I was thinking of doing Racine and Steelhead next year. I did one 1/2 this year (slowly) and a few olympics. I will have an ok endurance base but nothing spectacular. Should I make Steelhead the A race and do Racine as a training run just before the taper or taper for Racine as the A race and then do Steelhead as the B race (and if I do that, what kind of training does one do for the 2 weeks after Racine.
A side point–is it a bad idea to do 2 halfs separated by two weeks? Macca was interviewed in Triathlete Mag. saying that 1/2s were great because you could do them every other week–8 a summer but that’s the only guidance I have seen on the subject and he is hardly a spokesman for BOP age groupers.
Too many factors for folks on here to make the call. How fast do you recover? That’s ultimately what will decide it. I’d say make the 2nd one your “A” race and take it easier in the first one. Give it 3 days off after the first one, and then resume light/shorter workouts for the next week, and then take 2 days off before the second race. But hey, what the hell do I know?
I generally do a 10 day taper for half’s. What I have done and what I will do again this summer with Eagleman and then Mountaineer is taper as best I know how for Eagleman, take 3 or 4 recovery days (activity amount depends on how worked I am from the first race in those 3 or 4 days afterwards, but it could range from nothing to a little something every day but nothing hard), then I will do the same 10 day lead in for the second half that I have done for the first half. That being said, I hope to get a IMH slot at Eagleman and my winter/spring training is based on racing fast on a hot and flat course so obviously that is my A race. When I have done this before for some reason the first 1/2 is always the one that I wanted to be really fit for, although I have had more success on a few occasions on my second half than the first, but due to pacing issues, not lack of fitness or whatever. When I have raced really well/as fast as I can in the first half, then I have never really equalled that amount of success in the second (make sense??). My opinion would be make the first one your “A” race and then race as hard as you can in the second, but for fun, no time goals. Unless you have a massive base level of fitness it would be pretty risky to try and gain fitness from something as long as a half 2 weeks away from another half.
I did a 3 hour race (Muskoka Tri) on June 19th, Tupper Lake Half Ironman 6 days later on June 25th, Peterborough Half Ironman 2 weeks later on July 9th and Ironman LP 2 weeks later on July 23rd. The “A” race out of the sequence was Tupper Lake, and during the time I did zero swim and run intervals (but did do some hard biking). I think half Ironmans two weeks apart are no problem if:
You have a solid base from the winter
you have lots of bike miles so you can get to the run fresh
If you hold back marginally during the first half of the bike and first half of the run rather than really “racing”. Turns out, you go faster this way anyway (negative split…)
I say go for it. The first race should be the “A” race.
Why not relay the first race. You could do 2 legs of the relay and still go hard without doing too much damage for the second race. I would pick swimming (upper body) and probably the bike for the second part of the relay. You would be able to work on your transition when it counts and you don’t risk getting an injury by running. You would also be out there long enough to make sure your calorie intake/water intake is working according to your plan.
