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