bad after all? Let’s talk about current research on this subject. Finally, after 5 years of triathlon racing I finally decided to try a duathlon, and I mic’d myself up for the event so that you could get a play-by-play of how it went down, plus how you can use my experience to help in your next duathlon.

This episode is sponsored by the Battle at Midway triathlon. The Battle at Midway triathlon is nestled in the beautiful mountains of central Utah, at the same venue used for the 2002 winter Olympics. One of the largest purses in Olympic-distance racing with $22,000 up for grabs. Not a pro? Come compete for your share of the $2,000 elite prize purse. Awards for age groupers, and the event includes a relay and team division. An open-air stadium finish to a roaring crowd puts the finishing touch on a race that will make you feel like a pro. Add it to your list of “A” races for next year. For more information, or to register, go to www.bamtriathlon.com. It’s an event worth traveling to this June 14th.

And let me give you 1 more reason to travel to Midway, Utah this year. Not only will I be there, but I’ll be doing the play-by-play over the stadium PA system. If you ever wanted to feel like a pro and have your moment in front of a roaring crowd this is your event. Come see why triple triathlon world champion Emma Snowsill traveled to Midway herself last year to participate in the event. That’s www.bamtriathlon.com.

Thanks to all the athletes who took advantage of the one month of free coaching from TrainingBible Coaching. We filled the 50 athlete slots in a matter of days, and even went over that 50 athlete limit to accommodate the demand. If you missed your chance, the offer was so successful we might do it again in the future, so stay tuned. Also, the new podcast for TrainingBible Coaching is up on iTunes. If you just can’t get enough of endurance podcasts, you’ll want to add this one to your list. Just two episodes available as of this podcast release, but subscribe now to get automatic downloads of new episodes coming each month. Just search iTunes for TrainingBible, one word. Or visit trainingbiblecoaching.com

Let’s get onto the good stuff!

Before we begin this section on the gluteus medius, let’s go back to an audio clip from Tri Talk episode 36. In this clip, I am having a mobility and strength assessment by Marc Evans, the former head coach of USA Triathlon, where I learn an unpleasant truth about my gluteus medius.

(audio clip)

That was back in March of 2007. After receiving that assessment, I completely changed my attitude toward flexibility, and made it a priority in my training routine, and can honestly saw I have seen good results. However, for some reason, I did not adopt the recommendation from Marc to strengthen my gluteus medius, and it has not been in my strength or flexibility regimen since.

A recent IT band injury I sustained started me on the track to research causes and treatment for IT band syndrome. The IT band is a thick ligament that runs from the hip to the knee, which when tight can begin to pull on or inflame the knee where the tendon connects. What I discovered was a consistent link between the gluteus medius and IT band problems, which was finally confirmed by a study done at Stanford University, which I’ll share with you in a moment.

Sometimes it is hard for a triathlete to accept that one muscle group more than 2 feet away from another muscle or tendon could have such an impact. This research for me has been a reminder that almost all our muscle groups and tendons are connected and dependant on each other, and that the pain an IT sufferer feels in the knee when they run does not necessarily start in the knee, or even at the hip at the top of the IT band tendon, but rather even further back in the gluteus medius. But, there are even more reasons to focus on the gluteus medius than just IT avoidance.

Let me give more specifics on the gluteus medius. The gluteus medius runs from your greater trochanter, or your big hip joint ball and socket, to the back of your butt cheek. It typically is just a mover muscle. However, during running the normal role of gluteus medius as a mover muscle is reversed, causing it to act as a pelvic stabilizer. So, for instance, during right stance phase, the muscle contracts to slow the downward motion of the pelvis so that the pelvis doesn’t tilt more than seven to eight degrees from parallel to the ground.

The consequences of that pelvic tilt can be significant. That pelvic tilt can cause a chain reaction that reaches all the way down to the feet. That pelvic tilt can cause your body to “cheat” in ways to compensate for that tilt. For example, your knee may have to rotate inward or outward to balance and compensate for a dipping pelvis. Anytime that knee goes outside its normal plane of movement, all kinds of things can happen. That inward knee tilt toward the other leg causes the IT band to stretch and can inflame the knee. That inward knee bend can put more pressure on the gastroc and soleus muscles of the lower leg. Other reported issues from a weak gluteus medius are the femur rotating excessively, the tibia to rotate internally relative to the foot, and an increase in weight transfer to the medial aspect of the foot, introducing several more potential foot problems.

In fact, one of the articles I used to gather this information was written by physical therapist Sean Fyfe who states that “The gluteus medius should be considered in every running injury. So many athletes with running overuse injuries of the lower limb present with poor gluteus medius function that I have come to the view that the strength and function of this muscle is probably the most important active component in the achievement of a biomechanically efficient running technique.”

That is a pretty strong statement on the importance of the gluteus medius, and frankly Marc Evans gave me a similar lecture on the muscle back in 2007.

To support this, Stanford University did a study on a group of 54 distance runners, of which 24 were suffering from IT band syndrome. The researchers measured the strength of that gluteus medius muscle in all 54 runners, using a formula that factored in their body weights and height. In the males, they found that they were able to resist only 6.86% of their body height/weight ratio (BWh) on their injured side, versus 8.62%BWh for their noninjured limb, while males without the problem could resist 9.73%BWh. That means that the non-injured males had 30% more strength in their gluteus medius than the injured side of the other males. Remember, we aren’t even talking about an injury to the gluteus medius, we are talking about IT band injury and the gluteus medius strength on that injured side. Even the non-injured side of the injured runners had a gluteus medius 11% weaker than the non-injured runners. These injured runners just had weak gluteus medius on both sides, but particularly on the injured side.

To put that into perspective, that is the difference of being able to dead squat 300 pounds vs. 210 pounds. Can you imagine the difference in your cycling strength if you could squat 30% more? That is similar to what was happening with those injured runners.
Now, the researchers did not just stop there. The injured runners were then enrolled in a 6-week program to strengthening the gluteus medius. After those 6 weeks, the injured male runners had 51.4% increase in their gluteus medius strength and 22 of 24 athletes were pain free with all exercises and able to return to running, and at 6-months follow-up there were no reports of recurrence among any of the 24 runners.

Let me quickly go over a second study I found linking gluteus medius muscle to performance. 36 endurance athletes had a biopsy taken of the gluteus medius muscle. 20 of those athletes were considered excellent performers, and 16 were considered average performers. The researchers found that by looking at the enzymes and muscle fibers of those gluteus medius muscles, they could determine the aerobic capacity of those muscles. They found that the aerobic capacity of gluteus medius muscle in the excellent endurance athletes was significantly higher than in the moderate performers. This study is great, but there is just one catch. It was published by the British Veterinary Association, and the endurance athletes in this case were horses. I know I’m stretching this a bit, but it’s all I could find. If you bet on race horses, can I suggest that you quickly go and feel the firmness of the horse’s gluteus medius before placing your bet.

Don’t make the same mistake I did! If you are like me you are probably already disregarding this advice on the gluteus medius, because you probably don’t have an issue with your run form or an injury currently. My appeal to you is to consider adding a few more minutes to your strength training session and add a few gluteus medius exercises as a proactive way to avoid injury and to possibly improve your running form at the same time. Triathletes tend to do all of their movement in straight lines, with very little lateral motion, and as a result the gluteus medius becomes very weak, and can become even weaker over time until before you know it, you have an injury out of no where, like me. I’ve been running for 17 years, have never had IT band when running, and it came out of no where, and has kept me from running more than 40 minutes at a time for 4 weeks now. I was warned a year ago about my weak butt and did not incorporate the exercises, and I can’t help but feel I am paying the price now.

My hope is that your focus on the gluteus medius will help you bike and run faster in the sense that it will both reduce the chance of injury, allowing your to train longer and harder, as well as possible improving your running economy.

The best site I found that give good descriptions of gluteus medius exercises was at http://www.bodyresults.com/E2gluteusMedius.asp If I said that too fast, don’t worry, you can get that URL at www.tri-talk.com in the Tri Talk Blog which includes the episode transcripts. These are very simple exercises that can be done without weights that take just a few extra minutes.

Now, while you are at Tri-Talk.com looking up that URL for the gluteus medius stretches, make sure you stop and register for the wildly popular Tri Talk Forums and complete your Tri Talk collection with the Tri Talk Archived Collection CD, or even access the unpublished episodes one by one if CDs are too 20th century for you.

Moving on! What images are conjured up in your mind when you hear “lactic acid”? It has a fairly negative connotation. Most of us, including me, have been taught that a buildup of lactic acid is a bad thing, and that it is the primary cause of having to slow down at high intensities. That lactic acid builds up, the body can’t clear it, and is makes our muscles fatigued. It is even blamed for the soreness of muscles after exercise.

The currently thinking on lactic acid began almost 100 years ago by a Nobel scientist, Otto Meyerhof. Meyerhof cut a frog in half and put its bottom half in a jar. He then gave the frog’s leg electric shocks to make the muscles contract, but after a few twitches, the muscles stopped moving. Later, when he examined the muscles, he discovered that they were bathed in lactic acid, and the current theory on lactic acid was born. The frog’s legs became so saturated in lactic acid, that the muscles stopped moving.

To further understand this, let’s take a quick review of the two primary energy systems: aerobic and anaerobic. Both systems burn carbohydrate in the form of glucose (blood sugar) and glycogen (muscle sugar). The main difference between the two systems is the presence of oxygen–and the end product. Moderate exercise is mostly aerobic, with oxygen; it’s clean burning, so there is no end product. When exercise becomes more intense and the aerobic system can’t provide enough oxygen, the anaerobic system kicks in to provide energy, without oxygen. The end product of anaerobic exercise is lactic acid.

However, over the last year, while the cause of lactic acid has not come into the question, the body’s use of lactic acid, the advantages of lactic acid, and the link between lactic acid and muscle fatigue and soreness have been significantly challenged.

You may remember this story from May of last year, when George A. Brooks, a professor in the department of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley gave an interview with the New York Times. Over more than 30 years, he has been promoting the theory that lactic acid is actually a fuel source for muscles, not just toxic waste from intense exercise. The current understanding by many physiologists, as first proposed by Dr. Brooks, is that muscle cells convert glucose or glycogen to lactic acid, and that the lactic acid is taken up and used as a fuel by mitochondria, the energy factories in muscle cells.

Dr. Brooks even found that mitochondria even have a special transporter protein to move the lactic acid into them. In other words, the muscles want to take in that lactic acid as a fuel source, and have evolved with special receptors to do so. Intense training makes a difference because it can make double the mitochondrial mass, therefore increasing the amount of lactic acid that can be absorbed.

So let’s compare the classic lactate theory to the current theory. The classic theory states that as carbohydrate is broken down for fuel, the byproduct is lactic acid. Lactic acid is believed to be a major contributor to muscle fatigue. This lactic acid is cleared from your blood until you reach a certain intensity, usually around Zone 5, and that lactic acid then interferes with muscles and causes muscle fatigue, and you then must slow down. You become faster as lactate is reduced in your body at high intensities by one of 3 reasons:

One, your body through training becomes more efficient at burning fat for fuel instead of carbohydrate, therefore less lactic acid is present.

Two, your body becomes more efficient at clearing the lactate away, therefore less lactic acid in the system.

And three, more slowtwitch muscle fibers. Slowtwitch muscle fibers produce less lactic acid than fastwitch muscle fibers.

All three of those factors, which are a result of endurance training, are reasons under the classic system how we think lactate behaves and is removed from the system.

Let’s fast forward. The current new theory is that while lactic acid is still a byproduct of carbohydrate, it is cleared away not in the blood, but absorbed by the mitochondria in the muscles. This still explains why elite athletes are able to have very little lactate in their blood at high intensities. It’s not being cleared away in the blood, it’s been sucked up by the muscles.

This theory has been accepted by many physiologists, and is growing rapidly. One of the problems in accepting this theory is that it left a gaping hole. If lactic acid is not the cause of muscle fatigue, what is? Before we can accept this new lactic acid and muscle fatigue theory, we should have something to replace it.

Well, also recently reported in the New York Times, is a new theory to explain muscle fatigue. Dr. Andrew Marks, principal investigator of the new study from Columbia University, suggests that muscle fatigue comes from calcium leaking from the muscles. That calcium is a critical mineral required for muscle contraction. Less calcium means less muscle contraction, and more muscle fatigue.

To help confirm this, the researches gave an experimental drug to mice that inhibited the leaking of calcium from the muscles. The mice were able to run 10 to 20 percent longer when using this drug.

Let’s extrapolate that to potential implications to humans. Let’s say that you are a pretty good runner, and you are able to run a 30-minute time trial at 6-minute miles, and that is your exhaustion point. That means you are running 5 miles in that 30 minutes. If you could run 20% longer at the same speed, that would allow you to run 6 minutes longer at that pace before exhaustion, letting you run almost a full 10K at a 6-minute pace. This gives you an idea of the significance of the ability to increase your exhaustion point by 10-20%.

This drug is still too risky for trial on humans, and even if it were approved by the US Federal Drug Administration, it would certainly immediately be made a banned substance by any given athletic body. The purpose in telling you about all this is not to say “hey, there is a potentially cool new drug that you can use” but rather to share with you the evidence behind the new theory that calcium loss is behind muscle fatigue as opposed to lactic acid.

To further support this calcium theory, the researchers then worked with other scientists at Appalachian State University. They had several cyclists ride hard for 3 days in a row. For a control group, they had another group of trained cyclists sit in the same room for those 3 days.

Muscle samples were then sent them back to Columbia, without telling the Columbia scientists which samples were from the cyclists who rode hard, and which ones were form the ones who sat. The findings showed that calcium had in fact leaked in the muscle samples from the cyclists who rode hard.

That might help to settle one piece of the latic-acid puzzle, but what about muscle soreness? If lactic acid does not cause it, what does?
There are two types of muscle soreness. The type that occurs during and immediately after intense exercise. This type usually is gone a few minutes to a few hours after exercise. This is called acute muscle soreness.

But the type of soreness that is linked to lactic acid is the kind that lingers for up to several days, and usually takes a day or two before it peaks. Because the soreness occurs about a day or two after the exercise, it is referred to as Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness, or DOMS. Yes, it even has its own acronym. It is believed to be caused primarily due to the introduction of new eccentric muscle contractions, where the muscle lengthens, as opposed to concentric muscle action, where the muscle shortens. Anytime you engage in a workout or exercise where you introduce lots of new eccentric muscle contractions, such as running downhill, riding uphill, strength training, running on uneven surfaces, or even introducing high intensities where stride length might increase slightly, all are examples of increasing your chances of suffering from DOMS.

One study that helped to confirm that lactic acid had no relationship to muscle soreness was done with a group of runners. They ran for 45 minutes on two separate days, one day on a level surface and another day on a 10% downhill grade. That downhill running introduced more eccentric muscle action to the runners. Blood lactate levels were taken during and after both running tests. The amount of lactate was higher in the runners during the level run than during the downhill run, and yet the runners reported DOMS after the downhill run. Again, more lactate in the system during the level run, but no muscle soreness was reported compared to less lactate in the downhill run and lots of soreness reported.

One of the most fascinating things in studying for this episode is that I came across a 1984 theory on DOMS which stated that is was a result of eccentric muscle contractions, which was universally accepted, but that this researcher also suggested that it was a result of a loss of calcium from the muscles, which led to cell death over the course of 48 hours. Fast forward to 2007, where new research shows that calcium begins to leak like crazy at high intensities, and over 20 years earlier it was suggested that leaking calcium was the cause of muscle soreness as well.

In conclusion, there is lots of evidence that it is not lactate in our blood that is our nemesis, but rather calcium in our blood leaking from the muscles. I am speculating that within the next 5 years that we won’t be performing lactate threshold blood tests, but rather calcium threshold blood tests to find the point at which we begin to leak a significant level of calcium.

All right, this is all very interesting. I just spent the last 15 minutes telling about current lactate and calcium physiology theory. But how the heck are you going to apply that to swim bike and run faster, as is the commitment from each Tri Talk episode? I don’t exactly know. The research on calcium leakage is nice, but the research does not suggest ways to reduce that leakage other than experimental drugs. It is really unknown how the heck we can reduce that leakage, and it is debatable whether we even want to, as that leakage may be a protective mechanism to prevent several and long-term muscle damage.

Here is how I think we can apply it. First, for Sprint and Olympic distance training, the thought of spending even more time in Zone 5, or the point at which more and more lactate is accumulating in my blood, does not seem so bad anymore. Can we take the idea that lactate is our friend, not our enemy and apply it to training? As long as my muscles and soft tissue can handle the increased load, I think that this changes the thought of the amount of time we can spend in Zone 5 training for short events. Perhaps from the rule of 30% to as high as 50% of your total training time in Zone 4 and 5. This will increase the mitochondrial level in your muscles, and then you can begin to consume more and more lactate.

But, for marathon, half and full Ironman racing, I don’t think anything has changed with this new theory. The ability to burn fat as fuel becomes critical, not in terms of lactate production, but rather in terms of available energy. After 2.5 hours of exercise, we just can’t take in as many carbohydrates as we will burn, and we have to turn to fat as the almost unlimited fuel source. Also, I want to have lots and lots of slowtwitch muscle fibers as a distance triathlete in terms of reduced muscle fatigue, as those slow twitch fibers can go longer than the fasttwitch fibers. Training too much at high intensities puts long distance triathletes at risk losing these advantages.

Maybe this is stretching this a bit far, but I found myself training differently after I read this research. During my intense intervals, I no longer felt a feeling of dread that lactate was building up, hurting my muscles, a toxic substances running freely through my blood. Rather, I let myself imagine that I was opening up a new fuel source for intense racing, developing mitochondria to suck up even more lactate. Perhaps if anything this information can help us psychologically as we train.

Moving on. I hope you will indulge me for the next section of the podcast. This is only the second time on 60 episodes I have taken the liberty of forcing you to listen to one of my race reports. There are plenty of other websites, blogs, and podcasts that only focus on the athlete and their racing and training, and so you certainly don’t need one more. But, I hope you’ll find this duathlon report exciting, entertaining, and informative. In this report I’ll cover duathlon strategy, pre-race side stitches, and even manage to work in some Star Wars. Listen in.

This is the second time I have began an on-site report whining about my swim. The fact is, I am a decent swimmer, but if one were to look at the return on my swim investment, I’m sure they would conclude that for all the time I have put into it, I should be much better. There have been many mornings where the alarm went off at 5:00am, where I spent an extra 30 seconds in bed deciding whether or not swim training was worth it, and if I should just pick up duathlon instead. With my bike and run consistently at the top of my age group, duathlon is a tempting option. Yet every morning there is something that gets me to the pool. Something inside that wants to conquer the swim and make it one of my strengths. As a result, I have viewed duathlon as an unnecessary and tempting distraction. That is, until Eric Schwartz, the former national duathlon champion hosted Tri Talk and discussed how duathlon could make me a better triathlete. At that point, I decided to give it a try.

I’ll be participating in the Castle Rock Duathlon, my first duathlon, in the scenic backdrop of Southern Utah. A small event in only its second year, it will only draw about 70 participants, of which only 25 will be competing at the Olympic duathlon distance. A classic duathlon, the format will be a 5K run, with a shorter bike of only about 20 miles, followed by a final 5K run. I’m treating the event as a workout, with no taper and coming at the end of a 12-hour training week.

I’ll also be brining my 3 children with me, while my wife takes a well-earned break at the house all by herself for 36 hours. No problem. How hard could it be?

The morning of the race is cold but clear. My pre-race protocol includes 200mg of caffeine an hour before the event starts, and a 30-minute warmup with several brief bursts at race pace. I’m also in week 3 of an 8-week creatine phase. My strategy is to stay in high Zone 3 for the first 5K, building into Zone 4 for the second half of the bike, and finishing hard at the second 5K. My goal is to have my second 10K be within 1 minute of my first 10K, per Eric Schwartz suggestion. I am committed to not racing this event. I have another 12-hour workout week the next week I need to be recovered for.

After some brief instructions, the runners line up at the starting line, and we’re off.

(Blog note: This section contains several audio cliops that can only be accessed by listening to the poadcast)

The first thing I realize about a duathlon, which should have been obvious to me before, is that your placement in the race is very easy to determine without outside assistance. In a triathlon, when you come out of the water, you have no idea what place you are in until you start to see cyclists come back from the turnaround, and if it is a looped course, you have no idea at all. Within 1 minute of the duathlon, I can see that I am in 2nd place, with just one runner cruising ahead.

At 9 minutes into the run, we hit the turnaround, and I am passed by another runner. I congratulate us on our splits, but in turn he reminds me that the second half of the run is all uphill.

That runner takes off like a bolt up the hill, leaving me in the dust. I’m now in third place, watching the other two runners get further and further ahead, and it’s temping to drop the plan and play catch-up.

I come into transition feeling very strong with a sub 19:00 5K and take off on the bike. I parked my car directly next to the transition area so that I could check on my kids every time I came through transition. They said it was too cold to get out of the car, and since I only plan on racing for an hour and a half, they agreed just to stay in the car. I check out the car as I leave transition, and they are alive. Does this make me the ultimate white-trash triathlete? That I leave my kids in the car while I race? Did I remember to crack the windows?

My heart monitor is going crazy, saying I am way over my pre-programmed zones. But my perceived effort is very good, and I’m going to stick with that hoping my heart rate will settle down.

By now, you know two of my weaknesses. A weak gluteus medius and a weak swim. But there is a third weakness I have that is more damaging than any of my weaknesses, and that is pride.

Yes, I committed to myself to treat the race as a workout, yes I didn’t taper for it, but dang it, even then I came in expecting to win. With only 25 participants, there is no reason I shouldn’t win. I know, I know, you can never tell who will show up to a race, and there is always someone faster than you, but after 40 minutes of seeing the same two guys ahead of me on the bike, and getting further and further ahead, I’m ready to ditch the plan and start to race. All that talk about sticking to the plan is out the window. This goes against everything I know, and against everything I tell my athletes, but that damn pride just rears it’s ugly head, and before I know it, I’m racing.

The other problem with this deviation from the plan, in addition to jeopardizing my carefully constructed annual training plan over a 25-man event, is that I completely forget that I am also getting material for the podcast, and pretty much stop giving commentary for the rest of the race.

At 50 minutes into the event, I finally pass both riders, and at this point I feel I have it pretty much wrapped up. During a steep descent I go hard, and turn around to find that both are well in the distance, and I drop back the pace just a little bit confident that the win is wrapped up.

At this point I’m having just as much fun as I would at a triathlon. Those 5:00am swims are starting to look less and less appealing as the race continues and my duathlon hubris increases.

However, 5 minutes later, I turn around and it is clear that one of the two riders has broken free and has made significant ground on me. I decide that I need to put psychological clearance between the two of us, and pour on just a bit more to create some distance. One more glance and he is further back again, and I’m feeling confident again.

One of my favorite movies is Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, starring Robert Redford and Paul Newman. As part of the Wild Bunch gang of outlaws, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid had a hide out, the Robber’s Roost, ironically located in southern Utah not far from where I am racing.

In the movie, after several brazen robbery attempts, Butch and Sundance are finally chased by a relentless posse of lawmen, over rivers and sandstone, on foot on horses, nothing seems to be able to shed the marshals who seem to possess super-human tracking abilities. The frequent exchange between Butch and Sundance as they stare incredulously at the oncoming and never-ending pursuit is, “who are these guys?”

After looking over my shoulder again, I can’t help but feel some sympathy for Butch and Sundance, because despite my best efforts at shaking this cyclist, he is right there behind me as we make the final turnaround on a steep hill, and head in for the transition area and the final run. Who is this guy?

I hit the gas and pour it on going into the last section of the bike, flying into transition. I put on my race belt and I’m off, holding onto first place.

As I pass the car, there is no sign of my kids. They are not in the car, I don’t see them near the car, I have no idea where they are. I can either fulfill my parental duties, or I can win this stupid race. I think I remember hearing that Utah is has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation, and so I make the logical decision to keep racing and let the kids fend for themselves.

I look behind me and there is no sign of the mystery super-human cyclist behind me. Yet.
I hurting, but feeling pretty good. You might recall a Tri Talk episode where I talked about the performance advantages of entrainment, or having your breathing fall into some rhythm with your cadence. A few minutes into the second 5K run and you can hear a good example of this taking place.

But then, at just 8 minutes into the run, it happens. About every 4th or 5th race, I get side stitches. I can follow the exact same pre-race meal in terms of timing, calories, food content, warmup intensity, and out of the blue I’ll get these darn side stitches which slow me way down. One method that works fairly well is to breath out hard on the opposite foot strike from the side of the stitch, as you can hear here.

The side stitches subside a bit, and I turn around and don’t see anyone behind me, but the course is curvy here, and it is hard to tell how much of a lead I have. I take a chance and slow way down to see if I can get rid of them altogether. At the turnaround point, to my dismay, I find myself facing the same athlete who has managed to catch up again, he is right there, less tan 20 seconds behind me by my estimate. As we pass each other, we exchange the required pleasantries, and I try to look as strong as possible.

Inside, I’m dying, and he just keeps gaining. Who is this guy! The last 1.5 miles is all uphill, and on the same section of the course where the first two runners put serious distance between us. At this point, I am positive I am going to fade. Every glance behind me shows that the runner is getting closer, and every glance I make only confirms for him that I am worried. I go from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid to Star Wars, where Luke flying into the trench of the Death Star yells “I can’t shake him”. 200 meters before the finish, I can literally hear his footsteps behind me, I give it everything I have and manage to cross the line winning by 8 seconds.

Despite the side stitches and slowing down, I ran the second 5K in 19:30 which placed me right within Eric Schwartz’s guidelines. I mingle with the other athletes eating snacks, and track down the mystery super-human chase vehicle that stayed on my tail for the entire event.

About 20 minutes later I remember I have kids. I find them safe and playing near the race venue. My 5-year-old has found a wonderful place to play, and is not happy about leaving. Forgetting I am still recording, the moment is captured forever.

Late that night I as I crawl into bed, again I wonder if I should forget the swim altogether and just do duathlon. I’m a strong runner and a strong cyclist. I won’t ever be good enough to turn pro, but maybe it just isn’t worth my time to keep swimming and I can make some noise in the duathlon circuit, and get more sleep at the same time? I sit and think for a few more minutes, remembering how far I have come this year with my swim, then the roll over and set the alarm for 5:00am. This is David Warden, for Tri Talk.

I want to congratulate Brian Jeppson who did such a good job of pushing me on that race and making it exciting enough to make a good story. Had the run been 100 meters longer, he would have had me.

Before you go and report me to the Division of Child and Family Services, my two oldest are 13 and 11, and are more than enough of a match to watch the 5-year old. I don’t want you thinking I had 3 kids under the age of 5 wandering all over the place. Also, the IT band problem I told you about earlier occurred just days after that race, which I am confident was a result of not only a weak gluteus medius, but also due to my silly pride and pushing it too hard with no recovery the following week.

Also, I’ll be changing the Tri Talk episode schedule from twice a month to once a month. I’m very concerned about keeping the quality of the podcast high, and this is one way that I can do that. Now that I am doing the podcasts for both Triathlete magazine and TrainingBible Coaching, I need to slow it down a bit. Don’t worry, keep subscribed and you’ll get your automatic download each month. I’ll see you in April.

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 Triathlete Coefficient of Determination can be found here.

The Triathlete’s Coefficient of Determination, and is a high max heart rate good, or bad? It could be the best Tri Talk episode ever! Will it live up to the hype? Let’s find out, today on Tri Talk.

Welcome to Tri Talk your podcast source for triathlon tips, training, news and more. Notable new listeners come from Albania and New Zealand. In Albania, thanks for pointing out that Eric Schwartz, the former US National Duathlon Champion and occasional Tri Talk host, is not 38 years old as he claimed, but in fact 37. Why someone would lie about being older than they really are is beyond me. In New Zealand, I’m begging you, begging you! Please send me some warm weather. Just take a box, open it up to the sunshine for a few minutes, and mail it to 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 58.

There is quite a bit of pressure today for me to live up to the teaser best Tri Talk episode ever. But let me put it this way: I have never been more excited about presenting a topic on Tri Talk than I am today. I’ll be sharing some information that has been in the works for nearly a year, and tell you all about the Triathlete’s Coefficient of Determination. Plus, is a high heart rate good or bad? Or, is their such a thing as an optimal heart rate, and can you do anything about it. This is an interesting topic and we’ll spend a few minutes on that at the end of the show.

You can send in your questions and comments to david@tri-talk.com, or visit the website at www.tri-talk.com to take advantage of the episode transcripts, videos, forums, or free resources like the Tri Talk Top 20 and the advanced nutrition calculator. Or maybe just stop by the website to see what the heck I look like.

Episode 57 generated some good feedback on the Tri Talk forums. In that episode I suggested that since a study concluded that cyclists had larger hearts than runners, and since larger hearts also were highly correlated to a high VO2max, that perhaps cycling would help to increase your VO2max, via a larger heart size. The user Mad Dog on the Tri Talk Forums pointed out:

“I think there may be a problem with a conclusion you made in the latest episode. Cyclists have larger hearts than runners, larger hearts translates greater VO2 max. Okay so far. But that doesn’t mean that cycling made their hearts larger. Couldn’t it be that cyclists who have succeeded in their sport had larger hearts to begin with and that those who didn’t, didn’t go on to become well-trained cyclists.”

Mad Dog is, of course absolutely right. My suggestion that cycling created the large heart is incorrect logic, because the cyclist could have become a cyclist in the first place because they had a large hear to begin with.

The user Chris on the forums also wrote in on this same topic, reminding us that:

“Optimum cadence on the bike is 80 to 90 rpms, optimum stride rate (running) is about the same. …it’s easer to train for a fast leg turnover on the bike than it is performing speed work. If the cyclist trains and races in the 80 to 90 rpm range then, not just his legs, but his whole body is accustomed to this motion i.e. cardiovascular and respiratory… As a way of cross training, you place him on a bike and have him paddle at a high rpm using light gearing and he will be able to maintain that cadence for a much longer period of time… Speed work is very important for a runner but cycling is an effective cross training method for developing leg speed.”

Thanks for your thoughts, Chris. This is just a sampling of the content out on the Tri Talk forums. You can have your question answered by myself or one of our power forums users like RunDougRun, Nate, and Coach Cummings. Not only that, but since the Tri Talk forums only has a few hundred active users, that display name you always wanted is waiting there for you. You know the one you wanted, but was already taken on the other mega forums? Yes, you can be SpeedoMan, Elvis, or Albert Einstein, all these names are up for grabs on the Tri Talk Forums.

Let’s get onto the good stuff! This is a long episode today, and we have a lot to cover. Stay with me cause I’m going to go fast. Hang on tight!

I have to admit I am a bit concerned with presenting this topic. First, because I have hyped it as the best Tri Talk episode ever. You may finish listening to this topic and say, “What the heck? That was David’s version of the best Tri Talk episode ever?” Many of you might find it quite boring. Second, it may only be appealing to those of you who really like to analyze data, and who try to squeeze every last second out of their performance. If you really like numbers, this is the episode for you. If not, fast forward for about 25 minutes, or just read the second half of the show’s transcript on the blog. I can assure you again, however, that I have never been more excited to present a Tri Talk topic, and therefore to me, this is the best episode yet.

Several months ago I introduced a survey on the Tri Talk website. My goal was to try and gather some non-traditional data on athletes, and correlate them to race times. What I mean by “non-traditional” data is information that you typically don’t see on a race results listing. It is easy to get data on race times and correlate those to age and gender, because every race listing has that information as part of the race results. But what about other factors such as height, income, years of experience spending, or weight? How do these factors influence race results? Is height or weight a bigger influencer on performance? How much does your income really mean to your performance? Do you get faster at certain distances if you are a little bit older? These are questions that many of us think we know the answer to, but wouldn’t it be nice to see some data behind it? Although we can infer some correlation on weight by using the Clydesdale division, that is a binary input. You are either over 200 pounds or not. It would be even better to see the granularity of all athletes’ race-day weight to get a better correlation of the influence of weight on performance.

Many of you have already taken the survey, so to you please forgive me as I review what the survey asked for the other listeners. The survey asked for the athletes’ age and gender, but also annual income, triathlon spending, years of endurance training, years of triathlon training, and height. The athlete was then asked at which triathlon distances he or she had been the most successful. For those distances, the athlete was asked to put in the exact distance of all 3 legs of that race. As you know some Sprint-distance events are shorter or longer than others, as with all the other distances. The athlete had the chance to adjust the distances so that we could get an accurate benchmark of their Sprint, Olympic or IM event to compare to the other athletes at that distance. The athlete was also asked how fast they were that day, and their race-day weight. Based on this information, I had a database of hundreds of athletes, and their best race times at multiple distances. I could then correlate race-day performance with a host of data points.

Now, before we start to share the results, let me tell you all the flaws in this study. First of all, it is not really a true study. It is not peer-reviewed. The data inputs are voluntary. No one independently verified the athletes’ height, weight or race times. We depended on the athletes’ memory and honesty for all the inputs. What about weather and course topography? Not all Ironman courses are equally difficult, and the time of one course could be much longer than another. I had to use a proprietary formula to “normalize” any distance that was not a conventional distance. Although there is a good sample size of several hundred race times, the margin of error is arguably still too great to be valid. These are all confessed flaws in this study. By the way, all the statisticians listening to the show just fainted. They couldn’t take all the flaws in the data collection process.

So at best this is an interesting exercise that possibly creates more questions than answers. At worst it is a cheap ploy to generate more buzz around the show and gain more listeners. There may be some truth to that.

Therefore, we can’t say for example, athlete’s who had an income of x dollars were faster. We can say that athletes with a reported income of x were reported to be so fast. Or athletes who declared a height of x had a reported speed of y. In short, this is not really a study, it is exactly what it says it is. It is a survey. But a survey that has some fascinating results. To be fair, this is not really data on triathletes, it is really information about triathletes.

Before I share the results, I have to give you a brief overview of statistical correlation, because that is the way I sliced this information, and you will need to know about it to understand the data. Stay with me here, I’m going somewhere with this! It’s worth the wait! This part will take less than 3 minutes.

A correlation coefficient is used to describe the direction and the degree or strength of the linear association between data sets. A correlation coefficient can be positive or negative. For example, let’s say we take 365 days of average high temperature for a certain geography. Let’s say we also take the same 365 days and look at snow cone sales. As the temperature becomes warmer, the sale of snow cones increases. There is a positive correlation between warm weather and snow cone sales.

Items with a negative correlation can still be strongly correlated. Over that same 365 days, we could also find that as the temperature gets warmer, the sale of sweaters goes down. That is a negative correlation. Negative correlation does not mean no association, it just means that the linear relationship between the data sets is opposite, whereas with positive correlation the data sets increase together. There is also neutral correlation, where there is no association between data sets. For example, as the weather gets warmer, the sale of CDs from the singing group ABBA does not change. I do love ABBA. The correlation coefficient is always displayed as a number between –1.00 and +1.00, with numbers closer to the either end having a higher correlation.

From the correlation coefficient one can then calculate what is called the coefficient of determination, which is simply the square of the correlation coefficient. This number is displayed as a %, and is also referred to as the R-squared or the R2. And this is the value, the coefficient of determination, that I’ll be using to share with you how an athlete’s overall profile information affects their performance. What we will be doing is looking at what % of the variance in speed can be attributed to height, weight, age, income, experience or spending. Perhaps this will all make more sense if I just get started. Again, this represents the data from hundreds of athletes, which is an excellent sample size. Unfortunately, I had to make a judgment call, and decided that there were not enough samples of athletes at the Ironman distance for the sample size to be statistically significant. I feel really good about the Sprint, Olympic, and Half Ironman data, but there was just not enough Ironman entries for it to be included in this analysis. But stay tuned, I have a way to fix that later in the show.

I’m going to give these numbers to you in no particular order, but in an order that I found interesting. Let’s look at years of experience in triathlon, vs. years of experience in overall endurance sports. At the sprint distance level, the coefficient of determination, or the R-squared between sprint-distance performance and years of tri experience was 8.64%. Meaning 8.64% of the variation in speed at sprint distance could be attributed to how much experience you had in triathlon. While only 6.84% of the variation in sprint-distance performance could be attributed to your overall endurance experience. What this means is that if you are training for a sprint-distance race, you are more likely to perform better if you have triathlon-specific experience than if you have other endurance sport experience. No real surprise. The pattern is the same for Olympic-distance racing. While 10.96% of the variation in Olympic-distance performance could be attributed to your overall triathlon experience, only 5.53% was based on endurance experience. So the gap between triathlon vs. overall endurance experience at the Olympic-distance level is even greater. The take-home point is that if you are feeling like you are slow at these distances, just stick with it for a couple of years and you’ll get faster.

What about the half Ironman distance? While 2.24% of the of the variation in half Ironman distance performance could be attributed to your overall triathlon experience, 3.25% was attributed to your overall endurance experience. Meaning at that longer distance, the experience type is reversed. A longer base of endurance experience is more influential than specific triathlon experience at the half Ironman level.

So, given 2 similar Olympic-distance athletes, one with 3 years triathlon experience and 3 years endurance experience, would likely outperform the athlete with 5 years endurance experience and 2 years triathlon experience. But at the half Ironman distance, the roles reverse, although not separated by much.

Let’s move onto another comparison. The catalyst for this whole project was the ability for me to find out the correlation between height and race performance. Those of you who have been with me for a long time know that I have issues with our current competitive division system. Particularly that we have a division based on weight but not one based on height. This survey and analysis was to be foundation of this argument, and to prove that a weight-based system was unfair to athletes with other physical limiters.

It turns out I was wrong. But, the good news is I was only half wrong.

At the Sprint distance level, 6.76% of the variation in performance could be attributed to weight. Only 0.13% of the performance variation could be attributed to height, which really is 0. At the Olympic distance it becomes even greater, when the R-squared was a whopping 11.84% for height, and only 0.25% for height. Based on these surveys, at least for these several hundred athletes, at the Sprint and Olympic-distance level, height showed almost no correlation, and weight at the Olympic distance level was one of the highest correlations to race performance in the analysis. Again, these conclusions cannot be made universally, but it does mean that of these several hundred self-reported surveys, height played no factor in Sprint and Olympic distance racing, and weight had a small impact.

But, at the half Ironman distance, things change. At that longer distance, only 2.66% of the variation in performance could be attributed to weight, while 3.94% could be attributed to height. This is very consistent with my findings when looking at Ironman race results, where I did spent quite a bit of time analyzing races at that level, and found less than a 5% difference in the performance between Clydesdales and non-Clydesdales, in fact the Clydesdales as a whole were sometimes faster in the swim portion of the Ironman event than their non-Clydesdale competitors as a whole.

Based on these surveys and my own research, it seems that weight becomes less of a factor at the longer distances. I think that part of this can be attributed to the fact that the amount of Clydesdales competing at the IM and half IM distances is much lower than the amount of Clydesdales competing at Sprint or Olympic distances. But, it still does not change the fact that given this same number of half IM athletes, height was a bigger factor than weight at that distance. I hope to be able to get some more surveys back from athletes who have competed at the Ironman level, and we can add that fourth distance to the list to compare.

Let’s take a look at age real quick. It turns out it was actually one of the smallest factors. Only 0.15% at the half IM, 2.21 at the Olympic, and 1.55% at the sprint. However, the typical Tri Talk listener who submitted this survey tended to be a bit younger. Although I got a great cross section of surveys for the other factors, there was a much narrower range of ages, and that would have effected the results. It is interesting to note that although the age of a half IM had the lowest coefficient of determination, it had a negative correlation. Meaning, as the age went up, the race times went down, or the athlete was faster. Whereas with the Olympic and Sprint, as the age went up, the race times went up. Again, with a very small delta, the survey responses indicated that at the long distances, you might actually get faster as you get older, up to a certain point of course.

What I think is the most fascinating part of this survey is the financials. Two financial questions were asked: the athletes’ income and overall triathlon spending. Of all of the 7 factors I looked at: height, income, spending, tri experience, endurance experience, weight and age, the lowest correlation to performance was - income. That’s right, at all distances how much the athlete made had the least impact to performance. With results at 0.87%, 1.03%, and 0.68% for half IM, Olympic and Sprint distances, respectively.

But listen to this. The most influential factor to performance, practically across the board was how much the athlete spent, with results at 5.51% 16.32%, and 8.87% for half IM, Olympic and Sprint distances.

Now, before you freak out, don’t draw any conclusions on this yet. When I shared these results with my wife, she instinctively felt I should not share them. She was worried that it would discourage athletes who can’t afford to spend a lot on the sport, and thought I had a responsibility to research it more before I shared the information. She felt that it would taint the sport. I don’t agree. That same day, at dinner with my brother and sister-in-law, my sister-in-law pointed out something brilliant but obvious. The amount of money spent is likely a parallel to the athlete’s commitment. She didn’t see performance linked to money. She saw performance linked to commitment. Those that spend more, are likely to be more committed in terms of training hours, diet, coaching, research and planning. Especially when you couple that with the fact that having a high income had practically no effect on performance, it was how much you spent, or as my sister-on-law pointed out, how committed the athlete was.

The only conclusion that can be drawn here is this. I’m an idiot. I’m an idiot because when I first created the survey, I should have seen this issue. So, to take this further I have edited the survey to ask 3 more questions. 1) how many hours of training were you performing prior to the event 2) on a scale of 1-10, how committed would you rate yourself to performing well at this event and 3) what your placement was in your competitive division, for example 20th of 50 in your age group division. The first 2 additional questions were added to introduce both a numeric and subjective way to measure commitment, and the 3rd question was added to correct the problem that the race conditions and topography in each race will effect the race time, even for the same distance. By looking at both race times and what % the athlete finished in their age group, I can get a different relative picture of performance.

Now, this is the part where I need your help. People frequently ask me what they can do to help Tri Talk. What I am asking you to do for me in return for this free resource in is to go to the website, and take this survey. I don’t want hundreds of surveys to analyze, I want thousands of surveys to look at. We have the listener base to have up to 14,000 surveys returned. Would that be an incredible sample size or what? The survey system I use also gives me stats for how long the survey took each user. 80% of all of the surveys taken took under 10 minutes to complete. With these 3 additional questions, it will probably move that figure to 11 or 12 minutes. So go there right now to tri-talk.com and click on research.

To those of you who have already filled out the survey, thanks! You’re reward for your altruistic contribution and loyalty to the show has resulted in me asking for - more work! I made several changes to the survey, in addition to that 3 new questions, and I hate to ask, but if you have already done the survey, can you do it for me one last time? This is the ultimate version of the survey, and you won’t have to do it again.

By the way, I’ll have a table on the Tri Talk blog at this point in the transcript that shows the results in a format that is more easily assimilated than via audio, and you can browse the survey results at your leisure.

I have some good news and bad news for you. The bad news is that PowerTri.com sold out of the Tri Talk Episode Archive CDs. The good news is: I made more! If you are new to Tri Talk, or want to have your very own copy of every Tri Talk episode that is not currently published, this is the CD for you. This collection of 25 episodes of Tri Talk is sold exclusively through PowerTri.com. Or, you can even buy archived Tri Talk episodes for just .99 each! Never duplicated, always relevant information. And while you are at PowerTri.com, check out their collection of wetsuits, triathlon apparel, compression clothing, helmets, bikes, wheels, books, anything you need to outfit yourself for training and racing. Would it be irresponsible of me to suggest that this ad was placed just after the data on spending more to go faster? Absolutely not!

Moving on.

This next topic was inspired by 2 of the athletes I coach. Both of them had recently done a lactate threshold HR test protocol to determine their new lactate threshold HR (LTHR). It’s a good idea to test this every 4-8 weeks as it will often change for each sport as your fitness levels increase, and if you use your HR for training or racing, this is critical information.

Both of these athletes express a concern that their LTHR had not changed, and were disappointed with the results. They were worried that they were not increasing their fitness because their HR had not changed. I quickly pointed out that in both cases, the speed at which they had completed the 30-minute protocol had significantly improved, and that was the ultimate indication of fitness improvement. Ultimately, we don’t train just to improve out LTHR, or VO2max, or respiratory exchange rate. We train to get faster, no matter what those indicators of fitness say.

Still, the question is a good one. Why did the performance significantly change, but the HR data did not? The first answer would be environmental conditions, which often have a significant effect on HR, even when working at the same speed or power. I’ve written and podcast extensively on that subject, so we won’t review it again here. The second reason would be fatigue or the amount of recovery before the test. Performing the same test in the same environmental conditions, but on fresh legs would significantly change the HR compared to fatigued legs. Assuming that in this case, the environmental conditions and recovery were the same for both tests, why then would the HR have not changed if the performance did?

Although there could be multiple reasons, including improved economy which was not mentioned, here is what I think happened in this case. There is often confusion in the endurance world that a sign of fitness is a high max heart rate. That is incorrect. It is a sign of fitness to be able to maintain a high % of your max heart rate. Someone with a max heat rate of 200, and who can only hold 87% of that, or 176 beats, for 30 minutes is generally less fit than someone who has a max HR of only 174, but who can maintain 90%, or 157 beats, for that same 30 minutes. Yes, the ability to hold a high heart rate is good, but it is all relative to the percentage of the individual’s max heart rate.

This is supported by the fact that as an athlete begins to train more, his max heart rate begins to come down, not up. According to Wilmore and Costil’s Physiology of Sport and Exercise, a sedentary male with a max HR of 185 will drop his max HR by 2 beats after only minimal training. And, in the same chart in that book, it lists a typical world-class will have a max HR of 174.

This does not necessarily mean that if you have a naturally high HR you are out of luck. With the genetic lot you have been given, you goal should be able to increase the % of that max heart rate that you can maintain, regardless of what your max HR is.

In the case of my athletes, even if their LTHR did not change, if their max HR went down by 2 beats in between the 4-8 weeks, and their LTHR did not change, they were able to increase the % of their max HR that they could maintain, since that max HR theoretically went down.

Now, I bet you might be saying, “This doesn’t make any sense. If my heart beats faster, doesn’t that mean I’m pumping more blood and delivering more oxygen, therefore a higher HR should be good.”

Actually, no. What matters to the heart during exercise is not total beats, but volume of blood passed per beat. If your HR is too high, not as much volume per beat is passed to the muscles.

To demonstrate this, think of your heart pumping blood the same way that your lungs process air. If I were to ask you to inhale and exhale the most amount of air possible in 15 seconds, how would you do it? Would you take 45 breaths as fast as possible, or 10 very deep breaths? You would find that your total volume of air would be highest at the slower, deeper rate. Or, consider when you run, you don’t fall into an extremely high respiratory rate. You take long, steady deep breaths. Your heart works the same way, which is why elite athletes actually exhibit a lower max HR, because it is a more efficient way for the heart to deliver the maximum amount of blood at the lowest cost.

The pitfall I see athletes fall in to is basing their race pace on a HR from the same event the last year, or even from earlier in the same year. For example, if you ran a marathon and averaged 164 beats for the event, you might come into the same event the next year thinking that you should be able to do that again. But if you have been training well, and your max HR is down by several beats this second year, you could be redlining by trying to maintain a much higher % of your max HR than you are ready for.

Don’t get me wrong. The increase of average HR in a LTHR test is always a good sign. Whether your max HR has stayed the same or not, an increase in the average HR over a fixed time means you are now able to maintain a higher % of your max HR. that is great! But, if you find that your HR is staying flat after significant training, that does not mean that you are not making progress. If your times are improving, it is likely that your max HR is coming down, and that is also good.

The take-home point is this. Test yourself often under as similar conditions as possible. Don’t worry about what the actual number is, but use that number in your workouts until you test yourself again. The ultimate feedback from a test like the LTHR test is improvement of the speed or power produced, not the HR number itself. Often perceived effort has to trump the HR monitor when things just don’t add up.

By the way, this discussion is totally different for resting heart rate, and we’ll talk about that another time.

That’s all for this episode, I’ll be back the middle of next month for the next episode. There is one person who deserves a shout-out on the show who has never gotten one. To my wife, Rebecca, thank you for all of your support in my crazy training and business endeavors. I love you, Bec! See you next time.

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!

How scheduling a duathlon in 2008 will make you a better triathlete, assessing 2007 and setting goals for 2008, and qualities of great athletes. All that, today on Tri Talk.

Welcome to Tri Talk, your podcast source for triathlon tips, training, news and more. I want to wish you a happy new year, and may your 2008 race season be your best ever. A special welcome to new listeners in Texas and Egypt. To listeners in Texas, we couldn’t help but point out the upcoming “Frost yer Fanny” duathlon and hope you do well in that event. And, we just had to say hello to the 1 consistent and loyal listener that keeps popping up on the download stats from Cairo, Egypt. . 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. Filling in for David Warden, I’m your host, Eric Schwartz, and this is Tri Talk Episode 56.

My name is Eric Schwartz, and I’m hosting Tri Talk for the second time while David takes a break for the holidays. Today on Tri Talk we’re going to perform a little twist on how to swim, bike, and run faster, and find out how to run, bike, and run faster. Not that swimming isn’t important! But, for those of you who are looking to add some motivation into your cycling and running, I’ll be giving a primer on racing duathlons. Then I’ll tell you how 60 minutes of brain power will make you faster in 2008 as you assess your 2007 season and set goals for 2008. Finally, I’ll discuss qualities of great athletes. Implementing these behaviors will make you faster.

If you missed episode 55, you have no idea who I am. I’m Eric Schwartz. I live in Boulder, Colorado and I raced tris and dus for 15 years. I came from a running background and picked up triathlons and duathlons while I was in college at Indiana University. After two second place finishes at the Duathlon Nationals Championships, I finally won the event in 2004. That same year I finished 8^th at Ironman Wisconsin. Running was my strength and in 3 of my 4 Ironman marathons I ran under 3 hours. I also was a Category 2 cyclist. I’ve been coaching for 8 years as a member of Joe Friel’s Ultrafit and now as a member of TrainingBible Coaching. I also run the website Duathlon.com, which covers daily triathlon and duathlon news and race results. If you have questions for me you can reach me via email at Eric.Boulder@gmail.com or for coaching services you can check out my coaching website at Enduranceone.com.

You can also send in your questions or comments to david@tri-talk.com, Or, for even faster results, and leveraging the vast knowledge of Tri Talk listeners, consider posting your question on the Tri Talk forums. While you are on the forums, unless you have listened to all available episodes of Tri Talk, all the way back to episode 18, the other Tri Talk listeners will all be faster than you. With so many new listeners in the last few months, make sure you get caught up by getting all the available classic episodes from tri-talk.com

Let’s get onto the good stuff!

As someone who raced a lot of duathlons, I’m going to give a short primer on duathlons and how to train for them, which should also help your triathlon racing. Even if you never do a duathlon you’ll like some of these workouts. I would guess that roughly 50% of multisport athletes have done at least one duathlon. Most are of a run/bike/run format. 5k/30k/5k, or similar, is the most common distance. Most people are looking at a 1.5 to 2.5 hour race. The Powerman duathlons, held across the world, are something close to 10k/60k/10k. Powerman Zofingen, in Switzerland, is the most famous duathlon of all. It is a 10k run, 150k bike, and 30k run - 6 miles, 93 mile bike, and 18 mile run. For those of you that like the Ironman distance events you should strongly consider this event. Everyone I know who has done this event has absolutely loved it. It’s hard - probably harder than an Ironman - and the community puts on a great race and it’s a great racing atmosphere. It is one of the premier multisport events in the world. You can find out more about it at www.Powerman.org.

If you have an aversion to racing duathlons I’m going to give you a good reason to do one - the World Championships. It’s easier to qualify for the World Championships as a duathlete. There are 18 spots per age group, and if you qualify and get the chance to go to the World Championships you should jump on the opportunity. Both the Triathlon and Duathlon World Championships are great events, especially when they are held outside of the United States. Nothing against my home country, but as anyone who has raced in Europe knows, races get more community involvement and it’s a racing atmosphere you won’t forget. Other than Ironman Hawaii, my most memorable racing experiences have been outside the United States. In 1997 I did the Duathlon World Championships in Gernica, Spain, and I’ll never forget it. It was a small town outside of Bilboa. Phil Ligget did the race announcing, and it seemed as if everyone in town came out to watch. They thought we were all heroes, and anytime we walked through the town square we got mobbed. They asked for our autographs and wanted to take pictures of us with their kids. They were great people and it was a lot of fun. Just about any race I’ve done in Europe has been great. The 2008 Duathlon World Championships are in Rimini, Italy in September. US athletes can find the complete list of qualifiers at www.usatriathlon.org. For US athletes there are five qualifiers in 2008. The first takes place February 24 in Phoenix, and other races take place in Tulsa, Minnesota, Sarasota, and Orange County, California. If you’d like to race in Italy next September, this is your chance. It’s not as hard to qualify as most people think.

How best to prepare for duathlons? If you’re training for sprint or Olympic distance triathlons then there isn’t much that you need to change as you’ll already be working on your speed. I would suggest adding a few run/bike/run workouts. Most people think duathlons are harder because the first run is tougher to recover from than a swim would be, even if intensity feels the same. Because of this the second run will feel harder. Run/bike/run workouts will help with your second run speed. The workouts can be short or long. I find that most triathletes really like the shorter version of these workouts and I’ll even include them during winter training when weather is bad to help mix things up. Here are two examples:

This one is more of a base period workout:

25 minute run ending with 15 minutes in zone 3 - I’m using Joe Friel heart rate zones as described in the Triathlete’s Training bible

45 minute bike. Start and end with 15 minutes in zone 3 - the final effort can drift into zone 4.

Follow with a 20 minute run with the first 12 minutes at zone 3-4.

The second workout is more intense.

25 minute run with a 10 minute warmup, then 2X5 minutes in zone 5, 2 minute recoveries.

40 minute bike. Start immediately with 2X5 minutes in zone 5, 2 minute recoveries. End with 15 minutes at zone 4.

Follow with a 15 minute run with 3X3 minutes at zone 5+, with 2 minute recoveries.

You can make many variations of these workouts and you could make them as short as 45 minutes and still get in a good workout.

The zone 3 workouts are less intense and can be done more often. Be careful with the higher intensity workouts. Even if it feels easy to recover from them, you can run into long-term trouble if you stack too many high intensity workouts into one week.

How should you pace yourself a duathlon?

If your running a race that is a 5k/30k/5k event, your first run should be 30 to 80 seconds within what you could do an open 5k running race. A very fit athlete would go for the shorter end of that spectrum, and an athlete that lacks running endurance fitness should shoot for the higher end of the range. I would say runners in the 18 to 20 minute 5k range would be about 40-45 seconds off of their 5k racing time. You can run faster and do okay, but the problem is that the 10-15 seconds you gain will cost you more on the bike and the second run. If you’re second run time is within 30-60 seconds of your opening run you’ve done very well. For an event that starts and ends with 10k runs your first 10k should be 1 to 2.5 minutes within what you would do for a open 10k race. If you end with another 10k you’ll probably find it to be one of the most challenging runs you can do. Your fitness, hydration, and caloric intake will have a big impact on how well you hold up. If you can do this second run within 2 minutes of your first run you’ll have done better than 95% of the field. For most athletes a 3-4 minute differential is a reasonable goal.

That’s my crash course guide to training and racing duathlons. If they fit into your schedule strongly consider the Duathlon World Championships or Powerman Zofingen. You won’t regret it.

Before we continue, have you found your performance has reached a roadblock? Is what used to take weeks to see improvement, now taking months, or even longer? Or, are you worried that you’re implanting the wrong technique into your training, cementing inefficient muscle memory and improper form that can take significant time to correct?

Wouldn’t it be great if there were a way to analyze your swimming or running technique in an objective way, and to be able to record and see your technique progress? TrainingBible Coaching is excited to announce the availability of Quick Scout, the perfect tool for the individual athlete or coach looking to provide visual feedback for those who want to master proper technique. With QuikScout, break down athletic movement frame-by-frame for immediate review and analysis. For the individual athlete, have your form analyzed with lines, planes, angles and compare the performance to perfect form, or compared to your own previous performance to see your progress. For the coach with remote athletes, there is no other way to fill that missing piece of visual feedback into your athlete’s training. Or, cut the coach out of the picture and analyze your own athletic technique frame-by-frame against professional athletes, or against yourself to track progress.

Visit www.tri-talk.com for more information on how you can take advantage of this new technology as an athlete or coach.

Moving on..

Since the New Year is just starting I thought I’d do a little segment on goal setting and self-assessment. I did this in my last couple years of racing and it made a big difference.

Think back to your previous season. If you didn’t reach your goals, what prevented you from doing so? Was it poor planning, overracing, overtraining, or were your goals too lofty? Just as you should complete a written evaluation of each race, you should do a written evaluation of your season to find out what held you back. There’s no sense in making a mistake more than once

Three areas you should include in your self-evaluation are training, racing, and injuries.

Training Plan

This is an obvious topic but very few people get it right. Do you really know how to get fast? Do you follow a plan that allows you to be at your fastest? If the answer to either of those questions is no, then you need to make adjustments right now. Simply logging miles without a plan won’t get you there. Either on your own, or with the help of a coach, develop a training program that works for you and stick to it.

Racing Strategy

One could write a book about racing strategy, but a key aspect that I stress with every athlete I coach is pacing. If you don’t know how to pace yourself in a race then you absolutely will not reach your potential. Note that almost every running world record has been set with even or negative (the second half is faster than the first half) splits, but most athletes don’t race that way.

Treating Injuries

Have injuries affected your success in the last couple years? If so, and if the injuries are related, do your best to figure out why it’s happening and how you can prevent it. If you haven’t been working with an expert, find one. For many injuries a doctor is not going to be the best person to see. Many times injuries are related to inflexibility and strength. If that’s the case then you have to make those areas a priority for 2008.

Those are some things to think about when assessing last year’s performance. I’ll quickly go through an evaluation I did several years ago.

Sample Evaluation

I determined four obstacles that were affecting my performance . The year I did this evaluation, and made adjustments, was a breakthrough season for me.

1 – Injuries - I was prone to lower leg injuries that affected my training, primarily my Achilles and that really hindered my run training. I made it a priority to get regular massages in an attempt to prevent those injuries.

2 – Cycling – Cycling was a weakness for me. I looked back through my training logs at the periods when I was at my best and I realized that my best racing was always setup by several consecutive weeks of five hour rides. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend this for short distance racing. After making this discovery I altered my schedule to include long rides and it yielded great results.

3 – Weight - at 5’11” and 158 pounds I was not overweight but I carried a few extra pounds. Losing just five pounds made a considerable difference in my performance, especially running

4 – Diet - I used get two to three illnesses per year that interrupted my training. Improving my diet made me less vulnerable to getting sick, greatly improved my recoveries, and it helped me lose those five pounds. This change made such a big difference for me.

You could probably come up with a similar list in 30 minutes and it would be invaluable to your 2008 racing season.

Once you’ve done this set your goals for 2008. I’d suggest picking just 3 goals. Examples might be qualifying for Ironman Hawaii, doing a 30 minute trial with an average wattage of 220 or better, or running a 20 minute 5k. For each of your goals right down 3 sub-goals that you know you need to accomplish to reach your goals - it could be losing weight, finding faster training partners, running a certain amount of miles, or maybe hiring a coach. Finally, put your gaols in a place where you can see them on a daily basis. I’d be willing to bet, on average, that those of you that accept this challenge have a more successful season than those that don’t.

What are the qualities of a great athlete? I’m not talking about just elite athletes, but athletes of all levels.

I’ll go over some of the qualities that I think most good athletes have. As you’re planning for the new year you might think about which of these characteristics you could apply to your training. This my unscientific list, and they aren’t in any particular order.

1. Good genetics. This is an important one, but it’s not worth spending much time on because you can’t control it.

I know of a top Ironman athlete who started out as a very mediocre athlete. He never wanted to have a V02 max test because he thought if he was tested and had a low number it might limit what he thought was possible. So he never was tested and he went on to become a great Ironman athlete. The point of that story is to not let any test convince you that you can’t be great. If you’ve been tested and have high numbers, use it as motivation. If you’ve been tested and had low numbers, you should absolutely forget about them.

2. Consistency of training. The total number of miles you’ve run and bike, and the number of yards you swam, combined with the number of years you’ve been racing, has a great impact on your success. If your new to racing that means you can look forward to a great improvement. If you’ve been racing a long time then you surely know the benefits of consistency. If you’ve been racing for several years, but you’ve been inconsistent, make every effort to be be consistent in your training from week to week, month to month, and year to year. A lot of great athletes didn’t start out as great athletes. They made small incremental gains over several years and now they make it look easy.

3. Willingness to experiment and push yourself. This involves more risk but it can pay great dividends. Here are a few things I did that made a difference to me - as a collegiate runner, when I was only running, I increased my run volume from 60 miles/week to 80 miles/ week and it a made a big difference. When I was working on my swimming one winter I was in the pool nearly every day for a month and soon after I was swimming faster than ever. If you’re training for an Ironman it could involve doing some very heavy cycling blocks during base training. It could be as simple as getting a power meter to gain more knowledge about your cycling. If you’ve been stagnant for awhile some significant changes could yield better results. I’d only caution that before you do something that will significantly increases your training volume or intensity, talk it over with an expert in the field to make sure it has some validity and you are applying the change correctly.

4. Your peer group. If you train with great athletes, or athletes that are better than you, you’re a lot more likely to improve. There were a few times in my career when I wasn’t around better athletes that pushed me, and I stagnated. Fortunately, most of the time I trained with better athletes that inspired me to get faster. Surround yourself with successful people and you’re more likely to find success yourself. Your peer group also includes your support - family, friends, coaches, medical professionals, and mechanics, just to name a few. These people play a crucial role in your athletic career. Surround yourself with the best.

5. Diet. The older you get the more important it becomes. I’d guess that sometime around 30 years old, give or take a few years, is when our body will stop putting up with poor eating habits. It makes a difference. Of all the national or world caliber athletes I know, almost all of them realized they had to eat well if they were going to be great.

6. Mental outlook - do you believe you are good and that you can get better? If so, you’ve increased your chance of success. Can you focus when necessary? Can you correctly execute your race plan? Do you have other stresses in your life that take energy away from your training? All of these things have a significant impact on your racing

7. Ability to stay healthy. If you can stay healthy you can be consistent with your training.

8. Passion - do you love what you’re doing? It’s hard to be successful if you don’t.

Those are 8 things I think are very important to athletic success. As you’re looking ahead to 2008 think about this list when planning your season.

That’s all for episode 56. It’s been a pleasure being your host for the last 2 episodes and I’d like to thank David for giving me the opportunity. I can tell you that it’s no easy task composing a podcast and now that I’ve done it I’m even more impressed with the work David does. He’ll be back in 2 weeks with episode 57. You can contact me at Eric.Boulder@gmail.com or EnduranceOne.com. Happy new year and all the best in your training and racing in 2008.

Welcome to Tri Talk, your podcast source for triathlon tips, training, news and more. New listeners to Tri Talk hail from Florida and South Africa. In Florida, I hope you had a good race at the Safety Harbor Multisport event. And in South Africa, a reminder that Ironman South Africa is just 4 months away. 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. Filling in for David Warden, I’m your host, Eric Schwartz, and this is Tri Talk Episode 55.

My name is Eric Schwartz, and I’ll be hosting the next 2 episodes of Tri Talk while David takes a break for the holidays. Today on Tri Talk we’ll be covering sweat rate and how to incorporate it into your own racing nutrition plan. You can determine your own sweat rate without a lab and I’ll tell you how. I’ll break down this topic in an easy to understand conversation. I’ll also tell you how you can use Jack Daniels’ VDOT formula to develop your own running goals and more specifically I’ll walk through how I’ve incorporated marathon training into an Ironman athlete’s training schedule.

Before we continue, I should probably introduce myself. My name is Eric Schwartz and David has bravely allowed me to guest host his show. I’m 38 and I’ve pretty much been racing all my life, all though I’ve cut back in the last two year. I’m originally from Indiana but I now live in Boulder, Colorado. I was a collegiate runner at Indiana University and took up multisport racing in college. After college I raced while I worked full time as accountant for 5 years. In 1998 I moved to Boulder and started racing full time. In 2004 I reached a long term goal of winning the Duathlon National Championships, and in that same year I finished 8th at Ironman Wisconsin. I’ve been coaching for 8 years as a member of Joe Friel’s Ultrafit and now as a member of TrainingBible Coaching. I also run the website Duathlon.com, which covers daily triathlon and duathlon news and race results. Because I was known as a duathlete, at the end of the last podcast David set a lofty goal for me of being 2/3 of the host he is. Hopefully I can reach that goal. If you have questions for me you can reach me via email at Eric.Boulder@gmail.com or for coaching services you can check out my coaching website at Enduranceone.com.

You can also send in your questions or comments to david@tri-talk.com, Or, for even faster results consider posting your question on the Tri Talk forums, a friendly forum environment for triathletes with discriminating tastes.

Now let’s get onto the good stuff!

The first topic I’m going to tackle is sweat rate. It’s such an component of training but there are a lot of athletes that don’t really understand how it affects their racing. It goes well beyond hydrating for a race or a workout, and by the way, if your nutrition and fluid intake is good on a daily basis then you don’t need to do anything differently to hydrate for a race. You’re already well hydrated. But you better have a good hydration plan for your race.

My first memory of dehydration affecting my performance occurred in college. Our coach made us weigh in and out of practice so I knew my normal pre and post workout weights. On this day we were on the cross-country course and our workout included two 5ks. I felt good on the first one and did it in 16:30. On the second one I fell apart. I ran 17:30 and and it was very difficult. After the workout I was five pounds lighter than normal. Instead of worrying that my training was falling apart, I knew that my bad workout was probably a fluke related to poor hydration, salt intake, or something else unusual going on with my body that day. I really think multisport athletes should weigh themselves before and after a race. I have a feeling that a lot of bad performances could be attributed to dehydration – but without that measurement there’s no way to know.

So let’s get started.

Here’s how you can measure your sweat rate and stay on top of your hydration:

Before a long workout weigh yourself. Do the same thing after your workout. Every pound you’ve lost equals 16 ounces of fluid. To get an accurate measurement of weight loss you must weigh yourself with the exact same clothing before your workout and after your workout. Add in all of the fluids you drank during the ride. Measure your water bottles so you know how much they hold. I’ve found that 80% of the athletes I coach don’t know how much fluid they hold - they usually underestimate. I have athletes do this for workouts longer than 2 hours, but it’s a useful exercise to know how much you sweat on a 30 and 60 minute workout, especially if you focus on short distance races.

Here’s one other thing to consider. During the summer and during heavy training, especially in dry climates, you’ll lose a significant amount of fluid overnight. I’ve lost as much as 3 pounds overnight. If you start a long workout and don’t take into account this extra fluid loss it will affect your performance

Let’s move to a real example.

To use an example let’s do this for an athlete on a 3 hour workout. Beginning weight is 165 and ending weight is 162. By the way, actual weight isn’t important. We’re only concerned with the change in weight. That 3 pound weight loss represents 48 ounces of sweat. Between the pre and post workout weigh-ins, this athlete drank 4 bottles with 26 ounces of fluid and another 7 ounces of fluid out of a fifth bottle. That’s another 111 ounces of fluid intake that was lost through sweat. Over 3 hours this athlete sweated 159 ounces of fluid (48 ounces in weight loss plus 111 ounces of intake). That’s a sweat rate of 53 ounces per hour. That’s a higher than normal sweat rate, but I’ve worked with athletes that have lost even more than that.

Quick recap of the calculation - pounds in weight loss X 16 ounces per pound, plus total ounces of fluid intake, divided by total hours of training.

How do you use that information? Let’s say this athlete was doing a half ironman with an expected finish time of 5 hours. With a sweat rate of 53 ounces/hour this athlete would expect to lose 265 ounces of fluid during the race. That’s about 16 pounds! Studies have shown that losing 2% of body weight has no adverse affect on performance, and I know some athletes can lose a little more than that and still race well. For a 165 pound person a 2% weight loss equals 3.3 pounds. At 16 ounces per pound, that’s 53 ounces of a fluid deficit this person could have and still race well. We said his total sweat loss would be 265 ounces, so subtract 53 ounces from that and we get 212 ounces that he will need to replace over 5 hours. That’s approximately 42 ounces per hour, which is a little less than two big water bottles per hour.

Some athletes can easily take in large amounts of fluid during a workout while others would need to practice to achieve this level. Work on it in training before race day.

Let’s take it one step farther. After I have an athlete determine sweat rate, practice it, then execute the plan during a race, we evaluate the results.

After each race, especially a long race, an athlete should write down, among other things, their fluid intake during the race. If you have a scale at the race, which I highly recommend, (maybe some race directors can start providing them) you can also measure weight loss. From this evaluation you can determine how much the athlete was able to take in and how it correlated to race performance. If hydration was correct then race day is more likely to represent actual fitness.

Once you’ve established your hydration habits you need to monitor them in all workouts. If you don’t stay hydrated in training you won’t get the most out of your workouts and you won’t reach maximum fitness.

Moving on…

Some of the athletes I coach have specific running times they want to hit in the offseason or they want to train for a marathon while continuing to train for triathlons. How would you incorporate that into your training?

First, assuming you live in a cold climate, I think the winter is an excellent time to focus on running, especially if it is a weakness.

The starting point I use for running is Daniels’ Running Formula by Jack Daniels and I highly recommend you get this book.

Daniels uses something he calls the VDOT formula which is based on your current running fitness. Let’s say that right now you can run a 48 minute 10k. According to Daniels’ charts, if you can run a 48 minute 10k, you should be able to run a 5k in 23:09, a half marathon in 1:46, and a marathon in 3:40. In fact, if you know your fitness for one distance it will tell you what you could run for a 1500, mile, 3,000, 5k, 10k, 15k, 1/2 marathon, and marathon. I’ve found these charts to be very accurate. However, at the far ends of the chart - the mile and the marathon, the times won’t be accurate unless you’ve done the training for those distances, and if you’re heavily weighted toward fast twitch or slow twitch muscles, then the times at the opposite ends of the chart might not be realistic. But in the middle of the chart - 5k, 10k, and 1/2 marathon, they work very well. Most of the athletes I coach run 5ks, 10ks, and 1/2 marathons so the chart is really helpful to me as a coach and it’s helpful to an athlete for goal setting. The charts can also be used for determining workout paces for threshold runs, intervals, and repetitions, as defined by Daniels.

I’m going to walk through how I would train an athlete to run a 3:50 marathon while training for an Ironman for an athlete I’m coaching. Her goal is aggressive but a reachable goal. The marathon is in January and her Ironman isn’t until late 2008 so it fits in really well with her training and it gives her a good goal for the winter. She’s made great progress in her running over the last few years and brought her 10k time down to 52:17. According to Daniels’ VDOT charts she needs to be able to run a 50:03 10k and a 24:10 5k to reach that 3:50 marathon goal, and that’s assuming the endurance is there for a full marathon, which of course is the focus of the training. Those charts let me know that her goal is realistic but there’s still work to be done.

I’ve got a good chart of her running results over several years and her 10 mile race time, done on the same course, takes big drops so I know we haven’t reached her peak running fitness. In 2006 she ran a 10 miler in 1:28, which was a 10 minute PR, and 1 year later she cut another 4 minutes off that time.

A 3:50 marathon goal is an 8:46 mile pace so she has to be prepared to do longer efforts at that pace so we know it is realistic for race day. I’m also having her do shorter tempo runs at a pace faster than that - for example a 5 mile tempo run at 8:20 pace. The faster workouts should improve her fitness and make her goal marathon pace seem easier. In total she’s doing 4 runs per week.

She’s still training on the bike and the swim but running is her focus until the marathon is over. I’ve cut back her swimming the most because that’s going to have the smallest impact on her Ironman. A good training week is 8-10 hours total and she’s swimming once or twice a week. She’s on the bike twice a week. My belief is that with cycling, during the offseason when time is limited and the weather is bad, frequency is less important then it would be for running and swimming. But because frequency drops, the quality of those workouts needs to be higher. With two workouts one should be a longer ride on the weekend and the other one is a shorter, more intense effort during the week. If the weekend ride is outside it’s in the 2-3 hour range with the main goal being endurance and maintaining those cycling muscles. If you bike I’m sure you’ve notice your muscles decrease in size and that’s not such a good feeling, at least for a guy, when you know you’ve got to get them back. If the weekend ride is on the trainer I like to do a 1.5 to 2 hour ride, sometimes longer, with a warmup, drills, and some kind of set to mix up the boredom. Here’s a sample set to include on the trainer during base season:

1:45 ride with warmup, drills, 2X1.5 minute fast (optional), 2 minute recoveries, 1X20 minutes in zone 3, 5 minutes easy, 1X10 minutes at 100+ cadence, 5 minutes easy, 5 minutes standing, 5 minutes easy riding, 15 minutes zone 3.

This workout accomplishes a couple things - it works on technique, base building, and endurance, while breaking the monotony. For an athlete with a CompuTrainer, which is a great tool, I like to include climbing. With a CompuTrainer you can set it to climb at a specific grade - it probably goes about 15%. An athlete will get more bang for their buck if they can simulate climbing with their limited time.

So that’s how I’ve Incorporated marathon training into her Ironman training using Daniels’ book, but his VDOT formula will work for any running specific goal and it’s a great book for helping you design some of your own running workouts.

That’s all for episode 55. I’ll be back in a couple of weeks with episode 56 of Tri Talk. If you are new to Tri Talk, don’t forget to catch up by getting the complete Tri Talk collection on your mp3 player. Available episodes date all the way back to episode 18, with never duplicated, relevant triathlon training content. Visit tri-talk.com today. I’ll see you next time!