Big daddy Ironman

Well I have managed to get back into training after being sick a couple of weeks ago. Lost 5 days completely and then slowly got back into it. The following week was a little lack lustre and had to take it a little easier. Certainly lost a bit of strength, and the top end appeared to be locked-out! It just was not even worth trying harder efforts! The start of this week has gone quite well (this week), and while I still feel slightly under where I was before I got sick, I feel the body is adapting to the training much better. I have even managed to get over 4km in the pool twice this week! Already! The longer run at the weekend was a struggle. I was after an hour and a half, and got to just over an hour and the legs were just hammered. 20 minutes for the quickest way home, but managed to get my ass around a bigger block to get the 1hr30min in. I think my shoes have gone! They were a "stop gap" pair, until I sorted out if they were worth continuing with that model. They seem to be working OK, just not lasting very long! Probably working out around $15 per run at the moment I think!! So have to sort that out in the next week or so! Darn it! Long rides have also been getting ticked off - nothing spectacular, and feeling a little average, but all good training I think. Having said that I am not really looking forward to K2 - I think it is going to hurt - perhaps more than I want it to...
The big daddy of Ironman has come and gone for the year. Ironman Hawaii is an interesting race, all the big names come with their A game (usually), some have great races, and for many the wheels fall off! It is quite brutal, and having been there once, I don't really have the burning desire to return. It just did not light my fire. It was a very desolate place, and probably not really that well suited for me. It is always hot, and always windy - and just the degree of the extremes that vary on the day. I, as with many other "bigger" guys that typically sweat a lot, struggle with the heat aspect. There is only so much you can do if you sweat 2-3 liters per hour and can only absorb around 1.5 liters of fluid per hour. For 8 hours plus you are going to struggle (the numbers just do not balance out!)! But it is the pinnacle of the sport for many. I thought this years race was great, a little bit of a shame that Macca had a mechanical, and that Chrissie Wellington punctured and had to get help with that (but she still won easily!!). Some outstanding performances, and some people really layed it on the line this year - great stuff. Very close racing in the top ten, when often there can be big time gaps.
One of the interesting things that has come up in the last few years, is that times have not really improved that much! There have been significant technical advances (supposedly), both in equipment and training (tools and knowledge). We have aero this, and aero that, powermeters, watches that give pace as well as HR and fatigue levels in training. Plenty of research has been done for the endurance athlete, yet times have not really improved. We are also a relatively young sport - so we should still be improving our performances quite regularly (especially relative to athletics and swimming). There are a few theories of course, from drugs, course changes/conditions, different athletes and their approaches. So what is the answer? Is there an answer?
My thoughts for the performance levels in Triathlon in general are (no particular order:
Competitive training and racing brings out the best in people. I have seen this in many areas in the last 20 years. In the early days, many of the big names in the sport trained and raced together often. That is not so much the case now. There are also many more races (particularly Ironman - form 7 up to 23 WTC events), so you get less head-to-head racing with the best. Where you have a group of talented and focused athletes training together, you often get the training bought to a new level - sometimes for good, and sometimes not!
Drugs are a factor in sport, there are probably less at the very top now than there was, but I would think there may in fact be more at the second tier, where there is no drug testing. I am sure there are a few athletes reasonably doped up, going around cherry picking races that have no testing.
I think sports science has been a bit of a cope-out in some areas. While it has certainly helped in the general knowledge in many aspects, it has also limited "pushing the limits" in some aspects too. For example, knowing the benefits quantitatively for drafting in swimming, cycling and running under different conditions is very useful. However a study (and there are a few) that show that "weight training does not significantly improve performance in endurance running" maybe a bit of a misleading statement. There maybe an improvement, but it is too small to be statistically significant, or there maybe those for whom there was an improvement and those for whom it was detrimental, and overall it averaged out even. Often studies do not let the truth get in the way of a good story! I feel those that rely heavily on sports science often play it very safe, and get modest improvements in performance. Break-through performances often come from a "risk it all" approach, that either succeeds or fails in spectacular fashion!
I think every generation has great athletes, so that is not so much of an issue, and on courses such as Hawaii Ironman, the changes in the course sort of balance out. there maybe some differences, but they are small. In fact we are probably starting to see the results of "triathletes" now - those that have started there sporting careers as triathletes, rather than swimmers, cyclists or runners that have changed sports.
The equipment side of things make me laugh a little. everything sort of goes in cycles - and many of the latest and greatest "developments" were around decades ago and went out of favor for what ever reason. Take Aero helmets - One of my first helmets was an aero Helmet - back in the '80's! It was effectively a fibreglass shell with a basic cradle and Velcro chin strap. It would probably not absorb much shock, but was probably a lot more aerodynamic that the current range of aero helmets. While HR monitors and powermeters etc are great tools, they are just tools - and I think the down side of many of these tools is that they are seen as some holy grail solution to peak fitness and performance. In reality they are just tools. Many of the great coaches and athletes of past eras, that did not have these tools available to them, found useful work-around that helped get a similar result instead of using these tools. I think the challenge with many new "toys" is to separate the marketing hype from fact.
Right - time to go and train! :-)