Just read it. No real comment at his time since I've yet to do an IM. I do agree that IM training is no guarantee of a long and healthy life. In fact, in some individuals it may possibly even have a negative effect.

No good for CCF. I don't think I have the speed necessary to qualify at a 1/2 distance event. Not that I do at the full distance yet, but I think I will in the next few years.

-C

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

I actually see a couple problems.

First if you move the qualifing down to half distance I seriously doubt those viaing for a slot are going to train any less than they would if they were trying to qualify at the full distance. Maybe differently but not less. The only difference woudl be the effect of the actual race distance. In this case doing a 1/2 and a full in one year vs 2 fulls. Not much of difference, IMHO.

Second as you pointed out just because you can do a fast half doesn't mean you can do a fast full, thus it's probable that in some, maybe many cases, you'll not have the most "qualified" individuals qualifing.

I do agree that doing many races a year may lead to some level of breakdown. But of course don't we see this in any sport at any distance, especially at the elite level? In order to be competitive you have to push your body. Whether that is at world class 10K level or world class IM level. No expert but I suspect history is littered with 10K runners that pushed to hard to often and exploded, probably just as many, maybe more than IM'rs.

~Matt

i don't know what i think, but i'm sure joe boness would object.

[reply]i don't know what i think, but i'm sure joe boness would object.[/reply]

Yeah, but Support Crew might not!!! :)

-C

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

I agree with you. A half is a completely different race. A full is not just twice the distance, it's at least four times the effort. Maybe a half could qualify you only if you already have a full under your belt. Or how about this: Full IM races will qualify you for Kona if they're more than nine (or whatever number you care to use) months prior to Kona. Otherwise, they'll qualify you for the following year's Kona.

---

Proud member of FISHTWITCH: doing a bit more than fish exercise now.

How 'bout this:

In order to race any full Ironman, you must qualify at a 70.3 event (with a larger percentage making the cut.) This would boost the attendance at the HIM's, and put the full IM a step closer to the pinnacle of achievement of triathlon. The Kona slots would still come from the full IM series, but in the process both races benefit immensely.

I know it doesn't address the health issue at hand, but it would be a great way to boost the popularity of the 70.3 series and make the Ironman even more special.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I actually think the idea the qualifing date is 12+ months prior is a better approach. So If you did IMLP this year you would qualify for Kona 2007. That way if you felt you needed more recovery you could take it.

None the less once you got into the cycle two years you'd end up with the same situation with people racing to qualify for Kona a year out and then racing this year because they qualified last year. However this would be more of a "Choice" than by force of schedule.

~Matt

I believe the Boston Marathon handles it in similar fashion, with a one-year deferment.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I suggested something a while back similar to this, qualifying for an IM with a 1/2IM to help cut down on what is becoming (or already is) overcrowding at IM events in North America. Basic response was that they'd never give up the potential lost revenue.

On similar lines, I can't see them making the 1/2 IM events the only qualifiers for Kona. Part of the reason there is all the sponsorship at the full events is because the pros are there racing them in hopes of getting a Kona slot. Yes, there are the cash prizes as well, but the ultimate goal for any pro is going to be Kona (and the even bigger cash prizes). I would think a sponsor would be reluctant to continue if the pro field started dropping off.

Perhaps, as a compromise to Dan's proposal, it could be the age groupers that qualify at the 1/2 distance, while the pros still need to qualify at a full distance event. Still, as others have stated, there is a huge difference between a 1/2 and full IM.

Chris

---

--
"I do not hurt on the bike, I punish."

I agree totally with what Dan says and disagree in general to the comments posted on this thread to date.

Until 1999, when Ironman LP was introduced, all the qualifiers in the continental US were from Olympic and Half Ironman tris, aside from the few slots at Vineman and the now defunct World's Toughest Tri in South Lake Tahoe CA. Aside from that, the international qualifiers were all Ironmans: IMC, Ironman Europe in Roth, Ironman OZ, IMNZ and Ironman Japan.

Years ago, Mark Allen said that doing more than 1 Ironman a year was not a good idea, so I listened to him and I've only done one a year, 12 of the last 14 years. I think that in general doing Ironmans is not particularly healthy (just like smoking, don't ask a smoker to refrain from risky behaviour) and doing more than one a year at the pointy end of any age group competition is asking a lot from the human body.

When I qualified for Hawaii the first 2 times, I passed cause I did not want to put my body through more than one in a year (I qualfied at IMC). Since then, I did a few half Ironman qualifiers and did not qualify and did several Ironmans too with the intent on going to kona if I qualified and doing more than one in that year, but I have never managed to qualify again.

I welcome the concept of more half Ironman qualifiers...then again, I am better at shorter racing than Ironmans.

I think eventually they'll have to do this anyway. Otherwise they will just have to keep adding slots to new IM races and giving fewer and fewer slots to each race.

What you'll end up with is IM races that qualify for Kona and those that don't. In order to get into the qualifing IM races you'd have to qualify in a Half IM....actually that would be kinda cool. It would also be a good opportunity to institute the 12+ break between the IM races.

So you'd qualify at the HIM, within the next 12 months you'd race the Full and then 12+ months later you'd race at Kona if you qualified at the full.

~Matt

Doesn't boston allow an either or situation. Something like any race in the prior 18 months? I thought a friend of mine qualified a couple fo months prior to Boston and he was trying to decide whether to do it the following year or wait a year.

Could be mistaken though.

~Matt

[reply]I agree with you. A half is a completely different race. A full is not just twice the distance, it's at least four times the effort. Maybe a half could qualify you only if you already have a full under your belt. Or how about this: Full IM races will qualify you for Kona if they're more than nine (or whatever number you care to use) months prior to Kona. Otherwise, they'll qualify you for the following year's Kona.[/reply]

That time frame seems like a good idea to me. We had a similar discussion when Lessing DNFed in Kona after qualifying 7 weeks prior in Canada. I say make Canada a qual race for the next year. Also, give people at IMLP the choice. They can take a spot for either the current year or the next. Yes, this might create a problem if, say, in 2006 everyone took the 2007 slot, and then everyone in 2007 also took the 2007 slot. But that is highly unlikely to happen, and if it did it would add less than 100 people to the kona field in that year. So no biggie at all.

So then the latest qual race that has to be for the current year is Coeur d' Alene, which I believe is 15 weeks out from Kona.

-C

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

It could be managed like a Disney FastPass (tm). Once you've entered an IM, you can't enter another one within 12 mos. Something like that.

---

Proud member of FISHTWITCH: doing a bit more than fish exercise now.

Dan's logic is pretty solid; the other benefit of spreading the slots to the halfs is to make the cost of a Kona campaign more in the range of a wider selection of the population.

The chances you'd be within driving distance of a Kona qualifier would increase and you could scale your training (and equipment) as (or if) you qualified thus lowering the investment in terms of time committed at the start of your campaign.

I wonder if Dan is on the payroll to do this kind of test marketing for IMNA or if he just can't stop himself from trying to improve and grow this sport?

---

Mr. Uncaptured External Costs

Fossil carbon is planetary poison.

In 1990 at IMC you had the option to go for Kona 1991. Starting 1991, everyone had to race Kona the same year.

To the poster that said most pros do Ironman North America races to get into Kona, I would laregely disagree. Most are tier 2 pros there to earn a paycheque. Most who podium at IMNA races have little hope of making it to the top 10 in Kona.

Kona top 10

1. Faris (already qualified for Kona the previous year but also did Arizona)
2. Cam Brown (already qualified for Kona the previous year)
3. Peter Reid (already qualified for Kona the previous year)
4. Rutger Beke (already qualified for Kona the previous year, won Monaco Half Ironman in Sep)
5. Cam Widoff (already qualified for Kona the previous year)
6. Chris MacCormack (qual at Ironman Oz and did not race any IMNA, but kicked ass at Roth)
7. Raynard Tissink (won IMCDA)
8. Tom Soderdahl (don't know where he qualified but has been Kona top 15 before)
9. Francisco Pontano (...which radar screen was this dude on...certainly not at IMNA events)
10. Stephan Vukovic (3rd at IMC where he got a hawaii slot)

So as we can see, the key to doing well at Kona is (in general) to avoid a mid summer IMNA race, or better yet, qualify the previous year.

In Reply To:

i don't know what i think, but i'm sure joe boness would object.

Yeah, but Support Crew might not!!! :)


You mean I don't get 5 vacations a year?

Seriously, I believe Dan has a point. Not so much that I believe multiple IM are bad for your health, but that the average Age Grouper should not be REQUIRED to do an IM to qualify for Kona. It does take a toll on the budget and time.

Why can't IM slots be available at BOTH IM and 1/2 IM events. As stated by others, there can be a big difference in ones racing ability in a 1/2 compared to a Full. Why not let the athlete have a choice on the distance?

As for multiple IM being unhealthy for an athlete. I think the jury is still out on that one. Using examples of top athletes who have heart problems, Joe Bonness included, it is too easy to say it is the racing that causes it. Its very likely these individuals would have the same problems, maybe even sooner, without an active lifestyle. In Joe's case there is a very strong genetic component. He likely would have A-Fib with or without multiple IM.

On a personal note. Joe's A-Fib was not triggered by close races, but by a too tight wet suit fit. The compression on his chest combined with a sudden swim start was the culprit. By changing to a better fitting suit and starting a little easier he seems to have the A-Fib under control, (for now) and made it through 4 IM without a recurrence.

---

Support Crew
This information contained herein has been assembled for your assistance and convenience. It is believed to be reliable, however, its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. All opinions shown are subject to change without notice.

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

Perhaps it is not the multiple Ironman races, but it is the self inflicted self destructive behaviour that we type A athletes engage in through a prolonged period of time through multiple Ironmans without heeding the signs that say "back off from that 8th 3 hour run in 10 weeks" that is what might do us in.

I'm not saying that this is the case for Joe by any means.

I do know personally from my own experience and from friends of mine who are competitive age grouper types, that we have a tough time backing off. For me, the easiest solution is to avoid the temptation by not registering for more than 1 Ironman per year. Which just means that I go from pushing a bunch of 18-27 hour training weeks to a more manageable 12-20 hours for half Ironman or shorter (of course, this volume is more in line with what most people are doing for Ironman anyway but I guess this is the point that Dan might be trying to make)

Thanks Cathy. So aside from Macca, Vukovic and Tissink, no one in the top 10 raced an Ironman after mid April.

Food for thougth and if it works for the pros who have better genetics and better training, and "recovery infrastructure" (ie not working 9-5 or whatever), then it says something to the rest of us.

From Dan's article:
"the average Ironman competitor -- age-group competitor, mind you -- swims 12,000 yards per week, bikes 230 miles a week, and runs 48 miles a week. He or she does this for seven months prior to an Ironman"

I can't believe the "average" triathlete would do that kind of training for 7 months and finish mid pack. It would take a lot of training to get to where you could even put in a week like that. That would be like 4 swim workouts, 13 hours on the bike, and 7 hours running, so about 24 hours per week. I finish better than mid pack/mid age group and I've never hit ANY of those numbers in a week, much less all of them. I do about half that for 3 months prior to the race and get fat and lazy the rest of the year.

In Australia - it was - and I am assuming still is - necessary to qualify for Ironman Australia (not sure of IMWA) - by successful completion of one of several half IM races around the country - within a certain time - corresponding to your age group.



Then and only then - could you race IM Oz.

Not a bad idea - but does it translate well to the US/

Not at all.

Can you imagine the resistance, mutiny and rioting that would occur if this was put in place?

I do not think it would solve any problems - you would have WAY overcrowded 70.3 races - safety would be compromised more than it already is - and you would still end up with full IM races nationwide - based purely and simply on physical mass - the number of people racing will ensure that not only with the 70.3 races fill - but so too will the full IM races because just THAT many people will qualify.

The problem is - there would never be enough HIM races conducted on an annualized basis, to meet the demand placed upon it to fill the full IM slots.

Needless to say - WTC has a pretty good thing going now - demand exceeds supply - IM and 70.3 races are going to fill up/sell out regardless.

As for two or more races in a year - Dan has some valid points - however I think it is a purely personal thing - some people can do it effectively - others cannot.

We all know where we personally fit within this range and should be considerate of this in selecting races and race frequency every year.

"Food for thougth and if it works for the pros who have better genetics and better training, and "recovery infrastructure" (ie not working 9-5 or whatever), then it says something to the rest of us."

Or not. It has been said many times that it's dangerous to compare the "average Joe" to the pro's. What may be good for the goose may indeed not be good for the gander.

~Matt

Tissink Qualified top ten at kona 2004 too

Yeah...so if the pros do better on one Ironman a year (or at least spacing them 6 months apart), I'd say your average agegrouper has a better chance of success going more conservative rather than more aggressive.

I had exactly the same reaction when I read Dan's article. I also usually finish mid age group (5 IM's) and usually swim 2 hours per week, bike 6 hours per week and run 6 hours per week. I usually start training around early April (once our local ski hill shuts down), usually do a marathon in May and a half IM in June followed by IMC in August.

My guess is people are about as honest when surveyed by IMNA about their training habits as they are when their dentist asks them how often they bush their teeth.

Maybe the intention was to reflect the training schedules of the average Kona qualifier, rather than the average Ironman competitor...big difference. I'd find those numbers believable in that case.

Regarding your comments on using 70.3 races as IMNA race qualifiers What if the rule was you had to finish a 70.3 race in 6 hours or better to race in a IMNA race? Of course you can expand on this and have different qualifying times for different age groups and men/women. Or you could just do this for the popular races like Florida, LP, etc. Since this rule would foreclose many of the 15-17 hour finishers, you could leave some races, such as Arizona and IMCA open.

HH

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I think it depends upon the individual. I did one IM last year. I'm just now getting fully recovered. By that, I mean, wanting to work out again...and maybe even more importantly, having my body respond favorably to a hard workout. I simply felt tired and old for the past year, and have had several injuries...all following what most people would consider to be a successful IM...at least for someone that has never done one before. I thought it was hard, but, it wasn't as hard as I feared it would be.

This past weekend, I stood up on my bike pedals and cranked hard up a couple of hills...and it felt good for a change. It's been about 18 months since that has felt good to me. And it's been about 14 since I did the IM...my performance decline seemed to have started before the actual race.

I could easily be outside the Normal range of responses...but, for me, I do not think I could have done another IM in the same year. Even if I could, I would never know, because I would not have attempted it again. I'm all for exploring the limits of my physical and mental abilities, as long as it doesn't leave me worse off than before. IM training and racing seems to be too far out of my range considering my experience and training levels...and this may be partly because of genetic characteristics, or "real work" and "real family" reasons. I really don't have to know all the reasons, just that, multiple IM's in one year aren't currently for me.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

I was thinking the top 50% in all age groups get a ticket to register for the full IM, pro's included in AG sorting. A 6 hour cutoff (as I initially thought about as well) would penalize some AG's harder than others.

If I could put in the same hours that I put in training for IMFL but get a shot at Kona via 70.3 I'd be all for it. Not my preferred method but I'd take it.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

"I wonder if Dan is on the payroll to do this kind of test marketing for IMNA"
no, but i'm open to the idea ;-)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Some great points about health, costs and time commitments for a full IM. Especially when you have 2 in one year and one is Kona.

I think the one point not mentioned, especially in reply to Support Crew's statment about qualifying at both the 1/2 and full events is the dwindling number of spots available at each race. Because of the popularity of Ironman, they are increasing the # of IM qualifiers and in line with that the # of spots available for Kona are less at each race. Because of this the qualifying times to get to Kona are faster and faster each year. In looking at IMFL qualifying times this year you had to go 9:40'ish to get a spot in most male age groups. THAT IS SMOKING FAST and requires a lot of talent (& training). If I am not mistaken, a few years ago you could get in in the low 10's. (Not that people are that much faster, just that they have only 8-12 spots for the popular age groups instead of 12-16)

I think the biggest problem facing the better than average age grouper is the difficulty of qualifying for Kona is only going to get harder. I do not think they should give the slots away and I think the system of earning your spot is the best and only way. Implementing a system that does not add more qualifying races is important. Diluting the qualifying spots makes the dream of getting one of the dream spots a further reach each year!!!!

My 2 cents anyway!!

Vanilla

I think a lot of the problem is the terrible overtraining of many Ironman competitors. My best year I did 2 and am looking forward to doing that next year. With a good training plan, the second race of the year requires much less volume, and is fun because more speed is involved.

As far as qualifying with a 1/2, no way in my opinion. There is little comparison between a 1/2 and full, and the idea is to have the best at the full Iman distance competing. As far as timing for Kona if one qualifies, you know the timing when you register! Plan better if you can't recover.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

Lots of people, me included, do not have the speed to even be close to a slot at a half IM. Whereas I have a good chance at a full IM.

It would 'almost' be like Boston using 10k times for qualifying...instead of using marathon times.

Yep, still have to earn a spot to IMOz if you are an Aussie, and for IMWA you have to have completed at least 1 tri - I think they were OK with even a sprint tri!

---

------------------------
"How bad could it be?" - SimpleS

I think this is an excellent idea proposed by Empfield. I am surprised that there have not been more supportive posts. Here are my comments on why this is a great proposal.

1. No one is saying that the HIM is the same race as the IM. They may be different races but the training necessary to "race" a HIM will carry over and lead to a successful IM for the smart athlete. I view the main differences as pacing and nutrition; two areas that can be practiced during training. Comparing this to other qualifying processes seems fundamentally flawed because there are no races that are of this duration thus the potential deleterious effects on body are a non-issue. Additionally, other long races such as RAAM or Furnace Creek 500 do not require you to do a RAAM or a 500mile race, but rather accept times from races of shorter distances as evidence of your ability to enter in the respective event.

2. The economic factor is also a significant issue. I have already been priced out of IMNA events and I would not be able to afford to do both an IMNA event and IMH in the same year. I am sure I am not the only person in this situation. If the HIM qualifiers were to remain at $200 and be within driving distance then I think this opens the door for more athletes to participate in the qualifying process.

Noah

Actually, Cam Brown did IM Germany in early July and finished second to Norman. He has followed this three a year policy for a 3/4 yrs now?

I wonder if the three per year has contributed to Cam never quite pulling it off (so far) in October? Even for the super elite, there has got to be a toll with these races, surely? Especially at the speed they go.
And saying that, of course, I mean no disrespect to an outstanding athlete.

---

kiwipat

per ardua ad astra

When you qualify for Boston your qualified for 16 months. I know there are different logistics for each race but maybe IM should look at a longer qualification period.

---

_______________________________________________
"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country" JFK - Replace 'country' with the company you work for, friends, family, and strangers and the world will be a much better place.

"When you qualify for Boston your qualified for 16 months. I know there are different logistics for each race but maybe IM should look at a longer qualification period."

That's a great solution -- and a very simple one, too. I like it because:

• It takes the pressure off of the athlete in terms of time and budget.
• It would allow more people (the few at the pointy end of competitive age groups) to get the chance to qualify, in the long run. Those with a Kona slot in hand for next year would be less likely to enter a qualifier IM the next season. More room at the top for the next guy, but still retains the elite nature of Kona qualification.

Of course, the second point is only valid if everyone follows the "one IM per year" rule.

I think the type of athlete needs to seperated between long and half. Half seems to have it's field more of a composite between the short course and long course guys. I also take the point that 2 in a season for solid results at both is too high a load for age groupers. Bear in mind most pro's do 2 maximum. I think the longer qualification window is sensibly the best way to please all.

Bottom line ? I don't think athletes who haven't proven themselves at full distance should be entitled to go to an Ironman world championship full stop. Likewise, we are talking about normal people here as well though so we need some sensible leeway.



bryce.

"I don't think athletes who haven't proven themselves at full distance should be entitled to go to an Ironman world championship full stop."

Hogwash. I have known plenty of people over the years who qualified for Kona at 1/2s or even shorter, who had also never done IM distance, who pulled off perfectly respectable Kona finishes...some as high as top 5 AG.

I am very much in agreement with Dan's article. There are some holes, one of which he pointed out. But for the most part...I think the 70.3 series provides a perfect platform for Kona qualifying.

It's like comparing two completely different sports. I'm not saying a person can't be successful in both but I am saying you wouldn't compare a 10k run with a half marathon race would you as means of qualification for the Olympics ? Specificity has to be key here but i agree with Dan that 2 IM's in a year may be a big ask.

Let's say most of us at least flirt with an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Do we need protection from ourselves? Probably. From the health damaging aspect of two IMs in one year, I agree with ST. It would be interesting to compare the "pro" DNFs to the AG DNFs, on a percentage basis. My guess is that the pros have a higher percentage of DNFs. Probably due to over-racing. But the pros have a efficient support/recovery system. It's the MOPs and BOPs we're talking about. Over the years, I have seen AGs in such bad shape that it was hard to imagine compete recovery. I also wonder how many people experience a single IM and retire from the sport. So, I think the half IM to full IM is a reasonable progression from the health perspective. Under the present system, a person can jump from a sprint to a full IM, and how many leave the sport after that experience?

As one USAT official said, we have to keep repeating the rules because there is such a huge turnover in membership. Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by not regulating a progression of experience?

Kudos to ST for his insight.

---

Jim

Again or not.

Would seem to me that the typical pro is pushing much closer to the true limit of what their body can handle than is your average AG'r.

I think the factor that is being left out here is intensity, which is typically much higher for the pro's than it is for the age groupers. So the actual damage being done is likely less for an age grouper.

~Matt

As much as I'd like to agree with you, Bryce...the evidence just isn't really there to support. AG times at Kona really haven't improved since qualifying became mostly an IM process, at least in any measure meaningful enough to attribute to athletes having "proven" themselves at IM before Kona.

There are any number of plausible explanations for this that DO NOT validate MY argument either. But at the end of the day we cannot say that success at Kona has anything to do with proving oneself at a previous IM.

A fair point. So where does that leave us ethically. Maybe taking age into account you are right. I'm not sure I'd be happy putting a 70 year old through to IM's a year and expect them to train and recover safely.....

[reply]Thanks Cathy. So aside from Macca, Vukovic and Tissink, no one in the top 10 raced an Ironman after mid April. [/reply]

Cam Brown did IM Germany and Faris Al-Sultan missed Roth only because an injury. The same for Reid who planned IM Germany.

And Rynard Tissink won IM SA and Austria this year (not IMCDA).

Soderdahl was 2nd at IMCdA.

Check http://www.xtri.com/results/view.asp?id=imhi&year=2005

Felix

---

http://www.weilenmann.ch.vu

Why should we be "legislating" the quantity of races one does? Seems to me it's the person's business. Ironman races aren't "broke", so they aren't going to even think about a fix. The only thing they need to do is add more races to roll in the cash.
I know of some qualifying with olympic distances, in the "old days". Their experience was very bad, and to even think that that training can prepare one for an Ironman is ludicrous. There is no comparison between olympic or 1/2 races and an Ironman.
As I said before, the true problem is how much overtraining is done. If Dan's info is right as far as training, then that's the truth. Why anyone does that kind of volume for 7 MONTHS! is ridiculous. No human body can flourish with that. But, to add more "rules" is not the solution, as no one has any business telling how many races one can do.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

[reply]When you qualify for Boston your qualified for 16 months. I know there are different logistics for each race but maybe IM should look at a longer qualification period.[/reply]

Though then you get into the problem where you only have x number of spots in Hawaii, unlike Boston where the number of entries can fluctuate by a large number. Say you have 100 slots at a race and if you have a big window of choosing which year to race Kona, you have 50 do it this year and 50 do it next year. Another year those numbers may be 40/60. That works for Boston, but with a finite number of entries, it would be a mess for Hawaii. And qualifying in one year and racing Hawaii in another year....lots of things can happen in a year. I'd go with moving to an August 1st cutoff--anything after August quaifies for the next year.

clm

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

"...Do we need protection from ourselves? Probably... Over the years, I have seen AGs in such bad shape...So, I think the half IM to full IM is a reasonable progression from the health perspective... Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by not regulating a progression of experience?" -- lowcountry


Just say no! Stop the Nanny State nonsense!

A seventy-year-old entering an IM (an extreme example for this discussion) doesn't want or need anyone to "protect him from himself" -- at his age, he's earned the right to make his own decisons.

No one needs to protect me from entering too many races, or from entering an IM without the "proper" credentials -- it's my decision to enter, and if I'm fortunate enough to get in I'll pay my entry fees and sign the hold harmless agreement, too.

Should someone enter an IM after having done nothing more than the "Quickee-Mart Sprint Tri Challenge"? You may have your opinion, but it is ultimately the competitor's choice to make.

This is a reason for the longer window, say 6-18 months. That gives the athlete the opportunity to race the same or the following year. Send in your application like they do for Boston they accept it or reject it based on numbner of qualifiers they've already recieved.

~Matt

[reply][i]"...Do we need protection from ourselves? Probably... Over the years, I have seen AGs in such bad shape...So, I think the half IM to full IM is a reasonable progression from the health perspective... Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by not regulating a progression of experience?" --[/i] lowcountry


Just say no! Stop the Nanny State nonsense!

A seventy-year-old entering an IM (an extreme example for this discussion) doesn't want or need anyone to "protect him from himself" -- at his age, he's earned the right to make his own decisons.

No one needs to protect me from entering too many races, or from entering an IM without the "proper" credentials -- it's my decision to enter, and if I'm fortunate enough to get in I'll pay my entry fees and sign the hold harmless agreement, too.

Should someone enter an IM after having done nothing more than the "Quickee-Mart Sprint Tri Challenge"? You may have your opinion, but it is ultimately the competitor's choice to make.[/reply]

Thanks olddog! Enough of the big brother crap!

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

Why try to fix something that works fine. If you pick a qualifier close to Hawaii, that you feel you can't recover from, and you qualify, then you've got one person to blame. Last I looked, there's plenty of qualifiers out there to pick from. Stop the insanity.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

Instead of making the window variable, just say that all races after July 1 are qualifiers for the next year. That would simplify everything.

Most of you guys were not around in this sport when people qualified exclusively through half Ironmans. Back then as Tribriguy said, overall age group times were much faster. I think a mix of half and full Ironman qualifiers would be good.

For the moment we have:

Monaco Half, Ralphs, St Croix, Eagleman, Clearwater 70.3 championships. It would be great to see this jacked up to 10 races or so.

Even with my earlier post -- perhaps rant is a better word -- I still think an 18 - month window is a simple compromise, and an idea that should be explored.

I think the distribution problem (60/40 split between choice of year, for example) will even itself out after a couple of years.

Add to that Pontano Roldan who qualified at Lanzarote in late May. But still not sure where his blistering speed came from as he completed Lanzarote in 9:31.

---

_______________________________

Good athletes train when they want to, great athletes train when they don't......

As far as filling up 70.3, because there are IMHawaii spots at the 70.3 championship, I predict they will all be sold out next year anyway so no sure what the motivation for WTC is to change anything.

In regards to overtraining, if all the qualifiers where 70.3, you'd have to train almost as much distance at a higher intensity to qualify, so not sure it would be any less stressful.

And just because some 6x year old has a heart attack? How do you know he wouldn't have had a heart attack at 50 if he didn't train twice a year for an ironman.

Finallly, I think there are far more people that sign up for IMNA races with no chance of qualifying, but it is still a big appeal. If they dropped age group qualifying from IMNA, who is to say attendence would not drop off.

If this were jacked up to 10 races or so where would the qualifying spots come from? Would you take them from the existing IM qualifiers?? Would you keep the same # of IM qualifiers or reduce it and take the slots from the IM and transfer them in whole to the 1/2? For example: IM Wisconsin would no longer be a qualifier and all of their slots would go to say Buffalo Springs or Eagleman.

Vanilla

Vanilla

great...so now we'll get to sign up half ironman's a year in advance and watch the prices go through the roof. please make sure that there's at least a 5 night minimum at all the local hotels too...I wouldn't want to be cheated out of the "full experience". thanks ;)

(btw...i agree with you.)

No, you would need more half Ironman qualifiers worldwide, not just in the US, so cut the Ironman slots by say 30 at each local venue and add them to another Ironman. So IMNZ would lose some slots but a local half would gain them. Ironman Florida might lose 30 slots, but Gulf coast gets them, Couer d"Alene loses 30 but Spokane Troika gets them etc etc etc.

As painful as this sounds, one or more Ironmans in the US should lose all their slots and they should be spread amongst races in Europe. There is a disproportionate number of KONA slots from the US vs Europe, where the caliber of racing is WAY WAY higher, and in my estimation, deserving of more KONA opportunities (ever notice how every Euro that comes over for IMNA race seems to qualify for KONA ....). Of course, we know this would never happen. People sit around and complain how hard it is to qualify here in North America and then have to fly over to Hawaii and do two Ironmans in a year. Just try it from Europe. You need to go sub 9:20 and then fly 11 time zones to race in Kona...

"Would you take them from the existing IM qualifiers?"

yeah. IM lake placid's spots go to timberman and/or other 70.3 events in the northeast. and i don't think you necessarily have to give all the slots to one race. give all the male slots to timberman and the female spots to another 70.3. maybe an all-female 70.3. irongirl is looking for traction, right now it's mostly running events. i can't think of a better irongirl event than this. hell, i think they should have an all-female full-distance Ironman too, but an all-female 70.3 with kona slots would be HUGE.

in any case, i think a lot of people posting here have things pretty much backwards. yes, 70.3 is a different race, but not in the way it's being described here by some. as has been pointed out, those who qualify for kona thru 70.3 events historically represent as fast or faster a field as do those who qualify via the full distance. yes, there are sprinters who can win a 70.3. but in general those who do well at the full do well at the half.

taking wildflower as an example, historically you have one woman, the course record holder (donna peters), who was not an IM athlete. otherwise, it's generally the IM athletes, male and female, who dominate. that's in the pro field i'm talking about.

in the AG field, yes, you have an emiio de soto or a pete kain or a tim sheeper who might win their AG, but in general the peope who want to go to kona are also those who make the podium at wildflower.

the one BIG difference between a 70.3 and a full is NOT who'll do well and who'll won't, though there is a small crossover there. the big difference is in how quickly you can recover, and in the toll it takes on the body. you're dreaming if you think an AGer who qualifies for kona doesn't exert as much as does a pro. when you're going 9:12 as an almost 50-year-old you're putting out. when you're going 10:30-something and then going home to cash your social security check, you're putting out. there are male and female AGers every year in kona who're over 40 and who routinely beat the pros. if you're 25-39 you're probably beating a lot of pros while still losing your AG. and this race takes it out of you. if top marathoners feel they can only race 2 marathons a year, how much does an IM take out of you?

and, no, the training is not the same. those in this thread who write that it is are writing about a different sport than anything i'm familiar with. the difference in one's season if he or she is racing a 70.3 event, an IMNA race, and then kona in october, is vastly different than if one races 1 or 2 70.3 events and then kona.

personally, if i was WTC and IMNA i'd run, not walk, to adopt my proposal. but i'd also be happy if WTC chose a middle ground. maybe full-distance events between jan 1 and june 1 qualify one for kona, and afterward it's only the 70.3 that qualifies. so, fine, if you're a bonness-type, go to AZ and qualify for kona there. otherwise, the qualifiers are 70.3 events and LP, CDA, WI, FL, canada are not qualifiers for kona.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Maybe, but I doubt it. He said:

"At the same time, the average Ironman competitor -- age-group competitor, mind you -- swims 12,000 yards per week, bikes 230 miles a week, and runs 48 miles a week. He or she does this for seven months prior to an Ironman."

" seven month prior to an Ironman" sounds, well, like an Iroman event and not just Kona. Also, I have heard these same numbers tossed around at IMC by IMNA as well and I just don't buy it.

Like I said, people exaggerate... and their biggest week becomes their average week.

... and I suppose we could have the qualifying heats for the Olympic 100 metres only be 50 metres so that the athletes aren't too tired for the final but my guess (and hope) is you won't see that happening anytime soon.



I fully agree that doing Kona in early October after qualifying at, for example, IMC in late September, is a tall order and probably not the best thing for your body, especially for an AG'er. However, I think that problem can be adequately addressed by simply having all Kona qualifier spots earned after July 1st be for the following, not the current, year.

For some reason I get the impression that you're hell-bent on promoting 70.3's. ;-)

Yeah, those kicking ass at Ironman are also fast at half Ironman. Taking slowman's example, the dude winning 45-49 or 50-55 in 9:12 as a very minimum is capable of 4:36 (ie 9:12/2), but it more likely to be a sub 4:15 stud.

The other cool thing about having half Ironman qualifiers is that it forces everyone to actually do some work on the swim. You still get 70 min swimmers qualifying at the full distance, but those guys will likely be swimming 35-36 and will be off the back and have a hard time gaining back that lost time on someone that went 27.

I agree. Share the wealth man.......

Yeah, but even if you Euros get double the slots, your qual times will drop from 9:20 to 9:30 or at the half Ironman distance, you'll still need to be sub 4:20 on a rolling course or sub 4:35 on a tough course like Monaco!

When I did Roth in 1993, there were 50 guys who went sub 9. Granted, it is a fast course and there was no "controle anti-dopage", but still, that is a lot of blazing fast dudes.

We're just soft here on this side of the pond. More people need to go train with the Olaf Ludwig crew in Rostock and quit complaining about how tough it is to qualify in North America...we got it pretty easy :-)

I guess we all need to be German........

I think there are enough of you Brits training over in Majorca and Lanzarote with all the Deutch and Swiss turbojets to qualify through association :-)

He's got us there.....

[reply][reply]
[reply]


I think that I read somewhere that past champions do not need to qualify to race (can someone verify this?) So in that case Molina, Hellriegel, Deboom, LVL etc would not need to qualify even if they finish out of the top 5 or not even finish.[/reply]

That is true.

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

I guess I'd have to really see some hard evidence that what you are saying is true.

I'm no expert here but I woudl think that ones training in order to be top 4-5 in a HIM is going to be very close to that of top 4-5 in a full if you have the same level of athlete at both races. What it boils down to is the difference between what racing a full IM vs what racing a HIm takes out of you. Frankly I just don't see there being too huge of a difference. The full you're forced into a slightly slower intensity to maintain over the longer distance. The HIM you're going faster over the shorter distances. In the end the same amount or similar effort is expended and the next day you're still be soar and tired.

Granted I'd guess a full is slightly more exhausting but as a percentile difference between (Training for best performance in a HIM + Racing a HIM + Racing a full) vs (Training for a best performance in a full + Racing a Full + Racing a full) I just don't see a big difference as the training is similar and is far more damaging than the race.

If an individual is training significantly less for a HIM than they are for a full they likely aren't reaching their full HIM potential and likely won't qualify anyway, well unless they're very talented.

I do agree with you that in most cases, assuming the person has full IM experiance, a fast HIM'r will perform equally as well in a full so it's not really a qualifing issue for me. It's just that I don't see a difference between the two. The other issue I have with qualifing for a full with a half is the "experiance issue". I have no problem qualifing at a half *if* you've already done a full, but without experiance at the full distance I think your chances for a comparable performance to your HIM times plummet.

If the real goal here is to support the athletes well being then the answer is not to change the race distance but to "Enforce" a recovery period. Even so if you lay in a 12-18 month window between qualifing and racing you'll still have people doing Fulls and multiple fulls, inbetween their qualifier and Kona. Alot people race multiple races not becasue they have to but becasue they enjoy it.

~Matt

MJuric, have you ever done an Ironman? Have you ever raced a marathon in sub 3 and tried to recover from this? This is what the pros are running IN AN IRONMAN. They are doing the Ironman at just a touch above their half Ironman pace. Check out Reid's half Ironman times and his Ironman pace is just a few minutes slower than 2xHalf. These guys are going at almost their Half Ironman pace for twice as long. To suggest that both races take the same amount out of a pro is nuts. No way. The Ironman takes way more out of them.

From an age group perspective on the "Joe Boness lite program" I did 4 half Ironmans this year, and I was recovered from them in less than a week, usually by Thursday and ready to go hard again. I can race these things every two weeks. I did one Ironman this year, and I was out of commission (racing wise) for a full month and even then not back to 100% and my times are a good 90 minutes to 120 behind the top pros.

" MJuric, have you ever done an Ironman?"

Yes and

"Have you ever raced a marathon in sub 3 and tried to recover from this?"

no.

First I don't doubt that an IM takes more out of a Pro than a half. However as stated before I DON'T think it's 2X as much. Also as stated before in comparison the stress/damage put on the body during a race is only a fraction of the stress/damage put on during training. In order to perform at peak at both distances the amount of stress put on the body in training is similar.

"Check out Reid's half Ironman times and his Ironman pace is just a few minutes slower than 2xHalf."

If I'm not mistaken Reid is one of the individuals that performs well at full distance but not at half distance. Somewhere I read that he has one speed, IM speed. He's typically does not place as hig in 1/2's as he does in fulls, again could be mistaken though.

~Matt

Matt, it's the IM run that makes the difference. I (and most LD trained folks) can knock out 13 mile runs every weekend for a year with no ill effects. Bump that over 20 and it's in the injury zone.

It all comes down to recovering from repeated marathon efforts IMHO.

---

Mr. Uncaptured External Costs

Fossil carbon is planetary poison.

Reid won Wildflower 1996 against Zack, Wolfgang Dietrich, Pauli Kiuru, Cam Widoff etc etc.

He has half Ironman speed (like sub 4:05 at Wildflower) and taken it to the full Ironman distance. Lately, he peaks for one Ironman a year in Hawaii, so his tune up half Ironmans lately are not indicative of his speed at half.

I actually think that an Ironman takes >2xHalf Ironman out of not just pros, but age groupers. As someone else pointed out, its that little problem of going over 13 miles that kills the recovery, especially on trashed legs.

I don't understand the "move the slots to Europe" argument. If its based on demand, US/CAN exceeds EU. As far as I know, I could still sign up for IM France, UK and Lanz. Also, your statement that it takes a sub-9:20 to qual in the EU is simply either a mistake or a lie. Check out the results and the IM quals from last year's IM Austria and you'll see plenty of quals over 9:20. I know a guy from here in the midwest who went to Austria and picked up a slot, and another who had never qualed before and got one with less competition in RSA (I realize that RSA is not EU, but still not US/CAN - not to mention the Malaysia fiasco).

For the record, I vote move all IM quals to IM races. If you're interested in 70.3s, there is now a 70.3 World Championship. If you're an IMer, prove your worth at the IM distance. I do agree with the July 1 cutoff date for rolling your qual to the following year. The IMLP to Kona transition was brutal (and I only ran Kona for a fun experience). I can't imagine doing the IMCanada to Kona dance.

---

_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts

"However as stated before I DON'T think it's 2X as much."

you're right. it's a lot more than that. it's not linear. it's exponential. maybe a half-IM on saturday and another one on sunday would do double the damage than just one half. but an IM does, i don't know, 4 times the damage. it just does it all in one fell swoop.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

It should not be a question of demand if we are talking about a world championship.

There should be a reasonable distribution worldwide, not just skewed to US (or for that matter Canada...). I used 9:20 as an example. That is what it took several years ago at Roth in 25-29 when it was the only qual race in Europe. Perhaps the times are a bit slower in Europe now, but not that much. Last time I checked RSA was as much Europe as is Malaysia or the Seychelles :-).

We can agree to disagree. I think there are room of kona slots at events that are both the full and the half Ironman lengths and for the record, I actually have proved myself over the Ironman distance, having done a bunch of them and actually managed to qualify for Kona twice at IMC. I'm still kicking myself in the pants for passing up those slots, but you can't change the past, just try and get fast enough in the future.

I just find it funny how people are so in the "prove yourself at Ironman distance" mode, when just 7 years ago, the only way to qualify in the US was at half Ironman or less and the rest of the world had to do the full distance !

Dev

Good discussion, but I guess I just don't get the point. All IMNA full events sell out now. With the 70.3 series and some marketting, all the 70.3 events will sell out. What's the motivation for WTC to change?

And as far as it being "hard" to do 2 events a year for age grouper. Hmm...don't do it. You haven't shown any evidence the 1800 or so age groupers in Hawaii each year are complaining. Is it a tough schedule? Yes, but we are talking about ironman racing.

>>It should not be a question of demand if we are talking about a world championship.

There should be a reasonable distribution worldwide,<<

OK. You want fair distribution and not a function of demand? Let's do it this way.
1,700 slots available
-200 lottery
-100 sponsor/other/whatever (just an estimate on my part)
==========================

1,400 slots to distribute

26 qualifying races currently (according to IMLive website)

1,400/26 = 38.8 slots per race if distributed equally

14 AGs (18 to 80 years, broken down by 5 year increments, plus pro) x 2 (male/female) = 28 AGs per race

38.8 slots/28 AGs = 1.38 slots per AG per sex

That means only 1 slot per male AG and 1 slot per female AG. Throw the extras to the pros, plus we need to add in the PC slots. It is the World Championship for ALL AGs, yes? Then distribute slots equally.

clm

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

"What's the motivation for WTC to change?"

i guess i'm just not a good communicator, because i thought i'd laid this out pretty plainly in the OpEd. here's another stab at it...

1. it is my GUESS that fewer people will die, be seriously internally impaired, and fewer will physically, financially, emotionally, and "familially" burn out and leave the sport (and have their wives leave them);

2. IM events do sell out, a year in advance, and in one day. that we know. 70.3 events may or may not sell out, and certainly not a year in advance. neither do irongirl events. IM is probably a mature industry. it's like a utility, you just keep getting your dependable, annual dividend check. 70.3 is the growth industry. that's where the action is.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Thanks

Live free or die !

Dirt

CAthy, yes and no. Like the FIFA world cup there are more qualifier slots in the traditional soccer powerhouse continents...namely Europe and South America. So I'd propose more slots in general for Europe and a few less for NA, spread over existing race (and maybe some halfs). Within each race, divide them by population ratio in each age group. Of course,as we know that does not help older age groups.

The ITU WC's have the same number of slots per age group. If you are 25 year old single guy, the ITU World's are a great place to go. The only post race party where there are just as many women as men :-). If you are a married 40 year old, go to a IMNA race and there are tons of family guys kicking around neglecting their kids and talking tri talk (that would be me).

Dev

On point 1.) Of the 1800 folks a year this applies to, what evidence is there that doing 1 vs 2 ironmans a year would reduced dealths or divorces? Seems like a stretch.

On point 2.) Agree with you on where the growth is. My point is that theh WTC doesn't need to touch the 140.3 format to max out 70.3 participation. This will happen soon enough with x (100?) Hawaii sports available at the 70.3 Champs. Realize I'm speculating here.

I for one like the idea of being able to qualify at 70.3 races...but of course at this stage in my career I'm still better at the shorter distances. Yes, the ability to qualify now at that distance does exist but 30 slots across 2000 competitors leaves very little room for anyone else but the elite of the elite AG'ers.

But I disagree with changing the current system which now has Canada as the last qualifier for the current year's Kona event...as has been stated multiple times, everyone is free to make their own choices. If you choose Canada as your qualifier and in fact succeed, you're still free to decide whether or not you want to race in Kona...though I admit it would be cool if IMNA had a few slots whereby you could choose current year or following year. That way it could be controlled.

That being said, likely fewer people would choose IMC as their qualifier if they were able to qualify at other, shorter races, perhaps making it real easy right off the bat to remove slots from Canada and disperse them amongst the 70.3 races. Would that tarnish the luster of IMC? Probably not, as it has also been said a number of times the vast majority of those racing the Ironman distance have no hope, dream or chance of qualifying for Kona.

It's an interesting topic to debate---I suppose the success or failure of the 70.3 series and its championship race next year might sway things one way or the other.

"Of the 1800 folks a year this applies to, what evidence is there that doing 1 vs 2 ironmans a year would reduced dealths or divorces? Seems like a stretch."

i thought if i wrote GUESS instead of just guess that the emphasis would illustrate that answer to your question. i think this is the 4th time i've written this since yesterday, and, i don't know, i'm hoping i'll just have to write this only 5 or 6 more times: i have no solid scientific evidence. i don't believe any study exists that demonstrates whether multiple ironmans in close proximity is problematic or not.

i have had family members and/or friends go into multiple surgeries to have their intestines cut up and reattached immediately following an IM that was not their first of the year; several who now have pacemakers who themselves believe it was the result of arduous, repeated IM racing and training; and several who have serious, clinical endocrine disfunction after training and racing multiple IMs in a year, for years on end. and then there's a friend of mine who just died riding his bike up a hill after his second IM this year.

in each of these cases, the culprit was the rigor associated with multiple IM events in a year, so say the very people who've suffered these maladies, with the exception of george wright, who can't be heard on this subject. these are not stories i've heard about. these stories belong to personal friends and/or family. these are people i'm personally close to, and have spoken to firsthand.

this established, these are anecdotes. they do not constitute scientific data. this is why i was careful to label my view as simply opinion based on anecdotes. the only area in which i disagree with you is that i don't think it's a stretch. the incremental damage associated with multiple annual ironmans may turn out not to be statistically relevant, but i don't think suggesting so constitutes a stretch.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

[reply]

1. it is my GUESS that fewer people will die, be seriously internally impaired, and fewer will physically, financially, emotionally, and "familially" burn out and leave the sport (and have their wives leave them);
[/reply]
That's an incredible stretch.....many of these symptoms are simply bs.....the divorce issues purported are mainly smoke....the person was looking for an out, and if it wasn't triathlon, it would have been something else. If a relationship is strong, that sure as hell woudn't happen.

This is sounding like the Jim Fixx crap all over again. For you youngsters, the media made a big deal when the running guru Jim Fixx dropped dead running. After all was said and done, it was determined he ignored the signs that he had 2 heart attacks, was formerly obese and a chain smoker, and a terrible family history, but running still added years to his life. The extra years he gained was buried in the news later. Same thing with this argument. Who the hell should be able to say how many races and what types one should do? Scary stuff here.... There's a backlash because one athlete died in his 60's.......wait until the autopsy report until you make judgement.

I will never have anyone tell me how many races I can do in a year.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

"I will never have anyone tell me how many races I can do in a year."

bravo. if we can find the person who actually suggested this, then let's string him up together. whaddya say?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Let's face it....the digestive issues had nothing to do with how many races one does in a period of time......it's the athlete screwing up nutrition on race day and the blood being shunted to the working muscles and the intestine's tissue dying. That's a bad stretch of logic. As far as the other cases, what a former athlete feels caused the issues isn't very reliable. As soon as a legit study is done, there is no way of knowing.......could as well be a nutritional issue over the years.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

Again, I would have to see some real hard evidence in order to belive 4X the damage or anything close to that.

If indeed it's 4X the damage one would expect to see recovery times that are 4X the time from equavelant efforts for the different races.

Personally I've never experianced that.

I suspect what may be happening is that people are pushing themselves further in the IM qualifiers than in the HIM's because there is more at stake, thus it appears that there is a significantly longer recovery time. However if the effort was equivalent, adjusted for distance the recovery woudl not be as significantly different...but that's a guess.

It would be a very interesting study however. A good place to start IMO would be on the running side and I'd guess that some info is already available. Biopsies on muscle tissue after record or near record race times at 10K, 1/2, full and Ultra distance runs would be interesting. Again my guess is that you woudl see a exponential decrease in muscle damage as the distance goes up. From sedentary to somewhere between a half and a full I'd guess you'd start to see a serious leveling off with not much of a difference between a full and an ultra, say 50 miles. All purely speculation and could be entirely wrong.

~Matt

"Let's face it....the digestive issues had nothing to do with how many races one does in a period of time......it's the athlete screwing up nutrition on race day"

you're hired. i was in the hospital to visit, or be in the waiting room during the surgery, for each such episode of which I speak (3 surgeries). these were all multiple IM winners. the doctors were all quite circumspect in their diagnoses.

yet you can whip out cause and effect just like that. nobody can accuse you of being wishy washy, or lacking decisiveness. damn, where were you when i ran a real business! you're leadership caliber.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Dan, I LIKE what you are saying and I have watched a guy die right in front of me as he crossed the finish line of a 50k so I know what you are talking about first hand, but...

1. No one is giving out age group awards, finisher's medals, bragging rights, or LIVE internet coverage of triathletes who are physically, financially, and emotional balanced. Five of my friends have qualified for and done Hawaii (multiple times) and they build their lives around this stuff, not the other way around. Also, they have no plans to stop this lifestyle anytime soon. Despite injury, maritial strain, even DEATH. One of my friends was almost fatally injured when he was hit by a car while racing at IM Florida. He is training to finish another IM but won't finish unless he can qualify for Kona because he doesn't want to strain himself unnecessarily. YEAH.

2. Did you see the thread about who's signed up for Lake Placid 2006? I don't know that the IM brand is done growing. This Ironman branding thing is some powerful stuff.

In marketing they talk about how people purhase things that match who they want to be. You buy the product that makes you become your ideal person. People are buying Ironman to become something. I don't think the 70.3 has that allure.

Personally, I like the 1/2 Ironman distance and have all of my immediate goals there but I still dream about Kona someday and I think a lot of other people do too.

Making the 1/2 IM distance a qualifier would be AWESOME. It would save people a lot of trouble but I think the trend is going the opposite direction. I would like to be wrong about this.

"you'd start to see a serious leveling off with not much of a difference between a full and an ultra, say 50 miles."

well, neither of us know scientifically. but you should see what paula, and welchie, and tinely, and huddle, and others who've had experience with this sort of thing say. here's a private email i got from a guy i don't know, but read the article up on slowtwitch earlier today:

"Yeah, I did 3 Ironman Races in '04.  It looked good on paper.  I was warned about not doing it...  I learned a lot during those races.  However, it cost me all of the '05 season.  I was burned out.  I haven't trained at all and jumped in sprint races on no training.  I am signed up for Canada '06 and shall see where we go from there..."

that's a pretty typical story.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I remember Tinley writing about something along these lines many years ago, that those in the early days of Ironman racing were experiments unto themselves...no one knew if those rigors you mentioned would have any long term effects, and the reality is we probably really won't know for some time yet.

Didn't Greg Welch get himself hemorrhoids one year by chronically dehydrating himself on long bike rides? Many of us know about Julieanne's issues years ago, and of course more recently a somewhat similar episode with Chris Legh. Was that due to a series of causes leading up to race day, or was it simply limited to race day events themselves?

When we heard about Joe Bonness having AT issues, my thought initially was that he was literally racing himself to death. As it turns out that's not the case...but it does give one pause to stop and examine the issue of multiple IM's year in and year out as potentially not good for one's body and long-term health.

Again, good topic for discussion, one which has no easy or clear cut answers. Thanks for bringing it up...and thanks as well for the write-up on George Wright. Sounds like a genuine first class citizen.

Don't you understand you aren't entitled to an OPINION on your board anymore, Dan? Your word is GOSPEL, and therefore either entirely fact or entirely blasphemy, and either way the information will be emotionally strangled by us, your pied piper hordes. There is NO middle ground for you to tread so lightly upon...

;-P

See what happens when you try to help folks out?

I think what we are seeing here are the "that's why it ain't called PantyMan" folks versus the "balanced and reasonable athlete who looks forward to making triathlon, even ultra distance triathlon, a PART of one's life to extend said life through fitness, camraderie, and knowledge."

Maybe we've found the edge of the sane vs. insane, being merely competitive vs. hyper competitive, of achievement vs. over achievelment.

Dan, perhaps some folks want to hurt themselves. Triathletes, at least some of 'em, are like the children in the rye field, and Dan, you are the catcher.

Thanks for playing.

---

Mr. Uncaptured External Costs

Fossil carbon is planetary poison.

"Again my guess is that you woudl see a exponential decrease in muscle damage as the distance goes up. From sedentary to somewhere between a half and a full I'd guess you'd start to see a serious leveling off with not much of a difference between a full and an ultra, say 50 miles. All purely speculation and could be entirely wrong."


Read the literature and you will see the light.

IM and 1/2 IM RACING are not healthy. Who claims otherwise is a liar.... Just look at some of the published blood profiles of athletes at the finishline.

The training itself, done reasonable and under proper control (medical, nutritional and methodological) will not inflict as much damage on your body as does racing. If it does, you are training wrong. In so far I agree with Dan.

---

adrialin

(BOMK, racing drug and supplement free since 1985)

IM racing beats you up Bad! Weeks after my first IM in 1989 I felt OK and could run with no pain, but I was still exhausted after 15 - 20 minutes of running. Something did not feel biochemically right with my body. And I was not a newbie. By that point I had run seriously for 14 years and had been seriously tri tarining for close to 10.

I agree with Dan, that almost forcing people to do 2 in a year is not a good thing. Yes, there are those recovery freaks out there that bounce back from these things really quickly, but I think they are the extreme exception. If you race these things and push yourself, I found I was shattered for weeks afterwards.

It is something the WTC should really think about. I agree that of the 2000 people who are toeing the line at an IMNA event, a small percentage of the filed is actually thinking about going to IMH and more than a few people who qualify, don't bother going. I qualified for IMH 10 years in a row, but only went twice.

Fleck

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Thank you.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

[reply]
I agree with Dan, that almost forcing people to do 2 in a year is not a good thing.Fleck[/reply]

Seems no one's "forcing" anyone to go. The next athlete in line would be delighted to take the spot.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

[reply]Just look at some of the published blood profiles of athletes at the finishline.
[/reply]
I was part of a study conducted on "over 50" athletes in Hawaii where blood was drawn and compared mid-week to immediately after finishing. I don't know if it was ever published, but I have the results that i can look up. It was at a time where the first info on cardiac info came out, and concerned electrolytes as well.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

[reply]"Let's face it....the digestive issues had nothing to do with how many races one does in a period of time......it's the athlete screwing up nutrition on race day"

you're hired. i was in the hospital to visit, or be in the waiting room during the surgery, for each such episode of which I speak (3 surgeries). these were all multiple IM winners. the doctors were all quite circumspect in their diagnoses.

yet you can whip out cause and effect just like that. nobody can accuse you of being wishy washy, or lacking decisiveness. damn, where were you when i ran a real business! you're leadership caliber.[/reply]

Dan, while I know of your involvement in the case, you HAVE to admit that both nutritional methods, and training techniques have changed drastically since Julie Ann's episode, and Chris Legh's is very well documented and seen by all in the Gatorade commercials. His WAS nutritional! The early races relied on Guava jelley sandwiches and Dave Scott's concept of using figs. Now look at the changes. I know that makes the sport much less traumatic than in the past. We all can thanks the White's, Legh's, Tinley's, Molina's, and on and on for the new technology that makes this sport safer than it has ever been.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

For what they're worth (these matters are apparently not new to the sports medicine world):

http://physiotherapy.curtin.edu.au/resources/educational-resources/exphys/00/overtraining.cfm

http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/archive/1092-overtraining.htm

Dan,

I commend you for your patience and persistence in trying to get your point across. What is that old saying about pleasing some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. I think we have a few winners here. I went back and counted and I think you are up to about 6 "GUESSES" and yet you are still being lambasted and chastised for "not actually making a scientific statement" but a "GUESS!" My 2 cents FWIW!!

"Dan, while I know of your involvement in the case, you HAVE to admit that both nutritional methods, and training techniques have changed drastically since Julie Ann's episode"

i'm aware of nothing really new in the area of nutrition since those days. and no, i don't think chris legh's problem was caused by bad nutrition. and i doubt bob murray, who is a friend of mine and the gatorade doctor in those gatorade ads, would state that a bad nutritional plan caused chris legh's problems.

the problem with heart and adrenal and GI tract problems like these is that they are insidiously hard to diagnose. you just take your best guess. nobody really knows for sure why a gut stops and dies, why adrenals just stop or, worst of all, why a heart stops. i'm speaking of diagnosing the original cause for these problems.

the only thing that i know of that has changed is that of all of the athletes back then who raced four to seven ultras a year now think it's a bad idea.

further, WTC has a history of making changes in their approach when it appears in the athletes' best interest to do so. the reason for doing all those races back then was the IM world series. that competition is no longer there. i don't know, ask skid, i think he's following this thread. his wife won the world series the first year, my ex-wife won it the second. we both watched all of that. see what he has to say.

athletes today are no faster than back then, on average. and maybe the athletes were so fast back then because they did race and train long so much. i don't know. but it takes a toll.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

The discussion on this thread is the best in a long while.

Bottom line is this...Ironman racing is barely 30 years young. We're all guineau pigs in a huge worldwide lab experiment.

No one know what all this ultra endurance will do to our bodies in the long run. My wife jokes that when I wake up in the morning, I am often limping like a 70 year old, and yet within 30 min after breakfast, I am out running, often in the cold, sometimes at 6 min per mile pace. The bottom line is that doing this day in day out is not natural. This is not what the human body evolved to support.

That being said, all this long training is not all that bad. It can be self destructive behaviour, but there are a lot of other activities that are much more self destructive. In the balance, I'll take doing long course triathlon training and racing as a vice...that and caffeine! If I die a few years earlier because of it, that is a choice I make (like a smoker). I will also do 2 Ironmans in a year if I ever qualify for Hawaii, but I doubt I'll ever do 2 in a year if the second is not Hawaii. Personally, I'd rather qualify for hawaii over the half ironman distance.

Dev

I agree that the number of races that those early athletes, and just the training regimes they did, were definitely not healthy, but the conversation here seemed to be around 2 in year! That is definitely a doable thing, and actually, in my experience, led to the best year I had. The keys, as i stated much earlier, is that the incredible volume people seem to think they need to really compete. I think a very valuable study would be the pre-race condition of many.....they are already on the brink. The pro's have a differnt motivator, and sometimes the "earn all one can" shoots the best down...a la Bill Roger's marathon history, as well as many long distance athletes pursuing the dollars. As I stated earlier, the problem lies in picking a race that allows one to recover and retrain accordingly, and not overtraining. WTC offers a wide choice of qualifiers, but I am of the opinion that to be able to qualify in a shorter race is no real qualification process.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

I know that Dr. Ken Cooper has been speaking and writing on the subject of the presence of free radicals and oxidative stress following race efforts during long endurance events. The amount of tissue damage associated with prolonged, hard and frequent efforts can lead to a large amount of free radicals in the body. Free radicals are a big contributor to disease, including cancer, heart disease and other organ diseases. Very interesting concept and one we should all be aware of. I haven't read the article, but I believe he has published something recently (my father-in-law who is a physician and an exercise nut also told me of this) that found a greater incidence of disease amongst endurance athletes who raced long distance races frequently relative to the "normal" population. He feels training is beneficial, but the race efforts given for longer events take a large toll on the body with the free radicals as a probable cause for this. I'll be seeing my father-in-law tomorrow and will ask him about this again. Antioxidents are the "remedy" for this as well as maintaining a smart racing schedule.

Pete

---

---------------------------------------------------------
"When you like suffering, when you like the pain in your legs and all your body; it means you are good."
-Ignatus Konovalovas
winner stage 21 TT 2009 Giro D'Italia

Forgot two in a year - how about two in a weekend?

http://www.ultramancanada.com/

Dan, Interesting obervations which are well stated. great idea to get this into discussion. I think the WTC does listen hence the reason that all those (aging) triathletes are on the staff. I am an older athlete, 2 time Kona finisher, and have stopped doing IM for exactly the reasons you have stated. I don't think i can survive 2 IM/year. So thanks for putting this on paper for us.

Excellent article Slowman.

I find one IM a year enjoyable. Two a year an emotional and physical stretch that kills my joy for the sport. I qualified for Kona this year but did not go.

My prep for an IM is a focused 20 weeks. Prior to that it's just tick along and train by feel. The full recovery from one (for me) is usually 12 weeks. Doing two a year means that I am tired and somewhat run down for the whole year. Not a good place to be creatively or physically.

I can recover from a half in 14 days. A huge difference. In fact if I pulled out of an IM at the half way point on the run my recovery time would be about the same. It's the last 21km's in an IM that does most of the damage.

I've had been doing 2 a year (a couple months apart) for a while and this past year got bored with that format and decided to try 3 in a 3 month window. Mainly I was just curious to see how it would go and how my body, etc. would react. The first one went great, had a PB. The second I went into with a bad sinus infection and it turned into a death march, had a PW. Approaching the third I learned I had a stress fracture in my foot (that had resulted from the first race) and felt great but pulled the plug at 10 miles into the run. All in all it was an interesting experiment. Here are some things I learned:

-It's really hard to recover and build back up in a short time window between races (duh). I would essential reverse taper....take time to recover and then start building back mileage so I would hit the next race on the "upswing".

-I tend to get sick (cold, sinus infection, etc.) after an ironman, especially if there's airplane trips involved. Doing back to back races meant I never had enough time to get well. Not to mention the stress fract. Staying healthy is key, although I'm not sure what I could have done any differently to prevent the health issues. On the back end though, more recovery, obviously.
-Mental and emotional recovery is just as (if not more) important as physical recovery. You can be in great shape but ironman racing takes a large mental and emotional toll. With back to back races, you don't have enough time to forget how painful it is : )

-You can do back to back ironman races and have good, even great races. My third race I had a PR on the bike. My feeling is that if you are trained up for one, why not use it for another (or more)? As long as you can stay healthy (ie, not following my example).

I think this is a great discussion. Three weeks after IM Austria this summer (during which I swore I would never do another Ironman), I watched IM Lake Placid and signed up for the next year. That was okay, and I am still really looking forward to Placid. Then a month later, I got bored at work, looked at the IM New Zealand web site, and after thinking about it for a few days signed up for that race also. What seemed like a good idea in August when it was warm and light out at night, turned into me freaking out whenever I was not training in November when it was cold and dark and not quite as fun to train. I think this also led to unhappiness at work for me.

Well, my wife just got a new job and we can't go to New Zealand because it conflicts with her job. I was devestated at first, but now I think I am really relieved, and my mood at work has improved. I'm still training well, but the pressure is just not there and won't be there until it is warm and light again. With the pressure I was feeling to train, I think 2 IM's per year would have resulted in burnout.

I also think 1/2's make better vacations if you want to travel. 2-years ago I did the 1/2 in South Africa (before it became a full) and it was the best vacation I ever had. I was into the race, but there was not the same kind of pressure as there is with a full, and I still felt like a person the week after the race. Last year I did IM Austria, and I spent way too much of my vacation freaking out, and not enough time sightseeing, eating new foods, or doing vacation stuff. My conclusion for me at least is that I think I will stick to one full IM a year (and it will probably be Lake Placid because it is within driving distance and it comes at a great time of year), and then for my vacation I will try to find a nice half or a nice place to do a bike camp.

I do wish there were more 70.3 races. I would like to try and qualify for the championship in Florida, and I'm stir crazy to race a good half and leave the northeast for someplace warm this winter. For instance, why isn't the Pucon 1/2 a 70.3 race? There are 70.3 races in Baja Mexico and Brazil, but they are not until May and August. I still want to do a full Ironman, and I am signed up for Lake Placid, so many of the 70.3 races are not really an option because of the taper and recovery. (Though I guess the point of the thread in the first place was that the guys who want to qualify for Hawaii will pick a 1/2 and the guys like me who just want to do an Ironman but are not fast enough to qualify for Hawaii will want to do a race like Placid.

I have to wonder how many people on this forum feel that it's necessary to work out at a fairly high level because they are sitting behind a desk all day. Speaking for myself, I feel compelled to work out pretty hard because otherwise I'd become a fat slovenly pig from all the inactivity of sitting behind a computer for 8 hours a day. On the other hand, when I've had to do vast amounts of manual labor, I don't have the energy to workout, nor do I feel the need.

My father is at the opposite end of the spectrum from me. he never works out, but busts his ass for 8-10 hours a day at his job, and is perfectly healthy. He doesn't understand my need to workout after work...and why would he? he's beat by the time he punches out at the end of the day.

I wouldn't disagree at all that racing at certain distances and at certain levels crosses the line into "unhealthy", but that is not the discussion here.

The discussion is based around doing a half vs full to qualify for Kona. My contention is that the damage done to the body during a HIM is not all that different than that which is done to the body during a full.

As stated in my previous post "I'd guess you'd start to see a serious leveling off with not much of a difference between a full and an ultra, say 50 miles." IOW the difference in muscle damage between a half and a full mary is not 2X adn the difference between A full mary and say 52.4 miles is less than the difference between a half and full.

If indeed the difference is exponetially rising as Dan is claiming the muscle damage between a Half and Deca would be something on the order of 1000X leaving the athlete dead.

~Matt

I agree with the 12 month proposal. I'll prob never qualify for kona..oh well

but several friends that did at IMLP had to quickly fork over 400+$ right then and now can't do any IM's next year as they were cash poor at sign-up time for any additional IM's next year. Since I was not a kona person I signed up for wisco next year so I'm good to go for an IM and can do this each year. My friends are not so lucky. Qualifying 1 year in advance would make all of this go away

"well, neither of us know scientifically."

Exactly.

Certainly we can all come up with various situations where people have had hard times with multiples and not having hard times. I think before we start changing things we shoudl have a few more facts.

As I stated in another post. If indeed the muscle damage is 4X from a 1/2 Vs a Full, how does one complete a Deca or a quad even. Continued exponential damage would create untold damage that should leave the athlete unable to even complete such distances.

If you are to claim that the damage is only exponential to the point of a full IM and then levels off from there, I would have a hard time believing that as far to coincidental.

I don't disagree with you that IM's are indeed damaging. I do somewhat disagree that doing 2 in a year, particulaly if spaced early and late season like AZ and Kona, is not much different than doing and early HIM and Kona.

I would agree three or more leaves little time inbetween and cause one to train year around with little or no breaks. Also my contention is the training is as damaging or more damaging than the race itself.

I don't think we are to far off in opinion here. I don't think it's that great of an idea to make an athlete qualify at the IM distance 2-3 months prior to the championship race. I don't however see a problem with the races being seperated by 4 or more months. I do think trying to squeeze 3 IM's or more in a year, especially if you're pushing them in order to qualify, is to much, but that isn't necessary to get to Kona.

~Matt

speaking for myself I saw an enourmous difference between a half (which I was able to go really hard at) and a full (which turned into a death march). I've recovered from half's that I was able to go hard at within a week and been able to train well again. the one ironman I did I felt trashed for a good month even though I wasn't able to push myself at all during the walkathon. I tried doing an olympic distance race 4-6 weeks later and had absolutely nothing. attempts at training hard (in particular speed work) were pitiful. I can't imagine how bad I would have felt if I were actually able to run the marathon at my goal pace.

It just blows my mind how many people here think doing more than one ironman in a short period of time might not be bad thing. To me an ironman should be the culmination of your training for the year...not just another race. I guess we should throw reason into the wind and just base everything on verifiable, irrefutable, undeniable scientific fact.

Not sayin' you people are insane or nuthin'....just sayin'.

The other cool thing about having half Ironman qualifiers is that it forces everyone to actually do some work on the swim. You still get 70 min swimmers qualifying at the full distance, but those guys will likely be swimming 35-36 and will be off the back and have a hard time gaining back that lost time on someone that went 27.

************************************************************************

Hehehe... I love the fact that the swim actually matters in a half. I have a friend that can kick my ass on the bike and run but because i swim 22-23 minutes and he is 30-33+ i can still get him at a half... take it to a full and i dont stand a chance.

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

they should triple the 70.3 distance swim portion for the full (ie 1.2*3=3.6)

i think if the swim in a full were 3.6 miles, then it might matter more, and it would help us.

[reply]
I don't think it's that great of an idea to make an athlete qualify at the IM distance 2-3 months prior to the championship race. I don't however see a problem with the races being seperated by 4 or more months.
~Matt[/reply]

Actually, the separation of 3 months would be very good, whereas 4 or more months would keep one training way too long. One doesn't need to train for months on end at large volume, especially if there is an earlier Iman. With 3 months, one can completely recover(1 month of easy workouts to enhance recovery and keep some aerobic), then do a very abbreviated bit of volume, 3 weeks of speed/volume, then a recovery week and 3 week taper. Works incredibly well. If one uses months on end of training for races spread out 5, 6, and more months, the body is completed tapped, and stale as hell.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

"Actually, the separation of 3 months would be very good, whereas 4 or more months would keep one training way too long."

see, this is where you have history arguing against you. you guys can speckillate all you want, but if you get folks to post here that have actually done this at a reasonably high level, you'll find out differently.

every year you see guys burning rubber in germany, that "very good" time separation according to you. they go under 8hrs, and lothar leder, andreas niedrig, chris mccormack, jurgen zack, wolfgang dittrich, have turned in these incredible performances.

but what do you find in kona? they either bomb out, or these really incredible, heroic, aggressive, take-no-prisoner, 20 minutes off the front bike legs they turn in in germany are replaced by timid, conservative, 20 minutes off the back rides in kona. why? because they're still beat up.

i think history argues you do you big race in may or earlier. only then do you have enough time to battle in kona. therefore, it was NZ, OZ, zofingen or nice. that was the first ultra of the year. after that, you could do other stuff, yeah, but if you REALLY wanted to ace kona you stopped your ultras there.

there are PLENTY of exceptions to this. paula raced three IMs in 5 weeks. erin won kona after winning canada (but was the only one ever to do so). in general, you just don't see kona WINNERS racing an ultra after may or early june at the latest.

as for AGers, it gets even tougher because any AGer over 40 is older and therefore not imbued with the regenerative powers of a 28 or 36 year old pro, and if he's got a family, job, etc., all this stress is cumulative.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

[reply]
there are PLENTY of exceptions to this. paula raced three IMs in 5 weeks. erin won kona after winning canada (but was the only one ever to do so). in general, you just don't see kona WINNERS racing an ultra after may or early june at the latest.
[/reply]

Didn't Peter Reid also win the Canada-Kona double feature in 2000?

I'm considering the Arizona-Canada-Florida triple in 2006. Mainly because I love IM racing and feel I need the experience before I get really competitive. It should be interesting (and fun)!!

-C

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

[reply]"Actually, the separation of 3 months would be very good, whereas 4 or more months would keep one training way too long."

see, this is where you have history arguing against you. you guys can speckillate all you want, but if you get folks to post here that have actually done this at a reasonably high level, you'll find out differently.
every year you see guys burning rubber in germany, that "very good" time separation according to you. they go under 8hrs, and lothar leder, andreas niedrig, chris mccormack, jurgen zack, wolfgang dittrich, have turned in these incredible performances.
but what do you find in kona? they either bomb out, or these really incredible, heroic, aggressive, take-no-prisoner, 20 minutes off the front bike legs they turn in in germany are replaced by timid, conservative, 20 minutes off the back rides in kona. why? because they're still beat up.
i think history argues you do you big race in may or earlier. only then do you have enough time to battle in kona. therefore, it was NZ, OZ, zofingen or nice. that was the first ultra of the year. after that, you could do other stuff, yeah, but if you REALLY wanted to ace kona you stopped your ultras there.
there are PLENTY of exceptions to this. paula raced three IMs in 5 weeks. erin won kona after winning canada (but was the only one ever to do so). in general, you just don't see kona WINNERS racing an ultra after may or early june at the latest.
as for AGers, it gets even tougher because any AGer over 40 is older and therefore not imbued with the regenerative powers of a 28 or 36 year old pro, and if he's got a family, job, etc., all this stress is cumulative.[/reply][quote]

The post originally talked about qualifying a la a 1/2, so the pros are pretty much out of this talk. They've mostly already qualified.

The race in Germany is always a very fast race, which is never translated to any other race. That can't be simply the timing of it. It's just a very fast course. Lothar didn't even approach his Germany time in Florida! The germans are notorious for doing these races incredibly fast, and no where else. Also, the german volume is way beyond what many others do, so I feel their training has a bit of an issue to bear here.
And as I said, the recovery between is the most important factor. The posts here saying one can recover, even from a 1/2 in 2 weeks is just someone fooling themself. To feel good enough to train fast is not being recovered. The complete recovery takes much longer, but that is paramount before one begins training hard again. I still say it is definitely doable, as it worked very well for me, and I don't believe I'm any different than most. Just need a good plan.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

"Didn't Peter Reid also win the Canada-Kona double feature in 2000?"

maybe. maybe you're right. i'm sure others will pipe in. but then there's what happened to peter after that. he reads this forum sometimes, maybe he'll offer an opinion about this.

skid has also raced both canada and kona, maybe he's got a view he'll share.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

[reply]"Didn't Peter Reid also win the Canada-Kona double feature in 2000?"

maybe. maybe you're right. i'm sure others will pipe in. but then there's what happened to peter after that. he reads this forum sometimes, maybe he'll offer an opinion about this.

skid has also raced both canada and kona, maybe he's got a view he'll share.[/reply]

My impression was that Peter decided to train with cyclist, run with runners, etc. because he didn't ever want to suffer so much again,as the win took so much out of him. That was what I was told was his downfall. Hope he does let us know. But, that's the point.....training has to be reasonable, and recovery time is very much ignored.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

I think ITU LC in Canberra next November is to be 5k in the water as opposed to the current 4k standard.... I LIKE the ITU LC distances then....

5k swim... 120k bike... 30k run.... make that a 20k run and i'd REALLY be happy!

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

"i think history argues you do you big race in may or earlier. only then do you have enough time to battle in kona. therefore, it was NZ, OZ, zofingen or nice. that was the first ultra of the year. after that, you could do other stuff, yeah, but if you REALLY wanted to ace kona you stopped your ultras there."

Ok fact checkers this is the top 9 for IMHI this year and races they did prior.

1. Faris Al-Sultan. IMAZ 5/05, 1st place
2. Cameron Brown IMNZ 3/05 1st & IMGerm 7/05 2nd
3. Peter Reid None
4. Rutger Beke - Suspended until Aug
5. Cameron Widoff - Don't Know
6. Chris McCormick IM Roth 7/05
7. Tissnink Raynard IM Africa 03/05 1st, IM Austria 7/05 1st
8. Tom Suderdahl IMCDA 2nd 6/24/05
9. Fransisco Pontana IMUK 6/04/05 6th.

First this list has not been chacked for accuracy and could be completely wrong. However if this is considered history I'd say everyone here race past May except Reid and Rutger and Rutger was suspended. Brown actually did 3 IMs in less than a year and came in 1st or 2nd in all three. Again I put this together fairly quickly so may have screwed up but if it's even close I'd say your statement doesn't hold water as only one possibly two people ONLY raced an early season race out of the top 9 and 2nd place did 3 IM's.

Edit: Put Raynard down for 3 IM's as well with 2 1st's & a 7th.

~Matt

Raynard also won IM South Africa in late March.

[reply] However if this is considered history I'd say everyone here race past May except Reid and Rutger and Rutger was suspended. Brown actually did 3 IMs in less than a year and came in 1st or 2nd in all three. Again I put this together fairly quickly so may have screwed up but if it's even close I'd say your statement doesn't hold water as only one possibly two people ONLY raced an early season race out of the top 9 and 2nd place did 3 IM's.

~Matt[/reply]

Thanks Matt. Very interesting. While it would be very difficult, I would also like to see what some of the top age groupers, many of whom PR'd at Kona this year, did prior. I would venture to guess that these "non-pro's" raced even closer to Hawaii. Also, if one looks at the history of Hawaii, the perennial age group winners, Donna Smyers, Missy LeStrange, Joe Bonness, and many others race quite a bit closer, and have for years without such issues. Their history would apply even more to us.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

I'll "edit" the list. Any other corrections.

~Matt

[reply]I'll "edit" the list. Any other corrections.

~Matt[/reply]

You should add that Chris McCormack went sub-8 while winning Roth.

-C

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

"Seems no one's "forcing" anyone to go. The next athlete in line would be delighted to take the spot."

I think that you maye have missed my point, if the goal at the out-set is to go to IMH you must do 2 Full IM races in a year to do that.

Of couse the next in line will take the spot. I passed on IMH qualifying spots many times. Never received one thank you!! Mind you, nor, was a I looking for one.

Fleck

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

And I feel that many exceptional age groupers have done their two per year, and in some cases, every year, without the destruction of health, family and economics as the article brought forward. It's definitely not a problem, with a good plan.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

I saw that but then I would have to start listing times for everyone....and that would lead to "Oh but that course is (Enter desription here)so it doesn't count". Before you know I'd be out in the field taking blood tests....and belive it or not I have a job.

~Matt

A buddy of mine did IM Brazil, IM Moo then Kona this year. One week after getting back from Kona he does a 120 mile hilly ride. Last weekend he did Las Vegas marathon. Personally I would be dead but some people just seem to be able to handle it.

"Ok fact checkers this is the top 9 for IMHI this year and races they did prior."

i think you made my point. go back and look at who wins IM in kona each year, the men and women, and see how many have raced in july or thereafter. see how often the IM Germany champ wins kona.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I thought Chris Lieto had an interesting point of view. He won IMC and a month or so later goes to Kona, puts in good swim and bike but his legs start to give out on him in the run (according to his website) because he says of a lack of recovery from IMC. He still finished 18th overall .

IronJohnyTri's grandma: "Johny, you are going to swim 2.4 miles, bike 112 miles and run 26.2 miles?"

IronJohnyTri': "Yes, I am ready"

Grandma, "All in one day"

IronJohnyTri, "Yep, starting at 7 am"

Grandma, "That must take all day...when does it end ?"

IronJohnyTri, "Sometime between 4 pm if I kick ass and midnight if I blow up and do the Ironman deathshuffle"

Grandma, "But do you stop at a restaurant along the way to get some lunch and digest your food?"

IronJohnyTri, " No Grandma, you don't get it...this is a race. We eat lunch, dinner and snacks for the day while racing with our heartrate at 140 beats per minute"

Grandma, "You do this while biking and running ?"

IronJohnyTri, "Yes, sometimes riding downhill at 55 mph"

Grandma, "So you race all day, a distance that is similar to going from San Francisco to Monterey, you don't stop to eat, you eat while your heart is running away from you, and you ride down hills while eating with others around you in traffic ?"

IronJohnyTri, "Yes"

Grandma, "I'm not sure this is really good for you!"

IronJohnnyTri, "But Grandma, I already did one 4 weeks ago and I'll be doing another one this coming weekend"

Grandma, "Johnny, this is not good for you. Why don't you come and visit and I will cook you a roast instead?"

Sometimes basic common sense trumps all the science in the world. I think Grandma knows best :-)

Again I don't think we are far off. Obviously racing a full in Aug or Sept just doesn't make sense. Even putting in a hard 1/2 that late may be a bit detrimental.

Again obviously racing later in the year June/July and even doing 3 IM's in a year does not preclude you from a top finish.

I find it considerably shakey to say "We shouldn't have IM's as qualifiers within or late in the year because it's to hard on the athletes" based simply on the fact that no winners of Kona have done so. Despite the fact that the majority of the top 9, at least in this year have done so succesfully.

If I have time I'll go back and see what I can dig up on earlier years.

~Matt

"Despite the fact that the majority of the top 9, at least in this year have done so succesfully."

you can race 6 IMs in a year and crack the top 10 in kona if you're good. but if you look at cam brown and chris mccormack's bike rides in kona, they were extremely conservative. if that's the way you want to race you can race more often. but i doubt macca's going to win kona if he wants to race germany, or an IM later yet. you just don't find the best people able to dig as deep as you need to dig to win kona, as a rule, if they race in july and august and then again in october.

and this is pros we're talking about. how much tougher for an AGer. this is from an email from an AGer i got today:

"I have raced Kona 4 times, with a 9:20 pb, and only once did I qualify at a full IM race... I looked at a friend, as we treaded water in Kailua Bay waiting for the cannon, and I said "what the f*#! are we doing here! We just did this 12 weeks ago". I was FRIED from having already completed an IM that season. If it's possible to do Kona without having your heart in it 100%, that was me... I have given up on ever racing Kona again. I know my body can't peak twice like that in one year. Even more of a factor is the fact that with two kids, a wife and a career, I can't go through two IM training phases in one year and hope to remain married/employed/recognized by my children!"

that's typical of the letters i've been getting.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

faris's win in arizona was in early april. i've said before that crashing his bike and not racing roth was the best thing that could have happened to him in terms of hawaii performance.

macca also won australia in april.

i believe pontano qualified at lanzarote in may and not at uk, but that's off the top of my head.

my grandma said "STOP! you're going to use it all up" Was she right?

"Even more of a factor is the fact that with two kids, a wife and a career, I can't go through two IM training phases in one year and hope to remain married/employed/recognized by my children!"

You can assume I fit the above mold, Dan. I will race Florida 70.3 this year, where I will take a slot for IMLP. I will do IMLP. If I am lucky enough to have a great day and get a slot for Kona I will take it in order to realize the dream of doing that race. If I do so, it will take a heavier toll on family and job than I am willing to repeat anytime soon, if ever.

I am a United States Marine and I am an Ironman. With those experiences, I know that people are capable of far more and far deeper endeavors than the average Joe on the street THINKS they are capable of performing. But that doesn't mean that it will be a good thing to keep reaching down into that wellspring, for a whole litany of reasons; only a few of which have to do with physical capacity. Many of us are Ironmen. That doesn't make us SUPERMEN. At the end of the day, we are only men and women.

Ok more info...a little sketchy but more info.

2005 Faris Al-Sultan IMAZ 5/05 1st
2004 Norman Stadler IM Switzerland 7/25/05 2nd
2003 Peter Reid IM Germany 7/03 4th
2002 Tim Deboom
2001 Tim Deboom IM Cali 4/01
2000 Peter Reid IMC 8/00 1st
1999 Luc Van Lierde
1998 Peter Reid IM Australia 4/98
1997 Thomas Hellriegel IMAustralia 2nd 4/23/97 Roth 7/13/97 4th
1996 Luc Van Lierde Nice 09/96? Another full?

Out of the last 10 winners only 3 are confirmed that they did not race past may.

Unless I screwed up, highly possible, the 1997,2000,2003 & 2004 winners raced past may. The 1996 winner did Nice but that's merely 3/4 the full distance. However to make up for that it was in September I believe. The 1997 winner did 2 IM's with one past May.

I could not find and thus did not verify info on the prior races for the 1999 & 2002 winners. Even adding these two in and excluding Van Lierde for only doing a 3/4 full you still have 4 out of the last 10 that have raced fulls in July and Aug one with two other IM's in the same year.

I did not go back much further becasue info gets fairly scarce and out of the next 10 years 1995-1985 we only have 5 different winners.

~Matt

that's where dedication come into play.
all i have right now is training. I work sometimes, and i make enough money to buy equipment, pay my coaches and travel fees. but my main goal right now is to train.
My desire in life right now is to work out and my goal is a top3 finish in the ITU LC champs in canberra next year for my AG.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------
"The aspect of sport that you learn is that you have your good times and your bad times, but you share it with great people." - George Gregan