Tri Talk Triathlon Podcast

Why altitude training works, but not for you

By David Warden

The immortal author Hans Christian Andersen wrote a delightful tale about two tailors who convinced a community that their textiles were finer than any other in the land. There was only one catch: those who were great fools could not see the fabric. Not wanting to appear dim-witted, the citizens praised the quality and beauty of the non-existent cloth upon their king. That is, until one child, too young to be influenced by peer-pressure, pointed out the king was in fact, naked.

When I think of altitude training, I can’t help but apply this fable. I’m perfectly willing to accept the possibility that 30 years from now, when more research has been done on this subject, I’ll be the one proved to be a great fool. But in the meantime, based on all existing independent scientific data, I can’t help but feel that altitude training hasn’t got any clothes on.

In the following paragraphs, I’ll present what I hope will be an introduction to an open and honest dialogue on altitude training. I’ll discuss:

- The theoretical and anecdotal evidence supporting altitude training
- The scientific evidence against altitude training
- The scientific evidence supporting altitude training
- The anecdotal evidence against altitude training
- The reasons behind continued belief in contemporary altitude training techniques

For the purposes of this article, unless otherwise indicated, the term “altitude” means 1600 meters (5250 feet) or higher, which is the point where significant physiological changes take place.

Theoretical and Anecdotal Evidence for Altitude Training
In closely reviewing articles and promotional material for altitude training, you’ll find that what they primarily consist of is the physiological responses to altitude, not necessarily how it can make you faster. Including technical descriptions of physiological changes that occur at altitude such as partial pressure of oxygen, pressure gradients, and respiratory alkalosis are impressive, but it does not follow that these changes will improve performance.

Publications that do specify the performance advantages of altitude training primarily cite three theoretical benefits. The first is the development of new red blood cells and therefore more blood plasma at elevation, thus resulting in an increased stroke volume. And second, altitude training may lead to a decrease in the production of, or an increase in the ability to clear, lactate. The third is an increase in VO2max.

These are all outstanding benefits, and multiple studies have confirmed that these changes do occur at altitude. Increased cardiac stroke volume and VO2max and decreased lactate would certainly improve performance at almost any level. However, as discussed in the following section, at a training intensity cost to the athlete.

Another scenario that theoretically endorses the advantages of altitude training is the fact that when sea-level athletes perform at altitude, there is a notable change in performance. There is no doubt that individuals feel the effect of moving to a higher altitude. The question is not is there a physiological change that takes place as you change altitude, the question is, can applying those physiological changes make you faster when you return to seal-level.

Athletes “feel” the change as they move from low to high. The natural assumption is “if going from low to high makes me temporarily slower, then going from high to low must make me temporarily faster.” Although it is has been established that going from sea-level to an elevation over 5,250 feet will result in temporary physiological changes that diminish performance, it does not necessarily follow that the opposite effect is true. This will also be established in the following section.

But finally, the evidence possibly cited more often than any other, is the fact that many professional and Olympic athletes use altitude training in their training regimen. What is often overlooked when using this argument is the number of athletes who do not incorporate altitude training in their plan, who are just as successful. This line of logic can be extended to say, “That athlete is fast. That athlete wears red singlets. Therefore, red singlets make you fast.” We could just as easily site the number of champion endurance athletes who train at low altitude as “evidence” of sea-level superiority. If there is a better example of anecdotal evidence vs. scientific evidence in endurance training, I don’t know of one.

Scientific Evidence Against Altitude Training
What these pro-altitude articles and proponents fail to mention is the cost of altitude training. As published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, elite cyclists who were asked to perform maximum sprint and endurance intervals performed the tests 13-18 watts lower at altitude than at sea level. This is no surprise, we would all expect that kind of change at altitude. But what is often overlooked from this study, is that this confirms that at altitude, an athlete can no longer perform at the same intensity that they can at sea level.

Performance is not only about cardiac stroke volume, VO2max and lactate. It is a chain of factors including biomechanical adaptations, tendons, developing slow twitch and fast twitch muscles, training your body to use fat primarily for fuel, etc. All these other performance components have restricted capacity and improvement at altitude simply because they cannot achieve the same intensity that they can at lower altitudes. The same environment that brings the advantages of increased cardiac stroke volume and decreased lactate is the same environment that does not allow full development of the other factors of performance improvement, simply because they can no longer achieve the same intensity.

This does not imply that altitude training is detrimental to performance. The consensus among scientists (not coaches) is that good altitude training is no better or worse than good sea-level training. The advantages of increased cardiac stroke volume and decreased lactate “cancel out” the disadvantages of decreased intensity capacity at altitude. Conversely, the advantages of seal-level training cancel out the disadvantages of reduced cardiac stroke volume and lactate.

This was established by the two “silver bullets” of altitude research performed by the Institute for Environmental Medicine in Dallas, Texas. In the first study, 39 competitive runners were divided into 3 groups. A low-low, where the athlete lived and trained just above sea-level. A high-high group, where the athletes lived and trained at 8,200 feet. And a high-low group, where the athletes lived at 8,200 feet but trained at 4,100 feet. The performance level between the low-low and high-high group was the same. In fact, the high-high group had even improved their VO2max by a whopping 5%, while the low-low group had not. Despite this significant increase in VO2max in the high-high group, why didn’t the high-high group improve their performance? Because even though they gained VO2max abilities, they lost other fitness due to the inability to train at appropriate intensities at altitude.

In short, there is overwhelming independent data to support that training at altitude is no better than training at sea-level on well-trained athletes. It is important to note again that there is also no evidence that altitude training is detrimental to performance at lower altitudes. There is, however, a narrow protocol in which incorporating altitude into your training does show significant performance improvements. But the irony is, to make it work you don’t actually train at altitude.

The Scientific Evidence Supporting Altitude Training
In the study just referenced above, there was a third group, the high-low group, who lived high but trained low. The theory behind this group is that it allowed the beneficial physiological changes that altitude provides (cardiac stroke volume, VO2max, and lactate clearing), while still allow the athlete to reach required intensities for improved performance. Once the study was performed, the theory went from theory to results. That high-low group also improved their VO2max by 5%, just like the high-high group, but unlike the high-high group, they did significantly improve performance.

To further the study, the researchers then took 22 elite athletes and essentially duplicated the results of the high-low group. A significant increase in performance and VO2max when the athletes lived high, but trained at over 4,000 lower than where they lived.

There are very few places where this kind of scenario will work for an athlete. The practicalities of dropping 4,000 feet each time to train is impossible in most geographies, and difficult in the rest. There are athletes who are able to meet this unusual demand, but it is rare. This is the motive behind this article’s subtitle. Altitude training works, but not for you.

It is also important to note that altitude training becomes more important if a majority of your training will be training at sea level, but you will be racing at altitudes greater than 5,250 feet. However, there is a marked difference in using altitude training to get faster vs. incorporating altitude training in order to not get slower on race day. This type of altitude training does not make you faster overall, it simply makes you more prepared for a particular event (which I concede, does make you faster for that event). Training to compete at altitude allows you to adapt and train for the environmental conditions of the event. Just like training for heat, or humidity. Training in altitude, heat, or humidity does not make you faster, it simply makes you more prepared to race at events with significant altitude, heat or humidity.

There is also evidence that if you compete within 24 hours of arriving at altitude or several weeks after arriving at altitude, you will minimize the effects of that change.

Anecdotal Evidence Against Altitude Training
Suppose that the scientific research studies still do not impress you. Perhaps you doubt that results from a controlled environment will reflect in actual racing. I can accept that. There is a type of athlete who takes more stock in competition results over controlled research studies. This section is for you. Let’s look at the actual athletic results of individuals who live or train at altitude.

There is a very small band of topography in the United States that holds a population living over 5,250 feet. The Rocky, Sierra-Nevada, and Cascade mountain ranges are really the only locations where individuals live or train regularly over 5,250 feet. Heck, I’ll even concede to 4,000 feet. If altitude training gives an edge, would it not imply that athletes or athletic teams from the few areas that live and train at altitude would have a significant performance improvement when competing at lower altitudes? Surely, all other training components being equal, athletes at high altitude should have an edge against their low altitude competitors.

Unfortunately, this does not hold true. When looking at professional or collegiate athletic teams, there is not an improved “away” record for high altitude home teams who compete at low altitude. Nor is there a worse away record for teams who live and train at low altitude when visit their high altitude competitors. No link between altitude and professional or collegiate teams’ long-term success has ever been established.

Perhaps basketball, football, soccer, and hockey aren’t the best sports to compare to triathlon or other endurance sports (I know some soccer players who would beg to differ, that’s 90 minutes of pretty hard running). How about distance running? In looking at 20 years of collegiate NCAA Division I cross-country results from 1985-2005, only twice has a college team from an altitude greater than 800 feet won the championship, Colorado in 2001 and 2004. The other 18 years’ worth of championships went to low-altitude teams. And unlike professional sports, a collegiate athlete must actually live at the same altitude where their college is based for most of the year.

Finally, let’s take a look at some actual triathlon results. If living and training at altitude is such a big deal, would we not see an inflated representation of triathletes that live at altitude as the fastest triathletes, since they would have such an edge? All other training factors being equal?

Consider the age-group qualifiers of the 2006 Ironman world championships. These are the fastest age-group triathletes in the world at this distance. Reviewing the 42 athletes that qualified from Colorado (5.77% of the total US age-group qualifiers competing at Hawaii in 2006), and what city they live in, you’ll find that the median living altitude for those 42 athletes is 5,300 feet. The ultimate live high/train high environment. According to USAT, 4.25% of all USAT members lived in Colorado in 2006. Although not all US triathletes are members of USAT, we can assume that USAT’s numbers represent a proportion of all US triathletes’ home states.

Also qualifying for the 2006 Ironman championships were 42 age-group triathletes from the state of New York. Looking at all 42 NY athletes, the median altitude of their home cities was 36 feet. New York’s USAT membership represents 5.07% of all members. In summary, there is no statistical significance in qualifying for Hawaii between these two states. Your odds for qualifying for Hawaii appear to be the same whether you live at 36 feet or 5,300 feet.

In fact, if you look even closer at the numbers, the opposite is true. California represents 10.5% of all USAT members, but qualified a whopping 20.33% of the US age-group Hawaii triathletes, with a median altitude of 105 feet. You are essentially twice as likely to qualify for Hawaii living in California’s 105 feet of altitude than living at Colorado’s 5,300 feet. If this example does not support the irrelevance of altitude training among triathletes, I don’t know what will. (The author recognizes the significant advantage of training in California’s year-long training season, but asks that you focus on the Colorado/New York comparison, which have equal training seasons.)

Reasons Behind Contemporary Altitude Training Support
So why does the hype around altitude training continue? Although the anecdotal and theoretical evidence cited in the first section of this article started the altitude movement, what keeps the momentum going?

- The pro migration to Boulder. Pro triathletes train in Boulder and Colorado Springs not just because they believe in altitude training, but because it is the home of the US Olympic Training Center. Not only is it the home of the USOTC, it is the home of USAT, USA Swimming and USA Cycling. Some of the best coaches and training facilities in the world are in Colorado Springs, just 1.5 hours from Boulder. It is not just the fact that the triathlete has access to the best triathlon coach and facilities, they have access to the best swimming coaches and cycling coaches. In the last nearly 30 years, the momentum of coaches, facilities, and pros training in Colorado has swelled. Colorado is the Disneyland of pro triathletes. Any athlete who chooses to train in that area will be able to draw from the best of the best.

Why is Colorado Springs the home of the USOTC? Was it picked because of altitude? No, it was picked because of the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of 1978, which established the Olympic Committee. The committee needed a headquarters, and one that would accommodate training facilitates for hundreds of athletes. It was decided that the recently abandoned ENT Air Force Base and the former headquarters of the North American Defense Command would do nicely for the Olympic Complex. The fact that Colorado Springs was at altitude is purely coincidental. For example, there is no physiological benefit for a tennis player to train in southern California. But that just happens to be the place where the best tennis players in the United States train, because there is where the finest coaches and facilities are.

As a pro triathlete, the decision to move to Colorado is a no-lose situation. Since altitude training will not harm the athlete, even though it won’t help, they still have access to the best of the best in coaching and facilities.

- Altitude training is sexy. There are very few things that sound cooler than altitude training. The concept of denying ourselves oxygen for the sake of performance appeals to all of us.

But more than that, the appeal behind altitude training is reinforced by the endurance athlete media. Endurance sports magazines focus on what does work. No one wants to ever print an article about something that does not work. By saying a product or training protocol does not work, it limits potential advertisers. As a result, any article in major advertising-driven endurance publications will only note the positive aspects of altitude training (which is why this kind of article could have only been brought to you through the internet). Note that the standard book for triathlete training, Joe Friel’s Triathlete Training Bible, which is not sponsor-driven, has nothing on altitude training. Essentially saying “no comment” to altitude training, which is a pretty strong comment.

- The placebo effect. As many athletes who approach me and confirm that their altitude training did not improve their performance, I have just as many who swear that their altitude training improved their sea-level race-day performance. Never under-estimate the placebo effect in athletes. There are very real, established performance improvements that occur when the athlete believes that they have an edge over their competitors (Dumbo’s “magic feather”). Confidence is a real, critical component of peak performance.

- Follow the money. At the risk of sounding cynical, this is a fundamental force behind altitude training. There is no money in low altitude training. There are no low altitude tents, nor low altitude training chambers. However, there is money in high altitude training retreats, camps, high altitude training chambers and sleep tents. A “litmus test” for determining the credibility of a claim is to determine the motives of the source. Scientific studies, which have nothing to gain, conclude that altitude training is no better than sea-level training. Mass media, which has nothing to gain and much to lose from publishing anti-altitude articles, makes the safe bet and sticks to only positive altitude articles. Products and altitude-based coaching have much to lose from the established neutral effects of altitude training, and much to gain from the wide-spread belief that it works.

In summary, there is overwhelming evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, that altitude training is no better than sea-level training. It is important to note (one more time), that altitude training does not inhibit performance, and that athletes will experience reduced performance when going from low to very high altitude. Also, it is likely that athletes who race at altitude will gain some benefit from training at altitude.
When it comes to focusing on how altitude makes you faster, if you think that you have a bad altitude, the last thing you need is an altitude adjustment.

The audio for this podcast can be listened to here.

Research behind a high calorie/low risk race nutrition strategy, the common causes of GI problems, and what it’s like to go from athlete to race manager. All that and more, today on Tri Talk.

Welcome to Tri Talk, your podcast source for, triathlon tips, training, news and more. New listeners in the last 2 weeks primarily came from China, no doubt in part as a result of the announcement of Ironman China in 2008, as well as the 2008 Olympic games. It makes sense that interest in triathlon in China would certainly be on the rise. Also of note, welcome to the very small new group of listeners from Vietnam. 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 49.

Lots to cover today on Tri Talk. For example, have you ever been training or racing and found yourself incapacitated with stomach problems? Or worse, have you found yourself reducing your intake to address the problem, only to find yourself bonking at the end of the race? How much can you take in, and does the type of carbohydrates matter? What are the common causes of gastrointestinal problems, and how can you avoid them? We’ll take a look at all of that. Plus, what’s it like on the other side of an endurance event, as a race manager? I’ll take you along with me as I try my hand at running an event as opposed to running at an event.Now, as we approach the landmark 50th episode of Tri Talk, did you know that there is over 17 hours worth of episodes available? If you discovered Tri Talk late, you might have missed some of the earlier discussions on the physics and physiology of triathlon. But if you missed those episodes, doesn’t that mean the triathletes who did listen to them and applied the concepts will be faster than you? That’s what you call “scare tactic” marketing! Seriously though, if you missed half of the Tri Talk episodes, does that mean your competition who did hear them will be twice as fast? Probably not, but I wouldn’t take the chance! Be sure to visit www.tri-talk.com and access the Tri Talk Episode Archives and get caught up on your favorite triathlon podcast.

Last week I announced that I would be opening a remote coaching trial to look at the possibility of expanding and leveraging my local coaching services to any triathlete in the world. I may be an acceptable podcaster, but I am a rotten businessman. The ideas I think will be a huge success fail, and the ideas I think will have a limited response blow me away. I received hundreds of e-mails from interested athletes who wanted to be a part of the trial. As a result, I have moved to a more objective an equitable selection process. So, instead of sending me an e-mail like I requested in the last episode, please visit the website and you will be directed to an application to fill out. By the way, I was so impressed with the wonderful stories you sent me about how you came to participate in triathlon. I was not expecting them, but thank you, thank you, thank you for sharing them with me. There were stories about overcoming addition, starting a new life, weight loss, achievement. I heard from athletes as young as 17 and as old as 67. I also received offers of bribes and tons of flattery. I have to tell you, the bribes will not increase your chances of being picked. But the flattery might help. Even if you are not selected for the trial, I hope that you will still consider my formal coaching services which I anticipate will begin in November, the perfect time to start a science-based training program for your best race season yet in 2008.

This podcast is sponsored by Powertri.com. Congratulations to Mark, Nathan, Sam, and Tom for sending in their best embarrassing triathlon story. They will each receive a pair of Yankz! and a $15 Gift certificate to PowerTri.com. You can check out their hilarious stories by going to PowerTri.com and clicking on the “Tri Stories” link. While you’re there check out their huge 20% off sale on all our remaining 2007 De Soto and Zoot Triathlon Apparel. Hurry supplies are limited!

Let’s get onto the good stuff! What do you do when the estimated required calories per hour exceeds your estimated ability to absorb that many calories? Just how many calories can you take in without the risk of GI problems?

This next section will apply primarily to Ironman and half-Ironman athletes, but for the rest of you, this is still relevant and fascinating information. Even if you never plan on racing at those distances, this will increase your knowledge of endurance nutrition, and you will sound really smart when you talk smack with other triathletes.

I have said this before, but I’ll say it again. Triathletes are the smartest set of athletes in the world. After episode 45, where I introduced the Tri Talk Nutrition Calculator, several of you pointed out that at certain distances or intensities, particularly Ironman and half-Ironman distances for male athletes, the total calories per hour recommend often exceeded 400 calories. Several of you pointed out that there has been considerable material that supports that the maximum amount of carbohydrates that can be absorbed and returned to the muscles was 1.5 gram of carbohydrates per minute, or 90 grams per hour. Since carbohydrates have 4 calories per gram, that would place a theoretical limit of 360 calories per hour that the athlete could take in without risk of gastrointestinal (GI) problems. Eventually, the intestines and stomach could back-up if you are eating more than you can digest.

This information was based on an excellent study published in 2000, and has been cited as the primary support behind that 360 calorie per hour limit. The conflict with the study, is the fact that many athletes take in more than 360 calories per hour without reporting GI problems. In fact, Joe Friel’s Training Bible recommends up to 700 calories per hour on the bike for Ironman racing. This is an excellent example of when the science did not match the race-day realities. How can this study be reconciled with the actual calories that Ironman athletes take in that often exceed 360 calories per hour?

The first thing to note about this study is that the researches used a pure glucose solution when determining that absorption limit. There are multiple forms of carbohydrates including glucose, sucrose, dextrose, fructose, maltose, and my personal favorite galactose. I just love the name, “galactose”.

Fast-forward to 2003. A set of the same researches said, “hey, what if we make a carbohydrate cocktail of multiple types of these sugars, instead of just straight glucose?” Using the same protocol as in the study 4 years earlier, they created a mixture of 2 parts glucose to one part sucrose. With that mixture, the athletes were able to absorb 1.8 grams of carbs per minute without significant GI problems, upping the hourly intake to 432 calories per hour (1.8×4x60).

But they didn’t stop there. In a 2004 study, a set of the same researchers then took a mixture of 3 types of sugars, 2 parts glucose, 1 part sucrose, and 1 part fructose. Using the same protocol as the year before, which was a 2.5 hour ride at about 77% MaxHR, the cyclists were able to absorb a whopping 2.4 grams per minute. That’s 576 calories per hour!

The theory behind this is that different carbohydrates are absorbed by different intestinal transport systems. Some digestive receptors may get saturated by glucose, but other receptors or transport systems that don’t transport glucose, will process the other types of sugars, like fructose and sucrose. It is interesting to take this theory even further and hypothesize that maybe this is why small amounts of protein in an endurance event can improve performance. Although the body does turn to protein in small amounts for fuel after long endurance events, is it possible that there are even more receptors or transport mechanisms that would absorb even more than that 576 calories if another 50 calories of protein per hour were taken in? This is total speculation on my part, I have not read anything specific to this theory, but it follows the hypothesis that if a variety of sugars can increase absorption rates, perhaps a variety of macronutrients, like carbs, protein and even fats in a nutrition strategy can maximize absorption. I wonder if that is the difference between the athletes who take in 400 per hour calories and have GI problems, and the athletes who take in 600 and do not. I’m sure individual tolerance for calorie volume varies, but what if the athlete experiencing GI problems is taking in nothing but energy gels, which may only have 1 or 2 types of sugars. While an athlete taking in 70% carbs in the form of multiple sugars, 20% fats in the form of MCTs, and 10% protein would be able to take in relatively large amounts of calories without GI problems because now they would involving multiple digestive receptors and transport mechanisms instead of just one or two. In addition to increased calorie intake, there are other advantages from taking on more than just sugars which I will discuss in a moment.

It is important to note that most athletes can tolerate less on the run than on the bike, not due to absorption per se, but rather the jostling of the stomach that takes place during the run. All 3 of these absorption studies were done on cyclists, and it is common to take in a lot less on the run, maybe 2/3 of what you took in on the bike. Although a 2002 study of Ironman finishers showed that performance in the marathon portion of an Ironman was directly proportional to the amount of calories taken in. The more calories you can tolerate on the run, the faster you will be able to go.

There are many topics that are just too complex for me to research on my own, and this was one of them. I want to thank Ellen Coleman and Bob Seebohar, Melanie Hingle from the University of Arizona, Dr. Bill Thompson of Florida State University, and Dr. John Martinez of the Coastal Sports and Wellness Medical Center in San Diego. I could not have brought you this information without their help.

Now, let’s take a few moments and discuss the causes and consequences of lack of absorption when taking in high simple sugar calories, and what can be done in addition to the strategy we just talked about above to avoid those problems.

There are three primary causes and consequences for taking in more than you can absorb.

The first is diarrhea. Drinking a ton of simple sugary fluids or taking on a ton of gels with water can cause fluid to be drawn from the bloodstream and directly into the intestines. This speeds up the digestive process, resulting in diarrhea. What is even worse about diarrhea is that is again leads to dehydration, and the athlete may begin to take in even more fluids with sugars. This can be avoided by ingesting a lower volume of simple-sugar-containing fluids.

The second consequence is called delayed gastric emptying or DGE. This is simply the body not able to absorb as much as you are taking in while exercising. It makes the athlete feel boated and full, or even sharp pains in the stomach. This can be avoided by using a nutrition strategy that allows for complete absorption of what is taken, as we discussed earlier. Also, environmental conditions such as high heat and humidity can negatively affect the rate of gastric emptying and promote even more discomfort. This is something you would want to test while training, but it is common for you to not be able to tolerate as much intake when it is hot or humid, and you may have to adjust your intake accordingly.

Finally, there is one more symptom of taking in too much simple sugars. Let’s be polite and call it “flatulence”. After passing through the small intestine, some sugars reach the large bowel where they become food for the bacteria living there. When the bacteria digest the sugars, they produce of gas. This too can cause cramping, bloating, and flatulence. By the way, the Tri Talk Nutrition Calculator is now in its second beta release thanks to your feedback, and you can put in your data to find out the calories per hour you need for your upcoming event. I would like to take just a moment and revisit the altitude training issue which has been discussed twice now on Tri Talk. I really don’t want to ever discuss a topic more than twice, and even then I cover it a second time just to clarify or correct a previous episode. But I have done a considerable amount of new research on this subject. As a compromise, instead of adding it into a Tri Talk podcast episode, I have added it as an article on the web site where you can read the whole story on altitude training. I encourage you to take some time to read this. I hope it is the beginning of what will become the definitive discussion on altitude training. Also on this subject, a correction from episode 44. In that episode I stated “…because the air is less dense at higher altitudes, you are able to ventilate greater volumes of air, and get in the oxygen you need…” This is not correct, although ventilation does increase to compensate, at high altitudes, you do not get the same amount of total oxygen as lower altitudes.

Before we move on, I have a special message for our significant Canadian contingent of listeners. It has been a terrific season of racing in Canada, and MultiSport Canada would like to thank all of the participants in their 2007 races for making the HSBC Triathlon Series such a tremendous success, and hope your off-season training goes well. HSBC Bank Canada hopes their Race with HSBC contest can help your training as well. You have a chance to win one of three Grand Prizes worth $2,500. These prizes will be customized to fit you: Need a coach and nutritionist to get you to the next level? HSBC can do that. Looking to upgrade your bike components? HSBC can do that too. It’s your choice and all courtesy of HSBC. The contest closes on September 30, 2007 so don’t delay. Enter now at www.racewithHSBC.ca. Referring friends only increases your odds of winning so enter now at racewithHSBC.ca. This contest is open only to residents of Canada.Let’s wrap thing up! Almost all of us have participated in some sort of athletic event. Maybe even a few of us have volunteered to help at an event. If you are one of those who have ever volunteered for an event, you belong to a special class of people. But have you ever been in charge of an event, or a portion of an event? By the time we get to the race, it usually seems so smooth and well put together (usually). What do we all get for our $50 in registration fees, and how much work goes into it behind the scenes? Come with me as I take you along with me live, as I go through my first experience of managing a race complete with course setup, training volunteers, and as it turns out, a little bit of crisis control.

Take 11 of your friends, put them in two vans, and spend the next 20 hours or more taking turns running a course almost 200 miles long. That is the concept behind the Ragnar Realy Race series. Each 12-man team takes turns running 3 legs ranging from 3 to 8 miles each. I participated in the event in 2005, and it ended up being one of my most enjoyable racing experiencing. It felt like an adult slumber party. It took our group 22 hours to complete the event, but I spent less than 2 hours running my 3 legs, leaving the other 20 hours for conversation and goofing around with my teammates. With Ragnar events now in Wisconsin, Washington, Arizona and Utah, the popularity and growth of the series reflects its unique racing experience.
There are 35 exchange points along the route, where one runner hands-off to the next runner, and so it continues for 200 miles. As you can imagine, one of the challenges is, how can you manage and support the runners over an equivalent of 8 marathons back-to-back? The answer, of course, is delegation. That’s where I come in. The event is the Ragnar Great River Relay, running from LaCross, WI all the way to downtown St. Paul, Minnesota. I’ll be managing the last 6 exchange points of the event, from exchange 30 all the way to the finish line, or about 30 miles. My evening started at 10:00 on a Friday night, and I spend the next 5 hours putting up signs and lights for every single turn over 30 miles, and setting up the 6 exchange points. At 3 in the morning, I’m finally finished setting up in St. Paul, and my day has only begun.
(audio clip)
Each of the more than 100 teams in this event has brought 3 volunteers to the table. I’ll be moving from exchange point to exchange point training the volunteers over my part of the race. I meet my first group at 4 am, or about 2 hours before the first runners begin coming through.
(audio clip)
It’s a training I’ll repeat for all 6 exchanges. By 6 am, things are running almost too smoothly. The volunteers are showing up, the course signs aren’t being stolen, and there are no reports of injuries or missing runners. But then, my first test arises. It turns out that at the very same time, on the very same course, and using the same exchange point, there is a cancer awareness walk with thousands of walkers. I receive a call from a panicked Ragnar volunteer that a passionate volunteer for the cancer walk is at the site insisting we can’t share the exchange point. Also of concern is the fact that some of the route we share is on a narrow trail, and congestion and safety could be an issue as our runners are flying by the walkers. Fortunately, as I escalate the issue up the chain, I talk to the regional director of the group, and we agree to make the exchange point a celebration of athletics and cancer awareness, by merging our volunteers together into one unit. It is a great example of what can be done when people focus on solutions, and not the problems. A few calls to my volunteers about the logistical changes, and the issue is sorted.
(audio clip)
I quickly realize that race management is not about eliminating surprises, because it just isn’t possible. It is about adapting and making quick decisions regarding the inevitable crisis that will occur. What started out as an easy morning, has turned into call after call from volunteers or runners, coming in so quickly one after another, it’s almost comical.
With the excitement of the exchange point crisis, the phone calls, plus a lack of sleep, its no wonder I haven’t been paying attention to the road, and I realize that I am lost. I last drove this part of the route in the middle of the night, and things look quite different in the day.
(audio clip)
Fortunately, I quickly find my way back and finish training the last sets of volunteers. Driving the route from the last exchange point to the finish line, I notice that one of the signs is missing. Driving further, I see that all the signs coming into downtown have been removed. The original route had the runners run beneath the I-35W bridge. After the collapse, which took place just 3 weeks before the event, the route was routed over a different bridge. It appears that all the signs for the runners from that point on have been removed. In a panic, I call Dan Hill, the head race director of the event.
(audio clip)
A veteran of these events, Dan kindly asks me to triple check that I am on the correct route, and perhaps the error is with me and not the signs or cones. Somewhat insulted, I drive back, get out my map, and realize that he was exactly right.
(audio clip)
Throughout the morning, as runners are now hitting the exchange points in greater numbers, I begin to get even more and more calls from the volunteers and runners asking for help or clarification.
(audio clip)
After driving the length of the course again and dropping off some equipment, I decide to head down to the joint Ragnar and cancer awareness exchange point to see how our compromise has been working out, and meet the cancer awareness event manager running the site. Things have gone so well that we end up falling all over each other with compliments.
(audio clip)
Apparently, everything is going “great”, since I repeated that word at least 6 times in the conversation. Finally, as the last runners comes through each exchange, its time to sweep the course behind them. I spent the next 6 hours taking down the signs, picking up garbage, and thanking volunteers. I’m already exhausted. At the finish line, I continue to help take down the signs, tents and pavilions. After loading up the vans, and heading out to a celebratory dinner with the race management team, I finally get to bed at 2am Sunday morning. I haven’t slept in 44 hours, but I am thoroughly satisfied that my actions of the last 2 days helped to execute an almost flawless event for a group of fellow athletes, and I hope it will be a fond memory for them. In the 20 seconds between the time I hit the pillow and fall asleep, the thought occurs to me that I may never have been this tired in my life. My next race is the Boston Marathon in April, as a runner, not a volunteer. At least my next event won’t be so exhausting. This is David Warden, for Tri Talk.
Thanks for sticking with me to the bitter end of the podcast. Special thanks to the Ragnar Relay series for letting me volunteer to manage the course. You can find out more about their events at ragnarrelay.com. If you listen to the show via iTunes, you may have noticed that Tri Talk is now the #4 featured podcast in all of iTunes Sports and Recreation, ahead of the thousands of other sports podcasts including all but one ESPN podcast.

I’m often asked what listeners can do for me in return for producing the podcast. If I can make one request of you, please consider visiting the Tri Talk website at www.tri-talk.com and entering in your race results as part of my research project on the relationship between non-traditional race metrics and performance. Thanks to the hundreds of you who have entered in your information, but my goal is to get a sample size of 1,000 athletes, and I need your help. So stop feeling guilty and head out to www.tri-talk.com and click Research.

If you are a rabid Tri Talk fan, I have a teaser for you. Make sure you get a copy of the November issue of Triathlete Magazine. I can’t say why yet, but trust me, it’s good stuff.

Finally, for those of you who are members of USAT, don’t forget that the USAT elections close on October 1! You only have a few days left to cast your electronic ballot. If you live in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico or El Paso County, Texas, please consider taking just a few minutes and voting for me as your USAT Representative on the Regional Board. It is a piece of cake to do at www.usatriathlon.org

The next episode will be out on Oct 1, and as the 50th Tri Talk episode we’ll be celebrating with some fantastic content. I’ll be reporting live from Interbike in Las Vegas, and will share what I find in the latest technologies, And I have a verbal commitment for an interview with my idol Joe Friel, author of the Triathlete Training Bible. I’ll see you next time!