November 3, 2008

Racing the Big Sur Half-Marathon

Admin note: unless you’re racing the Big Sur Half-Marathon next weekend (or planning to at some point in the future), feel free to disregard this post. It’s an article I wrote for my Monterey Herald column, with advice on how to race 13.1 miles along the Monterey Bay. A few people have asked me for tips recently, and I’m posting the article here so that I can link to it from another website. Regular programming will resume with the next post.

**

“Racing the Big Sur Half-Marathon”


The Big Sur Half-Marathon on Monterey Bay is this Sunday, so you should be in tapering mode by now. Cut back on your mileage and get as much rest as possible in the days before the race.

If you are a novice runner, your approach to the Half should be very simple. Start easy and don’t get excited into running the early miles too fast. Keep a steady pace that you can maintain for the duration. Take walking breaks if you need them, but keep moving forward, and draw energy from the crowds and your fellow runners during the final miles.

Most importantly, just have fun out there and celebrate your ability to run.

This week’s advice is for runners with some race experience who are trying to get faster, striving for a personal best time or an age-group award. The rules are significantly different for these runners.

Have the eye of the tiger: Racing isn’t always fun! There’s great satisfaction afterward but the race itself should be a battle. Psych yourself up to fight adversity and discomfort for the duration of the race. Be mentally ready and don’t feel intimidated.

Wear fast shoes: The relatively flat course and smooth roads are ideal for using racing flats or lightweight trainers. Lighter shoes make you faster. If you use more than one pair in training, run in your lightest pair on race day.

However, do not buy a pair of racing shoes next week and race in them if they are not broken in – or you’re destined for a morning of blisters and leg aches.

Warm up: If you are going fast from the gun, you need to warm your body up first. Run an easy mile before the race, then do three or four short sprints. Time your warmup so that you can jump in the starting chute about 5 minutes before race time. Don’t be afraid to start closer to the front of the pack than you think you belong.

Hitch a ride: Not in a car, but in the slipstream of your competitors. Drafting off fellow runners is perfectly legal and saves significant energy if running into a headwind, which is common when heading up Ocean View Boulevard in Pacific Grove.

Pick runners who are going at a similar pace, and tuck in behind them for as long as you can tolerate. In a group of 3 or 4 runners, it’s proper etiquette for each person to take turns “pulling”, but if you’re sneaky you can usually get your competitors to do most of the work.

Be uncomfortable: If you are truly racing, it should hurt! If you feel comfortable, you probably aren’t pushing hard enough. Races are for going beyond your comfort zone and giving your best effort. Remember: eye of the tiger!

Use “keys” to speed up: Your natural tendency will be to slow down, so use landmarks as periodic reminders to speed up. Mile markers, corners, or minor hills can all be used as “keys” to slightly accelerate the pace.

Push the envelope (but not too far): This is the hardest part of racing. You have to keep the needle at the absolute fastest speed you can maintain, but not so fast that you bonk in the last miles. Finding the optimal pace requires trial and error, and a lot of discomfort.

That’s exactly what races are for. You can have a leisurely scenic run along the coastline any day. Race day is for testing your limits. Remember that when the pace seems too hard.

Halfway done isn’t halfway out: The course is roughly out and back, but the first mile around El Estero Lake makes it asymmetrical. If you start looking for the turnaround point at mile 6.5, you’ll have a long time to wait, since the actual turnaround is closer to mile 8. But once you get there, remind yourself to…

Lower the hammer: After the turnaround, the course is almost entirely downhill or flat, and your race is more than halfway over. This is the time to crank your speed up another notch, and gut it out for as long as possible (have we already said that racing hurts?).

Have no friends: Think of everyone around you as a competitor. Get mean. Be aggressive. Breathe fire. Even if you are racing with training partners, during the race you should be enemies. There’s no shame in outsprinting someone right into the finishing chute – even if that person happens to be your friend. Give no gifts!

Fight for your place: Once you reach the rec trail before Fisherman’s Wharf, the game is on. Try to improve your position as much as possible. Whenever you get passed, try to keep up with that person, and draft them if they continue to pull ahead of you. Try to pass them back further down the road.

Don’t get complacent to run behind people either. Reel in as many people as possible. The last person you pass might be the place that earns you an age group medal. Some people let up a bit just before the finish line, so a well-timed kick can sometimes gain you an additional place or two.

Even if you are not interested in your overall finishing place, employing these positional tactics will help you continue to run hard when you would otherwise feel like easing off.


Obviously, racing requires an entirely different mindset than running just to complete the distance. It’s definitely not for everybody. When you put so much of yourself on the line, the disappointment when you fail to reach your goals can be miserable, but the exhilaration when you succeed is sublime.

Whether you are going for an age group award, a personal record, or just trying to go the distance, I hope everyone has an enjoyable and satisfying race.

Read more...

November 1, 2008

Always a Fan (In This Case, a Phan)

I should preface today’s post with a couple of disclaimers …

First, this is mostly about baseball, which I know isn’t everybody’s cup of tea. I’m a casual fan of the sport – but more importantly, I’m a fan of great sporting moments, regardless of the venue.

Second: I have absolutely no connection with the city of Philadelphia, or any attachment to its long-suffering sports franchises. I’ve never lived there, and never visited; the closest I come to any association with the town is having a friend who is a recent Philly transplant.

Despite all that, there’s one thing I can say with certainty: the video clip below contains the most meaningful two minutes of television I’ve enjoyed in quite a while. It’s the final pitch of last week’s World Series – and it touches on just about everything I love about sports.

The Phillies were one strike away from willing the Series in front of their home fans, ending a 26-year championship drought in the 4 major sports for the city with the most notoriously passionate (and frequently vicious - but that’s another story) fan base in America.

The pitcher’s name is Brad Lidge, a closer whose legacy until this moment was permanently defined by a towering home run he gave up as a Houston Astro in the 2005 playoffs – a moon shot by Albert Pujols of the Cardinals that won the game for St Louis, and by most accounts, sent Lidge’s career into a tailspin. He struggled through the following two seasons, but his collapse of confidence was so complete that he was traded away to Philadelphia at the end of last year.

Throughout the 2008 season, Lidge had regained his form and pitched perfectly – in the most literal sense. He converted every save opportunity he faced, and the Phillies were undefeated in games they led after eight innings. And yet, with a Tampa Bay runner on base in the bottom of the ninth and the Phillies leading by a single run, the old ghosts were getting ready to reappear. Giving up a home run would have not only lost the game and rendered his perfect season meaningless, but potentially devastated both the pitcher and the city, and forced the Phillies to fight for survival in two more road games.

In other words, it was nervous time – and 40,000 anxious fans were feeling it.

It’s no mystery how this story ends: Lidge winds up and throws strike three on a nasty curveball, closing the game and winning the Series. And as much as I like the buildup to that moment, it’s the aftermath that always makes my eyes feel like there’s a lot of dust in the room.



As soon as strike three lands in his mitt, catcher Carlos Ruiz pumps his fist like an ecstatic Little Leaguer, and immediately sprints to the mound to celebrate with his pitcher. Lidge, meanwhile, has jumped in the air, then fallen to his knees, with arms raised to the sky in triumph and relief, as three years of frustration and disappointment turn to unbridled joy and redemption. He has about three seconds to enjoy the moment for himself before he’s tackled and mobbed by his teammates, who have all run to the mound to celebrate the ultimate accomplishment in sports.

(I’m more than a little biased here … because I’ve been in a victory dogpile like the one the Phillies enjoyed, and it’s an experience you never forget. It doesn’t matter if you’re eight years old, or 18, or 38 – the emotions you feel at a time like that are burned on your brain forever. In the days after the game, the Phillies will have a parade, and they’ll be celebrated all over town, and they’ll probably even go to the White House – but I can almost guarantee that those first seconds in that postgame dogpile will be their favorite memory of winning the World Series.)

The next 90 seconds of the clip are your garden-variety craziness that follows a team championship: fireworks in the sky, 40,000 fans going crazy in the stands, grown men crying and hugging each other on the field. In the middle of it all, the camera briefly cuts (at the 1:04 mark in this clip) to a 7-foot tall green fuzzy creature in a jersey: the Phillie Phanatic, waving a team flag and celebrating in all his goofy splendor right alongside the players.

The whole scene is ridiculous and hilarious and emotional and inspirational – and it’s precisely the reason why I’m such a sports nut. With every sport and every season and every championship, there are stories to be told, lessons to be learned, and memories to cherish. In fact, it almost never matters to me who wins (perhaps because all of San Francisco’s teams are currently terrible) as much as I enjoy viewing such triumphs through the larger prism of human experience.

Finally … I’m fully aware that sporting events are quite insignificant in the grander scheme of things - especially as we’re about to elect a new President, and countless people struggle just to make it through each day, and our country is in shambles in about 100 different ways. I could (and have, come to think of it) also list all sorts of reasons to be cynical about professional athletics in modern society. However, if it weren’t for distractions like sports, all we’d have left would be the serious stuff – and in my book, a life like that doesn’t seem very enjoyable at all.

That’s why I’m grateful to the 2008 Phillies, and why I’ll constantly look forward to having another team to celebrate.

**update 11/4/08: Fox Sports has pulled this video offline. I have no idea why. So much for my joie de vivre.

Read more...

October 30, 2008

Meeting of the Vines

Early last week, my wife dispatched me to our newly-opened (and widely celebrated) local BevMo store to start a gradual stockpiling of good wine for upcoming holiday gatherings. The request came with one very explicit direction: buy only wine that is on sale and has a rating of 90 or above.

So when I came home carrying bottles with ratings of 87 and 88 – or even worse, unrated – I had some explaining to do.

It wasn’t that I completely dismissed her instructions; rather, I felt like I had equally compelling criteria for choosing a wine - namely, I thought it was important to pick some winners. Ultimately, in the spirit of diplomacy, I picked three bottles that met her standards, and three that met mine.


[The lineup: six outstanding Northern California wines. Yes, the bottle on the right is two-thirds empty; good wine doesn’t last very long around our house.]

Predictably, my diplomacy wasn’t enough to avoid triggering an exchange between my curious wife and me, which went something like this:

Her: They’re not all rated 90?

Me: No, but the ones that are lower should be good. They’ve won gold medals at different wine shows.

Her: So what? There are thousands of those little wine competitions. The ratings are more objective.

Me: Sure, but what does a number tell you? I’ve never even heard of the guy who rates them.

Her: It means they’re good!

Me: Yeah … but it’s a different kind of good. I’m more impressed by the competition.

It wasn’t until a bit later that I realized why I was so inherently biased towards contest winners as opposed to high scoring wines. And contrary to what you’re probably thinking, it’s not simply because I’m a runner – more specifically, it’s because I’m a student of the sport of distance running.

Among people who care about such things, one of the most frequent arguments concerning the relative greatness of distance runners is the importance of world records in comparison to gold medals. In other words – is it a greater accomplishment to do something better than anyone in history, or to defeat all of your peers while competing for the most prestigious championships?

If you’re like most people, your first instinct is to think a world record is the more admirable feat – but think of it this way: many world record efforts are nothing more than time trials set under the most ideal conditions imaginable. For every distance above 800 meters, record attempts are typically targeted weeks in advance, with pacers recruited to pull the runner through the first stages of the race before dropping out later on. Even then, attempts are abandoned if weather conditions are not ideal or if the athlete isn’t 100% healthy - it’s basically a speed laboratory where all variables are carefully controlled before the experiment ever begins.

Now compare those conditions to a race like the Olympic 5K. The event is held rain or shine (usually in hot or humid or – in the most recent Olympiad - smoggy extremes) whether the athletes are healthy or not. All of the best runners in the world are there, each one trying to influence the race in his preferred fashion (tactical pacing, surging at particular times, jostling within a large pack, deciding whether to draft or run clear of the fray) in order to win the most prestigious title of their lives. There is a preliminary heat before the finals, making stamina a requirement in addition to speed. The race is a battle; the champion is the one who takes everyone’s greatest effort and proves himself better than all of them.

The most classic example of the record-versus-race debate goes back more than 50 years, to the time of the 4-minute mile barrier. Roger Bannister broke the mark first – with three pacers to help him – in May of 1954, only to have his world record shattered in similar fashion by John Landy just 46 days later. They didn’t race head to head until August of that year, when Bannister outkicked Landy in what is still referred to as the “Mile of the Century”. Bannister’s winning time in the race was significantly slower than Landy’s still-standing world record – but if you asked 100 people in 1954 who the world’s best miler was, 99 of them would have said Bannister. It was hardly even a question.

So … which accomplishment is more impressive? Which one best reflects the spirit of the sport? These are questions that can be bounced back and forth all day; they also bring us back to the aforementioned bottles of wine.

Think of the bottles with 90+ ratings as world record holders: they’ve scored higher than all other competitors in their class. The gold medal winners are the, er, … gold medal winners. They’ve challenged their competitors face to face under uniform circumstances and emerged victorious.

Speaking of face to face showdowns … when it comes to differences of opinion with my wife, I’m about as successful as Charlie Brown trying to kick the football from Lucy’s tee. I’ve mentioned before that my wife is wicked smart – and if you’ve read this blog for more than a week, you already know the word I use most frequently to describe myself (hint: it rhymes with schmidiot). But for the purpose of friendly competition, I’ll go ahead and ask: which bottle of wine would you reach for first? A world record holder or a gold medalist? Or perhaps just the one with the prettiest label?

I suspect I know how this one’s going to play out, but feel free to and weigh in below and confirm it.

Read more...

October 27, 2008

A Little Bigger, A Little Better


“Is it getting better … or do you feel the same?”
- U2, “One”
**

Last Friday I showed up for our group’s normally scheduled 6-mile trail run, marking the fourth workout I had attempted since cracking my ribs a few weeks ago. Since a few people have asked, here’s a status report on the injury:

For the first two attempts, I couldn’t take any labored breath without sharp, severe pain, and couldn’t stand completely upright. The first workout was aborted after 10 minutes, the second after 20.

On the third attempt, stabbing pain only accompanied deep breaths, and I could stand generally upright. I stayed out for an hour, moving very slowly and cautiously. Remember the first episode of this season’s Biggest Loser, when all the contestants whimpered and moaned and cried just to make it through an uphill 1-mile hike? That’s exactly what I felt like on my third run.

Which leads us to Friday morning, where a friend and I had the following exchange:

Him: Are you still having a lot of pain?

Me: Not as much. Now it only hurts when I take deep breaths going uphill, or when I feel jostling going downhill. Or anytime I land on my left foot. Other than that, everything’s perfect.


Needless to say, I’m not thrilled with the pace of progress – but I’m optimistic that the situation will continue to gradually resolve. Meanwhile, since I can’t tolerate swimming any better than running, I’ve pretty much abandoned all forms of exercise, as well as any hopes of staying in shape as the holiday season approaches.

As if this wasn’t depressing enough, this morning I suffered the final indignity: I had to fasten my belt on the second buckle hole instead of its customary third slot. I know I’m not a Loser, but one thing is certain: I’m definitely bigger than I used to be.

Thank God it’s the off season.

Read more...

October 23, 2008

Ironman vs. 100 (Part 2)

In our last episode, we discussed the training necessary to prepare for an ironman-distance triathlon in relation to a 100-mile ultramarathon. We compared triathlon to rock music, and ultrarunning to reggae. There was also a picture that generated some discussion, but that’s neither here nor there.

So today we’ll talk about the reason for all of that training: race day. In musical terms, think of it as the day your favorite band comes to town to play in concert. Whether you go to several concerts a year, or only attend on rare occasions, the concert is almost guaranteed to be memorable, and will hopefully justify your being a fan for all that time beforehand.

In high school and college, I frequented a lot of concerts. The best rock shows were typically held in smaller venues, where people cram like sardines while screaming and yelling and otherwise acting like complete lunatics, with loud music and darklights and pyrotechnic displays completely overwhelming your senses, when everybody feeds off the energy of everybody else until you start doing things that you never dreamed you’d allow yourself to do in public.

(and, um … before I incriminate myself further, I’d better stop there. Let’s just say that sometimes things got crazy.)

By contrast, the best reggae shows were usually long, slow-paced, mellow affairs. They often took place at large fairgrounds and had names like “Sunsplash” or “Reggaefest”, with several bands playing throughout the day, while people got themselves baked - both on ganja and by soaking up the warm sun. Most attendees were just looking to chill out for a while, taking in all the sights and sounds, with their primary goal simply to make it to the end of the day without ending up in an ambulance.

Short and intense versus long and mellow: does any of that sound familiar? With that in mind, let’s continue our comparison.

RACING

1. Time investment

This is the category where ironman devotees might feel like they’re being kicked in the teeth. After all, one of the reasons the ironman is so compelling is the huge intimidation factor involved with doing an activity that takes the better part of a day and night.

The duration of the ironman-distance race, and the corresponding length of training sessions needed to complete it, is frequently the greatest source of pride (and in more than a few cases, arrogance) when Ironman racers compare themselves to cyclists and runners and shorter-distance triathletes. At Kona, at least one vendor sold shirts saying “You ran a marathon? That’s cute.” Clearly, the duration of the event is the distinction upon which Ironmen and women stake their image and reputation.

And make no mistake, the Ironman is a long event. While the pros typically finish in 9 or 10 hours, most age-groupers are on the course for several hours afterward, fighting their bodies’ overwhelming instincts to cease and desist. As night falls, many athletes are still on the course, trying to beat a certain goal time, or as a last resort, the 17-hour milestone that denotes the end of the event.

Sure, that’s pretty daunting … but at 100-mile races, do you know what they call the 17-hour mark? The 50-mile cutoff.

Almost every single person who lines up at the start line of an ultra knows that he or she is going to pull an all-nighter (and in some insane cases, two) simply to finish the event. Some races see a handful of finishers under 20 hours, but even world-class ultrarunners typically need at least 16 or 17 hours to cover 100 miles. Races with relatively flat profiles generally set a finish cutoff of 30 hours, but more challenging races have cutoffs in excess of 40 hours. In that context, the question of which event is a greater test of endurance is a no-brainer: it’s ultras, hands down.

(I know that the instinctive reaction of IM folks is to say “but if you’re out there that long, you can’t really be racing.” As hard as it is to believe, some ultrarunners actually do straight-up race each other for 20 or more hours at a time. From my experience, the percentages are very similar in the two sports: a select number - probably less than 10% - of athletes are truly competing [responding to an opponent’s move, using surges at strategic times, etc] for overall or age-group spots, while the vast majority are just trying to reach the finish as quickly as possible on their own terms. You can’t use arguments like temperature extremes [e.g. Kona] or difficulty of terrain, either, because there are 100-mile races in all of those conditions, too. Sorry, Ironpeople. On the bright side, nobody is selling “You did an Ironman? That’s cute.” shirts yet - at least, not as far as I know.)

So this sounds like a big victory for ultrarunning, right? Not so fast. Remember, in Part 1, I awarded points based on which sport was a more practical endeavor for regular working schlubs to accomplish. Since the Ironman is a shorter event, that makes it more easily attainable – therefore the point for this round is awarded to triathlon. (That’s Ultra 3, IM 2, if you’re keeping track so far.)


2. Degree of difficulty

This is basically a recycled argument from what I said in Part 1 about the difficulty of training: for many triathletes, there’s one segment that comes less easily than the others, but you can’t avoid dealing with it on race day. For example, it seems like many triathletes dread the swim portion of the IM, even though it’s a disproportionately small percentage of the overall race in terms of duration. It makes sense, though - if you hate swimming, or you’re really slow or inefficient or prone to panic in the open water, the prospect of spending 90 minutes or more on that segment would pose an enormous challenge.

Triathlon also has the potential for mechanical issues on the bike, ranging in severity from minor annoyances to catastrophic problems that necessitate withdrawal from the race. This obviously varies with each person based both on the quality of his bike and his familiarity with making mechanical adjustments. And the pros aren't imune to this problem – as defending champion Chris McCormack can tell you after bike problems sabotaged his race at Kona this month.

By comparison, ultrarunning is pretty tame stuff; as we established earlier, people don’t get into this sport unless they really love trail running. And since we generally don’t have to worry about the soles of our shoes tearing loose, equipment malfunctions are pretty low on our list of worries. Score another point for ultrarunning.


3. Enjoyment

For most folks, this is the primary reason we get into the sport: to enjoy ourselves and have fun. (Healthy living and looking good in a swimsuit are a close second and third. Eating ice cream is probably on that list, too – but I’m getting off the subject.)

Think again of the rock concert/reggaefest analogy that introduced this post. This is one of those questions about which reasonable minds may differ: what type of experience do you prefer? Do you favor the rush of high-intensity, borderline dangerous experiences, or the Zen-like satisfaction of introspection and enlightenment?

I can honestly say that in my ultrarunning experience, I haven’t found anything nearly as exhilarating as bombing downhill on a bike at 45 mph, or getting thrashed in the washing machine at the start of the swim segment, or the panic of transitioning from swim to bike as quickly as possible without making some crucial error than will ruin the rest of your day. In many ways, those are the experiences I live for – even more so than the self-awareness of ultrarunning - so I’m scoring this round in favor of the Ironman; but feel free to overrule this one if you’re keeping score at home.

4. Injury potential

Here’s an experiment for you: ask anyone who’s finished a 100-miler to tell you about their race, then click your stopwatch. I’ll be shocked if you make it 30 seconds before the runner starts describing some kind of injury or another that impacted his or her race performance, and caused lasting problems for weeks or months afterward.

There are several reasons why a 100-miler grinds your body down much worse than an IM. First, as we’ve established, you’re out there for twice as long. Since you’re only doing one activity, the potential for developing soft tissue (muscle, tendon, ligament) injury or other crippling situations such as blistering or chafing is magnified significantly. Medical conditions are both more common and more threatening in 100-mile races than any other event (I’ve written a whole article about this), and the task itself becomes more dangerous as the miles grow longer.

If you’ve done an Ironman, think of the injury risk this way: imagine that your bike segment ended at midnight, and you still had to run your marathon completely in the dark, when your body would normally be sleeping. Now imagine that your run course still has several thousand feet of elevation change, and that it’s exclusively on narrow, rocky, root-strewn trails where slipping could blow out your knee or send you down a steep embankment. Those last 26.2 of the ironman seem pretty tame by comparison – and that’s why 100-milers are the more hazardous event.

But remember, points are awarded here for the relative ease of entry to the sport in question – so in the category, score another point for the Ironman. (And I’m one step closer to thinking those “Ironman? That's Cute.” shirts aren’t such a bad idea.)


Have you noticed that the score is all tied up? Which is fitting, because both the Ironman and 100-milers inspire the highest degree of competition imaginable. If only there were some completely subjective, idiotically intangible criteria by which I could declare a final winner …

(You can probably guess where this is headed … )

5. Sexiness

Remember the picture of Desiree Ficker from yesterday’s post? Of course you do. The crazy part is, that took me about 0.14 seconds to find in a basic image search. And I didn’t have to pick Desiree – I could have just as easily gone with her or her or her. (Or, in the interest of fairness to the ladies, him or him or him.)

Clearly, triathlon is a sport that’s just bursting at the seams with sex appeal. There’s something about seeing hot athletes wearing hot outfits using hot gear that’s unquestionably, … what’s the word I’m looking for? … hot. And while the men and women of ultrarunning are perfectly attractive in their own right, there’s really no question as to which sport has long since brought sexy back.

Whether that’s enough to justify scoring another point in favor of triathlon is really up to you. (It is, however, enough for me to justify including one more Desiree photo above.) It’s another question where people may reasonably differ: do you think of beauty as breathtaking and glamorous, or understated and inspirational? I guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder.

Finally, the fact that these events finished in a deadlock wasn’t merely coincidence; these two posts are my extremely long-winded way of saying that both the ironman and a 100-miler are fantastic accomplishments. Training and racing in them will impact your life in wonderful and extraordinary ways that you never imagined. Perhaps above all else, the most important characteristic they share is this: they each need to be experienced in order to be truly appreciated.

**
Click here to read Part 1

**

Read more...

October 20, 2008

Ironman vs. 100 (Part 1)

Growing up, I was very much a music junkie. While I developed an extensive knowledge and appreciation for almost all genres, my heart belonged to two specific styles: rock music and reggae.

Rock music was always a part of my identity, and shaped the way I see the world. It was loud and crazy and intense and unpredictable and endlessly fascinating. Along with playing sports and chasing girls, it was the primary thing that made life worth living.

(This was before I became a grownup and discovered things like family and goodwill and spirituality … but to this day, rock music is still a solid top-5 on my list of greatest joys in life. I’d better not tell you exactly where it ranks - but it’s a solid top-5.)

By contrast, reggae spoke to my soul. It was uplifting and gracious and peaceful, and made me appreciate the gifts in my life and the wonder of the world around me. Although the two musical styles are remarkably different, there’s no reason why somebody can’t develop a passion for both; indeed, I’ve spent the better part of forty years doing precisely that.

All of which is a roundabout way of introducing my comparison of ultramarathons and Ironman triathlons.

Between August 2007 and August 2008, I was fortunate (feel free to substitute the word crazy) enough to complete an Ironman distance triathlon and a 100-mile ultramarathon. At points along the way and afterwards, people asked me which one was harder to prepare for, which was tougher to complete, which I enjoyed more, and so on. So this post will hopefully provide a long overdue answer to a lot of those questions.

Triathlon is rock music: it’s vain and flashy and crazy and intense, and it’s loaded with sex appeal. Professional men are like rock stars: all the women want to be with them, and all the guys want to be them. (Best of all, the triathlon attraction crosses genders quite nicely; while I’ve always found rocker chicks to be somewhat scary, I’d jump at the chance to share a few workouts with Desiree Ficker. Yes, this is a cheap excuse to post her picture again.) It’s a hard lifestyle to maintain, but those who successfully do so feel almost immortal – or if not that, at least forever young.

(I’ll set aside my usual cynicism and resist the easy joke about suspected drug use in both groups. No need to thank me.)

Ultrarunning is reggae: much simpler, while simultaneously much more profound. Just as the reggae sound is more complex than it initially appears, so too is ultrarunning more meaningful than the repetitive rhythm of one foot in front of the other all through the night. Those who practice it regularly can readily describe humility and hard times, yet typically manage to keep a positive outlook in the midst of hardship.

So think of the events as two different genres of music – while most people will prefer one style over the other, having an attachment to one doesn’t automatically preclude you from enjoying the other. In fact, the two sports have a lot more things in common than they have differences – and that’s how we’ll base the comparison.

Finally, a few ground rules before we start. First, I’m only comparing the longest distance events – so the discussion here pertains to an ironman-distance tri and a 100-mile ultra. Second, there are actually two separate categories to consider: one that revolves around training regimens, and another about actually participating in the events. Accordingly, I’ll break this analysis into two sections – training and racing – and make this a two-part post. In each subsection, I’ll indicate which event has an advantage, and add up a final tally once we reach the end. (This might be interesting - I honestly have no idea which way the scores will go.)

My goodness, I’m already rambling way too much - why don’t we just get started:

TRAINING

1. Time commitment

I could break this down hour-by-hour and tell you how exactly how much time per week I spent training for each event – at least, I could have if I had ever bothered to keep track of things like that. Unfortunately, I’ve never been one to follow a rigid training program, and I’ve long since given up the compulsion to record every single workout ever completed, so you’ll just have to settle for generalizations here.

The main idea is that either one of these events will completely dominate your free time. They’ll also eat into family time and work schedules and vacation plans and just about every other leisure activity you enjoy. From the time you sign up until you finish the race, one concern will dominate your thoughts: I’m probably not training enough.

If you were to survey the triathletes lined up at the World Championships in Kona earlier this month, I’ll bet 95% of them will tell you that they wished they had trained more in preparation for the race (they’ll also tell you that they would like to be 10 pounds lighter, but that’s a separate post). These are the best athletes in the world – and if they’re not satisfied with their training volume, what makes you think that regular schmucks (in other words, all the rest of us) would be?

Part of this compulsion is simply the nature of people who are drawn to these events, but another major factor is the daunting prospect of the ironman distance, and the need to be proficient at three disciplines. Anytime you go more than a couple of days without doing one of the three, you feel like you’re falling behind or losing fitness. The only way to keep up is to do two workouts per day, or back-to-back workouts that take several hours.

At one point in my IM buildup, I was doing three workouts per day, and it didn’t seem the least bit excessive – it was just what I had to do to keep up the mileage I wanted to complete. At my peak, I was logging approximately 7000 weekly yards in the pool, 180 miles on my bike, and 50 miles running – and all of those numbers felt entirely too low. Even if I had figured out some way to do three-a-days on a regular basis, I probably still wouldn’t feel like I’d done enough training. That’s just the way it goes.

Training for an ultra, the compulsion is similar – especially if you’re somewhat new to the sport and have no idea what is required for success. Visit a few ultra forums, and you’ll see discussion threads about how much weekly mileage is recommended to complete a 100-miler. And no matter how many miles you run, you’ll probably feel like you should be doing more.

There’s a common expression among ultra runners that “if you can run it in a week, you can run it in a day”, meaning that whatever distance your event is, that’s what you should aim for in weekly mileage. However, in my experience, 100 miles per week on hilly trails takes an enormous amount of time, and leaves you completely drained. I settled into an average of about 70 miles per week, with a high of 110 – which sounds like a lot, until you consider that one of my favorite ultrarunners was averaging well over 200 miles per week before Western States this year. Have I mentioned that it never seems like I’m doing enough?

There’s one distinction worth noting on this subject, however: veteran ultrarunners will tell you that once you have a 100 under your belt, you can continue from race to race with very little training in between events. For example, if you’ve got a 100-miler, a 100K, and another 100-miler in a three-month span, your weeks in between events might only feature 15-20 miles of training. All of that training for the first one is like an airplane working to climb to its flight altitude, where it can then level off and cruise for a longer period of time with less fuel consumption.

With IM training, in order to maintain your speed and remain sharp at three disciplines, you’re in climbing mode before every race. It’s a subtle difference, but enough to give a very slight edge in this category to ultrarunning.

2. Fatigue

If you’re like me - meaning you have a family and job that place demands on your time – the only way to do so much high-volume training is to get up VERY early in the morning, and log as many miles as possible before the rest of the world awakes. It doesn’t take an Einstein to guess what happens when you do this for about six months in a row: you’re tired nearly every doggone day of your life. Your body doesn’t really care whether you’re getting up at 4AM to do a 30-mile run, or to squeeze in a 2500-yard swim before work; all it knows is that you really should be sleeping.

Even when you’re able to get some midday or afternoon workouts done, the cumulative effect is the same with IM training or ultra training – so we’ll call this category a draw.

3. Difficulty of training

I’ve found – somewhat to my surprise - that my background in triathlon differs from a lot of amateurs in the sport, in that I was fairly comfortable with all three disciplines from a very early age. As a kid, I was always on a local swim team, rode my bike all over the neighborhood every day, and was always up for a good footrace. (The fact that somebody invented a sport that combines all three of those things was my greatest confirmation to date of the existence of a benevolent God. I’m not exaggerating one bit.)

On the other hand, many triathletes struggle with one discipline or another. I’m always encountering people who were terrific runners but can’t swim, collegiate swimmers who have no power on the bike, or strong cyclists who can’t run a fast mile. Triathletes often say to “train your weakness, race your strength”; in that case, I imagine that a lot of triathletes spend a lot of hours doing training that is either awkward or uncomfortable in the discipline they like the least. That would get pretty old after several months.

Ultrarunners, however, concern themselves with just one thing: running. It’s a pretty good bet that before they sign on to run 100 miles, they usually recognize whether or not running is something they enjoy. Even if they’re not fast, many ultrarunners come to the sport because they’ve discovered that the long miles on the trails offer them much more than simply the physical benefits of a good workout. If you’re doing something that you love, the training doesn’t seem nearly as mundane. Big advantage to the ultrarunners here. However …

4. Injury potential

If you’re only doing one activity, your chances of developing an overuse injury multiply exponentially. I’ve already written an article about this hallmark of most runners, and about how triathletes (the smart ones, anyway) are much less likely to aggravate an injury because they can cross-train to maintain their fitness. So this is a major point in favor of triathletes.

Of course, this refers only to the cumulative, day-to-day injuries that befall most athletes – not the career-ending, life-threatening variety such as getting crushed on your bike by an 18-wheeler, attacked by some sort of predator in the ocean, or any other sort of freak tragedy. I tend to lump those types of incidents into a separate “lightning strike” category, meaning they can happen to anyone at anytime, regardless of what we’re training for. I mean, I cracked three ribs on a boogie board, for crying out loud – should we count that as a tri injury or a running one? Better to just chalk it up to bad karma.

5. Gear and Expenses

No doubt about it, triathlon is a rich man’s (or woman’s) game. It seems like every time you turn around, you need to drop some money (sometimes a lot of it) just to keep on training.

You pay pool dues and insurance fees and buy a wetsuit and goggles and pull buoys and paddles. You drop a few grand on a bike, then upgrade it with so many new components that it barely resembles the thing you saw in the online catalog. You shell out top dollar for cycling shoes and helmets and power meters and aerodynamic hydration systems. Even the most basic tri-outfits seem to cost hundreds of dollars. By the way, this is in addition to all of your basic running gear.

Triathletes are also prime consumers of all sorts of crazy gadgets (speed laces, anyone?) and nutritional supplements. Nobody uses Gatorade or Gu during workouts or eats normal food between sessions – it’s all specially developed formulas and superfoods that promise to help you shave a handful of minutes off of your IM time – perhaps enough to make it from 19th place to 17th in your age group. Yahoo!

So it’s easy to see why ultrarunners think they have a huge advantage in the finance department. However, once you start calculating the costs of several pairs of trail shoes per year, state of the art hot or cold weather clothing, hydration packs, lighting systems, GPS devices, and a lot of those same nutritional expenses … well, it’s STILL a lot cheaper than triathlon. But that doesn’t mean it’s cheap. Score another point for ultrarunners.

Those are the major training issues to compare, which brings us to the conclusion of Part 1. At the intermission, our score stands at Ultrarunning 3, Triathlon 1, with one draw. Will ultrarunning gradually pull away and drop its competition in the second half? Will triathlon come back to even the score? Will we have any more silly rock and reggae analogies? All these questions and more will be answered in Part 2.
**
Click here to read Part 2
**

Read more...

October 17, 2008

Musical Interlude (and a Survey)

Admin note: this started as a series of random bullets to introduce my tri vs ultra post. Then the items started to take on a life of their own, and – except for the final one – shared a similar theme, so I’m taking a shortcut and letting this post stand alone, and we’ll get back to the other topic next week – I promise.

* At long last, I’ve put the video on my sidebar that I’ve waited months for: "Troublemaker", by Weezer. It was far and away my favorite song of the summer, and the video generated a lot of buzz before it was even filmed.

A few months ago, Weezer announced an open casting call for the video shoot, with the opportunity to participate in several world record-breaking events. The finished product features the world’s Largest Game of Dodgeball, the Most People in a Custard Pie Fight, Most People Riding on a Skateboard, the Largest Air Guitar Ensemble, and Longest Guitar Hero World Tour Marathon. (Yes, Guinness actually keeps records of these things.)

So whether or not you’re a Weezer fan (and you should be), when you watch the video, you have to agree on one thing: those guys definitely know how to have fun.

* The new Rise Against album that I was promoting a couple of weeks ago was released last week … and at first I was a little disappointed. I always dread listening to new recordings from a band whose previous album (in this case, The Sufferer and the Witness) was an absolute masterpiece. My expectation is that all of the new stuff will be just as good, even though that may be somewhat unrealistic. It feels sort of like the unveiling of whatever Van Gogh painted immediately after Starry Night – something that was probably very beautiful, but doesn’t stand out as an instant classic like its predecessor.

I’m aware that I just compared Rise Against to Van Gogh; trust me - in my mind, it makes perfect sense. Anyway, after listening to the new album a few times, I’ve decided that there are at least 7 songs I’ll keep in heavy rotation for a long time – and in the age of single-song downloads, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

* David Archuleta (of American Idol fame) has a new video on VH1. It’s basically what you’d expect: soft-pop hooks, lyrics full of teen angst, lots of glamour shots of the kid strumming his guitar or playing the piano on the dock of a lake. The only thing that’s missing is him staring into the camera afterwards, holding his hands to his chest and saying, “Oh my gosh! I can’t believe you liked it so much! Thank you! Oh my gosh!!” with an incredulous look on his face. And no, I’m not linking to the video; this blog has some standards to maintain.

* However, this item deserves some links: this week, Craig e-mailed to ask if I’d do a follow-up post on the apparent comeback of one Britney Jean Spears, fulfilling a wish/prophecy that I offered here almost two years ago. (The inquiry is twice as funny when you remember that the person asking this is a pastor).

Here was my response, as well as a link to Exhibit A in the debate over Britney’s current “Hot or Not” status:

Was I right about Britney? I’m not quite ready to claim victory on that one. She reminds me of an alcoholic uncle who shows up at Thanksgiving one year clean and sober, looking great and talking about turning things around. You hope it’s all true, but you certainly won’t be shocked if three months from now he’s unemployed and back on the bottle. Yes, Brit’s last appearance (at the VMAs, right? Very hip for you to know that) was impressive, but at this point I need a long period of consistency before I’m fully convinced – and even then it will be a nervous optimism at best.

That about sums my feelings up … but you’re welcome to weigh in either way on this.

* And finally … something completely different. A training partner of mine is a transplant from Philadelphia, so after the Phillies earned a trip to the World Series this week, I attached this photo to an e-mail reminder for Friday morning’s run:

Later, it triggered the following exchange between another friend and me:

Friend: What is that?

Me (shocked): It’s the Philly Phanatic! The mascot for the Phillies. He’s awesome.

Friend: Never heard of him.

Me: You should. If there were a Mount Rushmore for sports mascots, the Phanatic would be on it. He’d be up there with the
San Diego Chicken, the Stanford Tree, and …

Friend: And who?

That’s where I drew a blank, and that’s where the audience participation portion of this post begins. There are so many options to choose from – which one should get the honor? I have a West Coast bias, so I thought of Phoenix's Dunking Gorilla, or – based on his dance skills alone – Stomper from the Oakland A’s. I also like those sausage guys that race around in Milwaukee, but are they official mascots? Maybe someone in the Midwest can clarify this. And Mister Met is always good for a few laughs.

It’s way too much for me to contemplate today, and I’ve given you lots of links already. Check them out, then feel free to cast a vote below.

Read more...
Related Posts with Thumbnails

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP