Windtunnel time...

The opportunity presented itself to do a little "wind-tunnel time" this week. I have never done that before, so was quite interested in having a go! I did not know we actually had one, and as it turned out it was a bit on the basic side! That does not mean it is necessarily any less accurate, but I did adjust my expectations somewhat. I am a bit of a science-y sort of guy, and have spent a fair proportion of my life in university (not that I have actually put that to much use). I have also been involved in research - both sides (the "researcher" and the "guinea pig"). So I like to think I have a fair understanding of what goes on and what can actually be taken out of the lab in practical terms. From what I have seen and read, science is not nearly as exact as they would have you believe, and there is usually some blaringly impracticality in the study that makes the results a lot less useful than you would like. Sports science has to be one of the worst! So much individual variation, and what athlete of reasonable ability wants to do exactly what the sports scientist wants them to! Even though I like testing and experimenting, I am a little dubious, or shall I say cautious on results...

I have experimented with position and aerodynamics a fair amount over the years. My feeling was that if you can go faster in a more aero position with less effort, why not do that! My standard test was while doing hill reps, and on the descent (preferably a down hill you don't need to brake on), start at the same speed each time and then try to get the best maximum speed with different body positions. The highest speed (all other things being pretty much equal) should in my theory be from the more aerodynamic position. I knew that for me being low was best. Getting low on the drops was better than the standard position on the aerobars (but not quite so comfortable for a longer period). I also felt I could make myself a little more aero, by sort of dropping the shoulders a bit and "feeling" more aero - without spending a page explaining that...

Back the the wind tunnel - basically a couple of very large fans blowing at you and your bike, that is attached via the back wheel to some measuring stuff. The measuring stuff is suppose to give a drag number - which is basically your resistance to wind. While riding your bikes, anything over 30kph, most of your effort on the flat is overcoming wind resistance. So if you can lower your wind resistance, you can either co faster with the same effort, or go the same speed with less effort. So to cut a long story a bit shorter, trying different positions and equipment in the wind tunnel to find optimal positions and equipment to minimise your wind resistance should make you faster! I have spent a good amount of time investigating these aspects already, along with bike fit, so it is certainly not a new area for me.

I was hoping to test wheels and a whole heap of different set-up options, but after seeing the rig, decided that was not actually going to give much useful data - the main reason being that the front wheel was stationary. I started with what I thought was a pretty good position, and set this as my baseline. The brief summary is that pretty much everything I tried was slower! While there was no ground break revolutionary new-fangled position that emerged, it was good to know that what I thought was right, was shown up in the data. Watching others being tested was also interesting, not only in what they tested, but how things changed while they were tested. Some were trying to put in solid efforts while being tested and the variation in readings within each test run (due to quite large body movements etc) was far greater than between different positions and equipment. Items that are more aerodynamic on their own were not necessarily better in the complete cyclist-bike system. One person was more aero in a standard helmet, than with an aero helmet on. Another used the same helmet in two runs, one with a visor on (which should be more aero) and one without. However the trial on the helmet without the visor gave a better drag figure. I think this is where you need to be a little careful, as it is easy to say "well the test show a visor is less aero - so we won't use one". If you actually investigate a little further you can explain the difference - and in this case the helmet straps were set up differently, and the helmet sat differently on the head. So in fact the test probably showed that you need to wear the gear better rather than get better gear!

What did my trials show? Having just got the actual data - the aero helmets were faster (significantly) for me - I tried two. There was a small difference between the two, but not enough for me to say they are different. Drink bottles behind the seat increased drag - but not very much, less than I would have thought. Putting my head down with the aero helmet on (so the tail was sticking up) increased drag significantly. Raising the stem up was less aero, as was making the elbow pads wider - going higher was worse than going wider. I tried the aerobars pointing up higher (old school rather than Landis extreme) - and that was not as aero - which was probably a little surprising, as I thought that would be quite a good position, but I don't find it that comfortable at the moment. The last run I did was in my standard baseline position, but trying to make myself more aerodynamic - rather than in a standard relaxed position. This did improve my drag figure - quite a bit! My drag was almost 10% less, which is a huge savings! I would probably have to test the power output difference to see if that was worthwhile though, as I am not sure I could pedal hard in that position for a long time. So all up it was an interesting process, mostly as I expected, but a few little bits of information that were not quite as expected. Perhaps a bit more study on the photo's will also be useful...

Birthday special and a hit out...

I thought I would push the intensity up a little this week - at least for a few sessions. Not quite by design, but a couple of other sessions ended up steady instead of easy. There were a couple of things I wanted to check out - both equipment/data wise, and how the training was going. The annual opportunity for a "birthday special" also presented itself this week. There are a few challenges floating around for what you can do for your annual birthday challenge, and I decided I would do something this year. I was not too hung up on the "year" factor coming into the formulae, just a solid hit-out for the day. But to include the year factor, I thought at least 42min of running and 4.2km of swimming (guess the year??). On the cycle, I was tossing up between a time trial (as it was due), or a longer steady ride. The steady ride prevailed, mainly due to the fact I wanted around 4 hours training with a good portion of it at a solid steady effort.

So this is how the birthday special rolled out -

• Friday morning run intervals, which was just a hill run, which did not start off very well, as I went fairly hypoglycemic after 15min, and just wanted to go straight back to the car and head for home. Got myself over that and rolled through the run, taking it reasonably easy for a 45minute run. Finished felling OK, but not quite the start I was after.
• Breakfast and a short nana-nap (love that), and then down to the pool. Aim was a solid main set of 30x100 on the best send-off I could comfortably maintain. I thought 10 on 1:35, 10 pull on 1:30 and then 10 freestyle on 1:30 to finish with would be good. Felt OK after a 400m warm-up, and it usually takes 2-3 reps to get into a good rhythm and get my pacing sorted, with the first few a little slow being the usual start. Did the first one in 1:20 and it felt OK, so decided 1:30 was going to be the initial send-off. All went well, and kept going through to 15, most in 1:20, a couple at 1:22. A quick change to paddles and pull buoy, and continued on. The next 5 were in 1:15, still leaving every 1:30. That was a bit more rest than planned, so thought I would try 5 on 1:25, which went OK, so pushed on and did the last 10 on 1:20 mostly 1:18's a couple of 1:20's in there as well. Finished off with a kick set (8x50m on 1min) and an easy warm-down (8x50 fs on :50). All in all better than expected, although the lower legs gave a few cramp twinges pushing off the wall, which I figured was from the run a couple of hours before. I did feel a bit stuffed after, and could feel the HR was still quite high an hour or so later, so it was probably a little harder effort than it actually felt in the pool.
• Being wet, the ride was going to be indoors! The cramp in the swim put me completely off the time trial option, so decided on the virtual reality trainer, and to do a couple of climbs up alp d'huez, after a lap around the verona world champs circuit! The virtual reality trainer does make a nice change to just sitting on the trainer and pedaling, and the load does vary quite a bit, as on the road, so it is sometimes not so easy to get into a good rhythm. The HR was quite high in the warm-up, so figured I was going to have to take it a little easier. The aim was to try and ride the climbs around 150HR perhaps slightly under, but not over 155. The first time up the climb (13.6km at around 8% average) the HR was sitting just below the 155 threshold I wanted to keep below most of the time. The power was down a bit as well, both good indications I was tired! Each "climb" took just over 40 minutes, the first 269 watts and 153 HR average, the second 261 watts and 152 HR. I would expect that if I did the same session fresh I would average around 290watts at a similar HR. That data is from the powermeter, the trainer gave over 400 watt average (I wish!!) and the second as faster - shame it is not as accurate as it is entertaining...

I as pretty stuffed after, with a few cramps in the legs afterward. Not so much the day itself, but probably the previous 3 days were also quite steady - certainly relative to what I have been doing in the recent past. Tuesday was solid with a sprint swim session, and bike intervals (2 1/2 hours total), Wednesday a steady swim and steadier bike class (3 hours all up), and Thursday school cycling and a hill run (around 3 hours). I wore the polar RS800 heart-rate monitor in conjunction with the power meter, to see compare a few bits of information. The RS800 is suppose to measure training fatigue, and be able to tell you how well "recovered you are. It does this by measuring the variation between heart beats. I can assure you that as the week progressed I was getting pretty stuffed! I was not sure whether I can get out of bed to train over the weekend! The HR monitor tells me I am at a "normal" level! Right, time for a fitness test then. I have always been dubious about this, as every time I have done this test, my fitness rating has always been the same until a birthday, then it goes down one point! Does not matter if I do it after a rest day and feel great, or after a really hard session and I am stuffed. According to the monitor I have a VO2 max of 43, and my status is "normal" (2/5 - 1 is fully recovered, and I am guessing 5 means don't leave bed for a week). Under "normal training load" my resting HR is usually a little under 40, (if I sit down and relax, I can get it under 40 most days), today - I am struggling to keep it under 50 - so definitely a fair degree of fatigue! I am not sure what I have to do to get to a 4 or 5 on the recovery/stress status with Mr polar!! I won't be relying on that too much anyway!

Another little experiment for the week has been to compare the polar calorie count to the energy produced through the powertap. The polar HR monitor is estimating your calories burnt from the settings you enter and the HR. The powertap is measuring the actual energy you produce. If you know your efficiency for energy conversion (can be measured), or at least you can estimate it, you can calculate your energy expenditure from your energy produced (the conversion factor is probably not going to change much). There are also a few formulae around to estimate this for running and swimming - based on body weight and speed. As a rough guide, the KJ you produce on the bike multiplied by 1.1 should give you the kcal you actually burnt off. So for the two rides this week - measuring both:

1 - powertap gives 1130 Kj, which converts to 1243 kcal burnt. Polar estimates 1081kcal.

2 - Powertap gives 1853Kj which converts to 2038 kcal burnt off. Polar estimates 1963kcal.

This is much closer than I was expecting. The older polar models were know to be quite good for females but underestimate males by 20%. So this give a good estimate at a steady effort, and an average estimate at and easier effort (first ride). Obviously a fair amount more data would be needed to make it more meaningful - however it was a good spot check. I am not sure I want to wear two chest straps for most of my bike rides - 1 is plenty enough!

Of course if you then want to be a little more diligent with the training and diet, you make sure you eat what you burnt off (plus or minus weight loss/gains you want to make). So for my 4 hours training on Friday, I probably went through around 3600-3800 kcal in training plus base metabolism of 2400kcal, gives a total output of around 6000 kcal for the day. I better get eating...

April gone, here comes May...

The month that was April...

• Bit of a hiccup getting sick, but not really a major. Unfortunately looking at the training diary it did stuff up my run training completely. It was not a good run month, especially as running was a priority! I did procrastinate a couple of times on doing a long run - should have done it Thursday, and did not do it on the other day I could have - Saturday. I have to sort that out for this next month! I only got one long run in, and last week, a 1 hour run felt like a marathon - very sore legs after!
• Swimming was good - I made the goal of 50km for the month, in fact would have comfortably made 60km if I was not sick. I made 56500m for the month, which was a good result! A couple of longer swims (4.5km), and in general I felt far more comfortable doing the training sessions. Rather than a good first 2km, and then struggle through the rest of a session, I am now managing to maintain some form and pace past 3km and toward the 4km mark of training sessions. I still need to take a few of the sessions very easy to recover. But overall fitness is improving, although absolute speed is not much faster.
• Weights were good, missed a couple of weeks, but did not lose anything really, bit sore after the first session back but strength gains are still there. I have had around 30-40% increase in strength - by that I mean I am lifting 30-40% heavier weights for the same number of reps from when I started. I do feel that gain in real world terms as well, such as running hills, although not all the time yet.
• Cycling is still quite pitiful - averaging a couple of spin classes per week and a 3rd ride every second week. No doubt a little further de-training has occurred this month. That will need to turn around next month.
• I was contemplating the last Triathlon of the summer, but dropped that idea, as it was not going to achieve anything that I was hoping it would. The weather was not looking good, so that helped make the decision a lot easier. It may have gone OK, but I don't think it would have been representative of where I was at, and also risked getting sick again. No benefit with plenty of risk...

Plans and goals for May:

• School cycling starts up this month, so I will lose a squad swim in the morning, and sort of gain a bike ride. The ride is probably not going to fit into any good "box" for my training, but will be a bike ride! I am going to have to add in another non-squad swim at least every second week for this coming month - that will be a little bit of a challenge. But I need to do at least two this month.
• Test sets need to be done this month also - a bike TT (25km) and a run TT (6km). These are to see where I am at, and to help track progress through the year. Would also like to get some skin folds taken, as a baseline, but no-one is at the desk when I am at the gym!
• Running goals are going to be similar to the last lot, as I just need to get the running back on track. Last month I did not progress as I wanted to, so I need to get the step that should have been last month done this month. So the goals for May are two runs of at least 1hr50min, and one week to have at least 5hr 30min of running in it.
• Cycling is going to be the upped a little more this month, that is the main "increase" for the training load this month. The aim for this month is 4 rides per week for 3 of the weeks. The school training will help with one ride, and then just need to do one other - probably a Sunday ride! Hopefully that will stabilize the decline in cycle fitness, although the bike TT will be a good indication of how bad that actually is. I am sure my endurance has progressed from fair to poor...
• Swimming is a slightly lower priority, but I do want to keep it consistent and not let it slip. I am pleased with where I have got to over the last two months. The pool is going to be closed late June for 3 weeks, so that will be the quiet month for swimming. The target is 45km for the month, hopefully scrap in 50km. If I get the chance I would like to try a main set of 30x100, ideally on the 1:30, but may need to do the first 10 on 1:35, middle 10 pull, and try to "gut-out" the last 10 on 1:30. But I will need a lane pretty much to myself (no breaststrokers anyway) to achieve that...
• Weights will remain the same, need to be done no matter what, emphasis on legs, and upper body a bonus. Will try to add a little more core strength and stretching in. Have done a little, but the back is getting a bit sore, so need to progress that a little more.

Post sickness and TT'ing...

The training this week has been quite badly affected with last remnants of the flu from last week. I was quite glad it was only really 3 days of bad fever and really no chance of doing anything, although I took 5 days off and have been taking it quite easy on the intensity front. I felt OK Monday and went for a squad swim to get back into things. Unfortunately the main set was 20x200m with 4 of them IM (individual medley), so I thought I would do half, and actually did 11 (finished on an IM), and sort of felt OK for taking it quite easy. I was glad I stopped when I did, as I was stuffed a few hours latter, and skip the planned run and weights. The bike intervals on Tuesday I held back on, with the average power for my steady efforts at around 275 watts and the harder efforts around 300 watts - which would normally be low 300's and mid-to-high 300's respectively. The HR's were a little lower, in the high 160's for the harder efforts (I normally hit 170 or 175 if I am reasonably fresh and motivated). It did feel like a relatively harder effort than last week, when I felt more in the grips of the flu - which did not affect performance or HR much. Normally the heart rate goes up 5-10 beats as the bugs hit, which is a good signal things are about to turn pear shaped - but not this time... What did surprise me was how empty I was after. At swimming on Wednesday morning, there was Mr cramp coming to visit very early on, and pushing off the wall was pretty hard work! The arms were sort of OK, but the legs were totally empty. I have not felt that for a while (typical bike racing feeling!). I have just got a couple of runs in, 1 hour easy and 1 hour of intervals on Friday morning (only went to 85-90% of what I should have), and the legs are pretty sore again! Thoughts of slipping in another 30-40min run went out the door as I hobbled around the house!

Hopefully back to semi-normal training next week. Although might have to take weights a little easier as I have missed this week and last week. I was planning on doing the peoples sprint tri next weekend, just to see how things are going, but I think that maybe out the window now. I will decide the day before...

For quite a few I coach, the next month involves doing a few time trials - to set a baseline performance and to check on training zones. Then over winter these will be semi-regular. I will also do a couple of these, although will wait to the bugs are all gone, and the legs can cope with 1hr30min of running again. In general I do OK at time trial for my fitness level. Usually my pace judgement is pretty good. I am finding it is at little up and down at the moment, and I think that is just with a change in training load, and the fact I now have good days and bad days. Hopefully this settles down soon.

Back to time trialling. The thing with doing a good time trial is not starting out too hard. Most world records are set with even splits or negative splits. So you want your pace or power output to be the same or increase slightly throughout the TT. This is where power meters really come into there own. You can do the same with splits running or swimming too (slightly longer averaging effect). When you go for a target output/pace, the initial pace should feel quite comfortable and controlled. while the pace stays the same the perceived effort (and HR) gradually increases through the TT. I find the 3/4 mark the hardest, as there is still a reasonable portion to go and the hurt is making itself very known! The last kick to the finish is not so bad, as the finish is in sight!

Here are my last two 25km TT's on the bike. The first is my latest (Decemeber) - which is also the fastest I have gone, the second is in October 2007, which has a higher average power - but is slower. In the first (faster) graph - the power output (yellow) is quite steady all the way through, and the HR climbs gradually for the first 10 minutes. In the second, the initial power is higher, but starts to fall just before halfway. The HR is similar to the other (unfortunately the powermeter did not pick up the HR signal). There were a couple of reasons for the difference - in the 2nd TT the fan stopped just at the end of the warm-up, so there was a break before starting the TT - well two breaks in fact. The first to try to fix the fan, and the second to break the fan into 700 pieces for failing at the critical moment! Around halfway through I did over heat, and could not sustain the output, a little spurt at the end to try to crack 30 minutes was to no avail...

The other point to note from these graphs is that the power is very constant - which is possible on an indoor trainer (as these were done). However on the road, there is usually far more variation - even if you are trying to maintain constant output - just as a result of changes in terrain, wind etc. Some people do not cope very well with very constant output...

first (faster) TT

2nd TT (slower but with higher power)

Getting sick, and weight loss - maybe

Well it had to happen at some point - I got sick! A bit of a tickle in the throat last Sunday, but nothing too serious, then started to feel pretty average Tuesday, and knew what was coming! I am pretty much resigned to the fact that I will get sick 2-3 times every year. I am probably just a little more susceptible to catching bugs, as it does not matter that much if I am training hard or not, being healthy or not. Probably genetic, so I can blame the parents, but I also got a half reasonable VO2 max, so wont be too harsh on them either! I have ended up taking Wednesday to Sunday off, with a bit of a run Friday morning and Saturday - taking the squad session. I just made sure these were easy. Actually felt much better than expected, so will bit the pool in the morning (very easy) and see how things go. There is no point in trying to "train through it", as the bugs will just be around longer. So plenty of liquids, Vitamin C, sleep, and all those things that we "should do".

I did manage to get a couple of days in before the bugs hit, and did have a bit of a conversation with a part time swimming buddy over weight. We were in agreement over many of the issues, and what it take to be lean, especially as an athlete. Anna is a very good swimmer - and was exceptional (with NZ records), but just swims a couple of times a week if she can, has two young kids and still keeps herself trim, by just being sensible. That is all it takes really - bit of common sense and nothing drastic.

When I talk with athletes about goals, target and all those things, at some point weight comes up. Sometimes more often than it needs to, and sometimes it carries far more emphasis (I wont say "weight") than it should. When it comes down to it, it is not the total weight that is the issue, it is the amount of fat you are carrying that is the issue. The scales are not that good at picking this up! When people say they want to lose weight, they usually want to lose fat - which is quite different. Fat is stored energy, but excess fat is "dead weight" and does hinder performance in any weight bearing activity. So in general terms, the loss of excess fat is a good thing! The main problem is most people focus on total weight, and if that goes down, things are good - but that does not tell you if you lost fat, muscle, or are just dehydrated.

I am currently around 76-77kg's, and I am happy with that at the moment. For the last few years I have been around 78, and went into a mild panic when I was sick last time and came out the other side at 83kgs (normally bugs are good for losing 2-3kgs!!). The lightest I have been at race weight is 67kg, and most of my good races were around 71-73 kgs and around 8% body fat (maybe slightly less). At the moment I am probably 12-15% body fat (depending on the measurement method), although I am planning on getting a few skin folds taken in the near future as a baseline for the body fat. Now if I assume I am 14% body fat, that gives mean a lean body weight of around 66kg, and if I was 8% body fat then I would be a pinch under 72kgs. Which all sounds good. But I am planning on increasing my lean body mass, as a result of the increased training, particularly with a bit more emphasis on the strength training. So if my lean body mass gets to around 68kgs, and I get down to 10% body fat (which I think is realistic) then the scales should show around 75kgs. This is really not much difference, but a lot of changes will have taken place!

Realistically I am not going to get my running back to a level it was, in one year. It has taken 7-8 years of stuff all proper run training to get to the position I am in, and it ain't going to turn around quickly! I think I can make relatively more gains in training on the bike and swim - which will yield better performances at a slightly higher weight. The key here is that when you do loose weight, that it is fat that you drop, and not lean muscle mass. The problem that typically arises when athletes decide that they need to shed a few kg's is that it is too quick, and lean muscle mass is what is lost, and so to is performance potential. There have been a couple of studies floating around on this, and what I believe is that there is a balance between power output on the bike and run speed at certain weights. If you get too light/lean you loose more on the bike than you gain in the run. Possibly for some very skinny athletes actually getting a little bigger may enhance their cycling more than it detracts from their running. The other big factor if you have a long build-up is that strength is developed far better at higher body fats than when you are lean (how many very lean power lifters have you seen?). So carrying a few extra kgs through winter is not a bad thing - it will probably give you better response to strength training, a little better immunity, and you will have a little more to come and go on (fuel store wise) with a steady volume of training.

Shedding the fat is a slow process. If you do a 4 hour bike, you might use up 2500-3000kcal's, and 30-40% of that might be using fat (more if it is easy and/or you are fit, less if it is a solid ride and/or you are unfit). Taking the half way point And rounding a bit, you would have burnt just under 1000 kcal in fat. there are 9000kcal in 1 kg of fat, so to burn off 1 kg of fat will take over 9 longer easy rides of 4 hours plus! I could obviously go on a fair bit further, but I think that is enough for now... :-)

Hopefully we are back on track next week...

Form and intervals

Last week went quite well in the end - not quite 14 hours total. Maddog got married - a very nice wedding too! My lack of training for "after match" functions showed! But I did actually survived quite well. Even managed a bit of a bike the day after!

This week I feel a little tired in general, rather than just "stuffed" after training sessions. It is a good tired now, sort of a semi runners high, and I think this is what I quite liked early on - when I first started training for triathlons. It has been a good swim week, with 16km total for the week. I am starting to feel OK with back to back sessions - not great, but surviving OK. Performance overall is a little down, to be expected initially, but in a couple of session where I have felt a bit average to start with, I have improved through the session - which is new (and good)!

In the next block I need to decide how much effort to put into improving technique. Cycling is not much of an issue (except bike position), but I am not a picture of perfect form in swimming or running. There are a couple of issue here for me - it has taken me 20 years to develop the technique I have, and change will not be that easy, and my ability to perform a more optimal technique will also hopefully change for the better as I get stronger and fitter. The technique I do have, while not pretty, does propel me along OK at the moment. I am already finding technique changes as my strength and fitness is improving - by be able to do more of what I should be doing technique wise, as I am more able to do so. Sometimes when the fitness and strength is not really there, you just do what you can to get through!

I struggled with last Fridays run intervals, with not being able to get into a good rhythm, feeling like I was sitting down and not pushing off properly (it was hill reps). I am trying to make sure I don't push too hard on the harder sessions at the moment. But the negative feeling was not helped by having young Alex (50kg- young- Alex) scooting off up the hill will comparative ease. At the start of the session there were a few complaints about the previous weeks session, and that I was starting out very fast (relatively) and stringing everyone out before settling into the interval! It was a fair call to be honest, as my natural tendency is to get to speed quickly and try to settle in to the desired pace quite quickly, especially as I get fitter (rather than meander up to speed over half the effort)! Criticism noted - but it may not change things in reality :-).

After the intervals, I went back and had a look at the training log and data. For the hill reps last week I averaged around 2min 15sec, and the last time we did these, I averaged 2:28 (although it was 4 reps this time verses 6 last time). So even though I felt worse, I was a little faster! Something is going right - the lesson here is don't feel bad running hills with someone in great shape that weighs 2/3 of your weight! I also checked on how severe my "initial accelerations" were for the previous week. The polar file of the intervals is shown below. You can see there is a bit more speed initially (blue) - especially on the last 2 efforts. A couple of things to note - it is point to point and there is a bit of a hill, and a head wind in one direction. This means the speed will vary with terrain, as opposed to being more consistent on the track. The speed is around 10% out (foot pod not calibrated correctly in this run!), and given the different altitude profiles for the same course, the altitude feature on the watch may in fact be on the blink! The HR responses are almost smack on what I would want, although the first rep was probably a bit slow (which is better than a bit fast!). I expect a little lower HR for the first rep and the HR to rises over the next couple of reps and then stabilize to just below threshold. Ideally the run speed is similar (target speed) or rises a little through the intervals.

weddings, geeks, and old-times...

This week is going to be a bit of a hiccup week, with a wedding in Taupo. I need to make sure Maddog marries Mel - it is a worthwhile cause! :-) I needed to cut the running back a little this week anyway, after a good run week last week. So I thought a little more swimming would be in order, and as I decided 50km was a good target for the month, I can't really allow myself to get behind there either! After 4 swim days in a row, I have to say I am a bit swim tired! I am not sure, but I think that is probably the first time I have done proper swim training sessions on 4 consecutive days in probably 8 or 9 years!!! Squad numbers have been a bit light (end of seasons!), so have been doing a bit in a lane on my own, or with those that are not really that motivated to do much - which can make it a little harder mentally than if you have a few others suffering through a session with you. I think last week I mentioned I was struggling with two days in a row, so four was solid! Hopefully in a few days I can lift my arms above my head again...

My training has increased a little, but not hugely. It is far more focused, and more purposeful (even if it much of it is still easy!). But there are a few funny things happening. I am far more analytical at the moment - although this blog is a major contributor to that. I have started playing with training data a little more again. You can measure efforts - with things like HR monitors, lactate measure and outputs like speed (or pace), and power meters. But to get a bit more information out of all this available data needs a bit more analysis. I did this last year with a few athletes I coach, just to try to get a little more "inside" information. No great revelations yet, but I am trying to find a good measure of economy and efficiency at the moment. On the bike a good one is the power-to-HR ratio, and how that varies at different intensities, and if you are tired or not (and how if varies with in a ride). It should be similar with speed/pace swimming and running too. But I am still trying to figure a good way to represent that. I had better not get too in depth here - the geek in me may escape!

I have also had a couple of conversations about the "old days" and how performances have or have-not changed over the years. In triathlon, I have a gut feeling that a lot more emphasis has gone into the bike (for half and Ironman at least), and the bike times are faster, but I think the run times are slower. I started averaging the top 10 bike and run splits for a few years in NZ Ironman, and there were small differences, but I got a bit bored digging through the numbers to get any answers - if in fact there is an answer there. The landscape of Ironman has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. In general swim courses are probably shorter or at least "easier", and I think that is a result of the world being more "PC" and race organizers taking the brunt of abuse with things go wrong, instead of people taking responsibility for their own actions (ie getting fit/fast enough to go the distance comfortably)! Bike and run courses are tending to be flatter and faster, I guess to make them more achievable, but that has it own problems - certainly on the bike with the big bad drafting... There use to be 7 Ironman races around the world, and 2 of those were on the same weekend (due to the time zone difference it was possible to do both in theory, but a private jet was probably required). Now there are some 22 official (WTC) events and probably at least as many non-official events. So the depth of the pro field is certainly not going to be what it was.

I also tripped over a few lists of "all time best" times for running. I am not sure it was complete - it may have just been world champs/ Olympic level, but there were still quite a few times from the '70's and 80's in the top 50. This did surprise me, for a couple of reasons - naturally better athletes coming through, with (hopefully) better training, better facilities, better equipment (for training and racing), and also the amount of drug assisted performances certainly in the late '80's and '90's, where the drug testers were really just filling in their time sheets and only catching those that really stuffed things up. But I think it just goes to show how great athletes like John Walker and Seb Coe were! I think in some respects we have just made things unnecessarily complicated, rather than better...

Right - that is probably enough rambling, I had better get on and do some work!

Ironman from last century!