Question:

Banister, Carter, and  Zarkadas.  Training theory and tape: validation in triathlon athletes EJAP 79: 182 1999 The above reference can get you started.  EJAP is Euro Journal of Applied Physiology.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –        Taking it one step farther, several researchers (Banister—not the miler) has been looking at using HR to assess what has been termed training impulse (TRIMP).  The math gets kinda complicated but the idea is that you can quantify training intensity by using HR.  One of the questions asked is something like:  Is a one hour tempo run as stressful as a two hour run that is 30 sec/mile slower but twice as long in terms of time?  TRIMP seeks to answer this.   I’d be interested in it.  Math is no obstacle for me.  Reference? (Online availability is a plus since I don’t have a university library.) I’ve had some thoughts towards a similar idea myself. — Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur

activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New

Sciences

Response:

       Taking it one step farther, several researchers (Banister—not the miler) has been looking at using HR to assess what has been termed training impulse (TRIMP).  The math gets kinda complicated but the idea is that you can quantify training intensity by using HR.  One of the questions asked is something like:  Is a one hour tempo run as stressful as a two hour run that is 30 sec/mile slower but twice as long in terms of time?  TRIMP seeks to answer this.

  I’d be interested in it.  Math is no obstacle for me.  Reference? (Online availability is a plus since I don’t have a university library.) I’ve had some thoughts towards a similar idea myself.   — Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Response:

was: Correction to HRM thread…

[snip] Do you have any problems if I quote this once in a while. You’re pure fortune cookie material.

Fortune cookie material:  sugar, spice and other things nice? Jennifer –  Feel free. Just notify me of any royalties check forthcoming

Response:

Jenn e fir spoke the following words of wisdom: : Sure they’re self-appointed because those freakin slow witted Dade County folks : are still counting votes.  Blessed are those with slow wit for they : shall…uh..they shall…damn, I’ve forgotten. Heh. I liked this remark. Do you have any problems if I quote this once in a while. You’re pure fortune cookie material. Sorry for being off-topic folks. der Joachim — Computational linguistics student at Tilburg U., the Netherlands http://www.der-joachim.myweb.nl/ Servant of reality my hairy ass! (H.P. Derleth, Hollow One)

Response:

Believe me, Patrick – the last thing I want is a flame war. I think you misread my post. Sorry if you thought otherwise! I’m one of the folks who want peace and a little bit of decency and respect towards one another. Sorry to interrupt your topic of interest – please continue! — David (in Hamilton, Ont) "Why should I practice running slow? I already know how to run slow. I must learn to run fast."                                                    Emil Zatopek http://www.angelfire.com/nc/swstudio/racing.html –

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve been reading this newsgoup for three years. Today I’m going to unsub to this newsgroup.  The level of  put downs is very high.   There is a small group that have appointed themselves the gods of rec. running.  They are blessed with the skill of quick wit.  They use that quick sharp wit to demean others they disagree with. I agree that a person must educate themselves.  As a runner warrior there is no use for them that put themselves above others. I agree – it seems I spend a lot of time sifting through ‘clever’, ‘intellectual’ posts that seem to serve no purpose other than to put people down. I’m not sure what purpose they serve actually, other than to turn r.r into something it is not. Why is this coming up on this side thread?  Sam changed the subject header, posted some very useful information, and consequently added some objectivity to the original thread.  I asked for clarification on some points as, has often been the case, I got confused.  Ozzie then commented that he appreciated the exchange of opinions and other information, mentioning that dialouge is a fine path towards acheiving knowledge. If anything, I thought this side thread was bringing back the dialouge on HRMs to a more sober and considerate tenor rather than becoming a purposeless flame war.  Was I mistaken? — Patrick

Response:

   was: Correction to HRM thread… << I’ve been reading this newsgoup for three years. Cool.  Are you any relation to Michelle Kayter?  She’s one fast Canadian Chick who, as I can best recall, can turn a 400m in 60 seconds flat.  That’s on speed skates, but it sure looked fast to me.

There’s a Kayter, female, in Saskatchewan, about 17 years old, did 300m in around 45 recently. That’s on dry land. (Just glanced in passing, don’t remember any other details.) << Today I’m going to unsub to this newsgroup.   And yet, you’ve never contributed or posted before now?  I couldn’t find you on deja.com.  And now, only in departing do you speak?  I’m beginnin’ to smell a rat here.

Kinda odd. neither google nor etin have any mention of her id, either. "Runner warrior?!"  What does that even mean? Oh man, I see the symptoms:  too many Xena Warrior Princesses or Buffey episodes. Oh, come on back Amy (hmm…faked header…unknown ISP…something is stinky in the state of Denmark methinks)

gee. Ya think??

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve been reading this newsgoup for three years. Today I’m going to unsub to this newsgroup.  The level of  put downs is very high.   There is a small group that have appointed themselves the gods of rec. running.  They are blessed with the skill of quick wit.  They use that quick sharp wit to demean others they disagree with. I agree that a person must educate themselves.  As a runner warrior there is no use for them that put themselves above others. I agree – it seems I spend a lot of time sifting through ‘clever’, ‘intellectual’ posts that seem to serve no purpose other than to put people down. I’m not sure what purpose they serve actually, other than to turn r.r into something it is not.

Why is this coming up on this side thread?  Sam changed the subject header, posted some very useful information, and consequently added some objectivity to the original thread.  I asked for clarification on some points as, has often been the case, I got confused.  Ozzie then commented that he appreciated the exchange of opinions and other information, mentioning that dialouge is a fine path towards acheiving knowledge. If anything, I thought this side thread was bringing back the dialouge on HRMs to a more sober and considerate tenor rather than becoming a purposeless flame war.  Was I mistaken? — Patrick

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    was: Correction to HRM thread… << I’ve been reading this newsgoup for three years. Cool.  Are you any relation to Michelle Kayter?  She’s one fast Canadian Chick who, as I can best recall, can turn a 400m in 60 seconds flat.  That’s on speed skates, but it sure looked fast to me. << Today I’m going to unsub to this newsgroup.   And yet, you’ve never contributed or posted before now?  I couldn’t find you on deja.com.  And now, only in departing do you speak?  I’m beginnin’ to smell a rat here. << The level of  put downs is very high. Oh pish tosh and twaddle.  That’s totally incorrect. << There is a small group that have appointed themselves the gods of rec. running.  They are blessed with the skill of quick wit.   Sure they’re self-appointed because those freakin slow witted Dade County folks are still counting votes.  Blessed are those with slow wit for they shall…uh..they shall…damn, I’ve forgotten. << They use that quick sharp wit to demean others they disagree with. Well, I don’t know about them self-appointed god folks but I’d never do that. I just demean others whether I disagree with them or not. << I agree that a person must educate themselves.  As a runner warrior there is no use for them that put themselves above others.   "Runner warrior?!"  What does that even mean? Oh man, I see the symptoms:  too many Xena Warrior Princesses or Buffey episodes. Oh, come on back Amy (hmm…faked header…unknown ISP…something is stinky in the state of Denmark methinks) Runner Warrior – guess whether you’re a runner warrior or running coward depends on which direction from the fight you’re running

Bwa ha, Jenn e fir good one.  Runner Warrior??? (What’d we do in in rec.running to need warriors?) Jennifergiggle

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ozzie writes To confront real issues in front of a group of people requires 2 things These 2 things need to happen simultaneously   1.  Collective intention – no one’s dignity will be sacrificed   2.  Collective intention  - the truth will be told Two things anyone in a group can do to help a group to confront something   1. Speak on your own behalf* (see defined)   2. Educate Yourself I’ve been reading this newsgoup for three years. Today I’m going to unsub to this newsgroup.  The level of  put downs is very high.   There is a small group that have appointed themselves the gods of rec. running.  They are blessed with the skill of quick wit.  They use that quick sharp wit to demean others they disagree with. I agree that a person must educate themselves.  As a runner warrior there is no use for them that put themselves above others.

I agree – it seems I spend a lot of time sifting through ‘clever’, ‘intellectual’ posts that seem to serve no purpose other than to put people down. I’m not sure what purpose they serve actually, other than to turn r.r into something it is not. One positive thing these posts do is make me realize how much of a turn off it is, and remembering the times I have ranted at someone – usually because I felt inferior, or I was angry at something else entirely and chose some poor person on the NG to vent my anger. This is something I vow to never do again. Anyway, back to running. I’m sure I have made spelling errors or said other things that can now be used to make me look like a HRM wearing fool (or something even worse, I imagine) but frankly I don’t care. — David (in Hamilton, Ont) "Why should I practice running slow? I already know how to run slow. I must learn to run fast."                                                    Emil Zatopek http://www.angelfire.com/nc/swstudio/racing.html –

Response:

Ken, Is this the same article that rec.running has 52 posts on the thread started by Josh Steinberg on 4/25/01: True/False: Heart Rate Formula based on Science… With the article:    NY Times Online  April 24, 2001 ‘Maximum’ Heart Rate Theory Is Challenged By GINA KOLATA Ozzie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Check out this article from the NY Times. Free sign-up is required. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/24TRAI.html Ken Ken Parker Runner’s Web http://www.runnersweb.com/running.html A running and triathlon resource site

– In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Maintainer – rec.running FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/rec/rec.running.html Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975 Mindful Running http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp

Response:

Here is an online comparison of why HR is a useful indicator (or not) and cites most or many of the references you provide: http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/dept/physio/pt_old/edres/exphys/ep652… xhr.shtml After reading pros and cons, conducting my own test with my own gadget over several months and discarding it, I’ve reached my own conclusion. However, consider that the PRO side of the argument includes authors and vendors seeking a dollar and marketing toward YOUR pocketbook.  The CON side of the argument is not similarly motivated. Jennifer — the answer is clear if the HRM is useful or not: "who knows?"

Response:

   was: Correction to HRM thread… << I’ve been reading this newsgoup for three years. Cool.  Are you any relation to Michelle Kayter?  She’s one fast Canadian Chick who, as I can best recall, can turn a 400m in 60 seconds flat.  That’s on speed skates, but it sure looked fast to me. << Today I’m going to unsub to this newsgroup.   And yet, you’ve never contributed or posted before now?  I couldn’t find you on deja.com.  And now, only in departing do you speak?  I’m beginnin’ to smell a rat here. << The level of  put downs is very high. Oh pish tosh and twaddle.  That’s totally incorrect. << There is a small group that have appointed themselves the gods of rec. running.  They are blessed with the skill of quick wit.   Sure they’re self-appointed because those freakin slow witted Dade County folks are still counting votes.  Blessed are those with slow wit for they shall…uh..they shall…damn, I’ve forgotten. << They use that quick sharp wit to demean others they disagree with. Well, I don’t know about them self-appointed god folks but I’d never do that. I just demean others whether I disagree with them or not. << I agree that a person must educate themselves.  As a runner warrior there is no use for them that put themselves above others.   "Runner warrior?!"  What does that even mean? Oh man, I see the symptoms:  too many Xena Warrior Princesses or Buffey episodes. Oh, come on back Amy (hmm…faked header…unknown ISP…something is stinky in the state of Denmark methinks) Runner Warrior – guess whether you’re a runner warrior or running coward depends on which direction from the fight you’re running

Response:

Check out this article from the NY Times. Free sign-up is required. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/24TRAI.html Ken Ken Parker Runner’s Web http://www.runnersweb.com/running.html A running and triathlon resource site

Response:

Dear Sam and Patrick, Just want to say thanks for the ongoing dialogue and research info you two bring to rec.running.  I appreciate and am sure that many others hold similar feelings of appreciation for what you share. It’s nice to know that rec. running has its own S&P Index to assist us in keeping analysis and research in the direction of seeking truth, and beyond that: understanding. In addition, I am appreciative for your insights that keep me grounded when I miss the mark and speak out in ignorance.   You and so many of the other regulars to rec.running have maintained the ability to "Say it straight" while at the same time never demeaning, diminishing, or marginalizing the individual.   These are summed up in Wilfred Bion’s position: To confront real issues in front of a group of people requires 2 things     These 2 things need to happen simultaneously    1.  Collective intention – no one’s dignity will be sacrificed    2.  Collective intention  - the truth will be told Two things anyone in a group can do to help a group to confront something    1. Speak on your own behalf* (see defined)    2. Educate Yourself   Again, thanks for being part of this virtual community called: rec.running and assisting us in educating ourselves while speaking on our own behalf. In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Maintainer – rec.running FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/rec/rec.running.html Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975 Mindful Running http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp (4/28/01: Site down due to DSL going bancrupt. Should be up in the next 10 days) * defined: 1.  Speak on my own behalf I don’t speak for somebody else I don’t make assumptions about other’s motivations Make "I" Statements Dignity is destroyed by "you" statements "I" statements means saying , What I think,  what I feel,  what I want If I use "I" statement,  I think, I feel, I want, I need to know, What I do is put pressure on others to speak on their own behalf 2.  Educate Myself   Means I go into an exploratory mode and don’t assume I know why a problem is the way it is or necessarily what the problem is. I can never educate anyone else. They can educate themselves but I can’t educate anyone that doesn’t want to know.  Doesn’t matter how eloquent, logical or how overwhelming my case is.  If they don’t want to know, I cannot make them. Other people around the table can educate themselves and share what they’ve learned so that I can educate myself. And vice versa.

Response:

Most thought they were running harder or at a higher intensity than the HR data showed.

(snip)         I typed it properly but not clearly.  The study as a whole showed that the runners were not training as hard as they thought;  however, one subject (the one I mentioned) bucked that trend and was running harder than she thought.

So "most" didn’t or did think "they were running harder or at a higher intensity than the HR data?"         I think that recovery is a critical aspect of training and would put forth the argument that it is the most critical phase of training since that is when adaptation and improvement occurs.  The training sessions are the stimulus for adaptation but the body needs time to adapt and recovery/regeneration is when that occurs.

For sure.             I am not in the HRM as a necessary tool for runners, but I think the strength of the HRM when combined with an accurate MaxHR (leaving the formulae aside) can be useful to help the athlete find that proper level for recovery as well as running hard when one needs to.

To HRM or not can be compared to a person with an alarm clock.  A number of people have been proud to say that they don’t need an alarm clock, that they wake up on their own.  This is most likely due to proper rest and a remebered ability to allow natural biological moderators to do their thing. I’ve got the sneaking suspicion that left to one’s own devices, a runner would not only discover an appropriate recovery pace, but would be more locked into summoning it and recognizing it over the runner who was taught the same pace by an external device. (snip)         Taking it one step farther, several researchers (Banister—not the miler) has been looking at using HR to assess what has been termed training impulse (TRIMP).  The math gets kinda complicated but the idea is that you can quantify training intensity by using HR.  One of the questions asked is something like:  Is a one hour tempo run as stressful as a two hour run that is 30 sec/mile slower but twice as long in terms of time?  TRIMP seeks to answer this.

This promises to yield very interesting data.  What also might be nice is a curve of recovery intensity vs. % improvement.  That’s the whole point isn’t it?  An HRM gives precise feedback regarding a physical state namely HR. What’s lacking is the the study showing the relation between those physical states and its effect on performance.  Additionally, even if there were conclusive evidence that recovery has to take place within a certain range of intensity, where is the evidence that a runner wouldn’t naturally acheive that range at a lower frequency than an aided runner. Please, no math.  I’ve demonstrated my mathematical handicap.  Darn genes. — Patrick

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks for the references Sam. Most thought they were running harder or at a higher intensity than the HR data showed.  One subject listed 3 sessions of 5 as being easy when the HR data showed that she (all the subjects were females who were runners although of various ability) was in fact running at a moderate intensity 60% of the time. Did you type this right?  It appears contradictory. The first sentence says runners thought they were running harder than the HRM told them and the second sentence says that the runners reported easy effort while the HRM told them moderate effort.

        I typed it properly but not clearly.  The study as a whole showed that the runners were not training as hard as they thought;  however, one subject (the one I mentioned) bucked that trend and was running harder than she thought. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Many of us make the case for a HRM to be used as a feedback tool to slow one down on recovery or easy days. Yes, but where is the data that supports the notion that recovery has to be at a specific % HRmax to improve running.  Is it 60%, 62.53%, or 70%? Does a runner not improve if recovery takes place slightly out of the "correct" %HRmax?  And supposing there is some magical number or optimal range at which one should recover, is an HRM necessary for a runner who has cycled a couple of times through hard days and recovery days to naturally fall into the individual optimal %HRmax range on a recovery run?

        I think that recovery is a critical aspect of training and would put forth the argument that it is the most critical phase of training since that is when adaptation and improvement occurs.  The training sessions are the stimulus for adaptation but the body needs time to adapt and recovery/regeneration is when that occurs.             I am not in the HRM as a necessary tool for runners, but I think the strength of the HRM when combined with an accurate MaxHR (leaving the formulae aside) can be useful to help the athlete find that proper level for recovery as well as running hard when one needs to.  If "recovery" runs are done at 80% of MaxHR, I would argue that those are not recovery runs and are even sneaking into that no man’s land that so many people spend time in:  a session that is too hard for recovery and too easy for LT or tempo.         Taking it one step farther, several researchers (Banister—not the miler) has been looking at using HR to assess what has been termed training impulse (TRIMP).  The math gets kinda complicated but the idea is that you can quantify training intensity by using HR.  One of the questions asked is something like:  Is a one hour tempo run as stressful as a two hour run that is 30 sec/mile slower but twice as long in terms of time?  TRIMP seeks to answer this. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks again for the citations. — Patrick

Response:

Thanks for the references Sam.

Most thought they were running harder or at a higher intensity than the HR data showed.  One subject listed 3 sessions of 5 as being easy when the HR data showed that she (all the subjects were females who were runners although of various ability) was in fact running at a moderate intensity 60% of the time.

Did you type this right?  It appears contradictory. The first sentence says runners thought they were running harder than the HRM told them and the second sentence says that the runners reported easy effort while the HRM told them moderate effort. Many of us make the case for a HRM to be used as a feedback tool to slow one down on recovery or easy days.

Yes, but where is the data that supports the notion that recovery has to be at a specific % HRmax to improve running.  Is it 60%, 62.53%, or 70%?  Does a runner not improve if recovery takes place slightly out of the "correct" %HRmax?  And supposing there is some magical number or optimal range at which one should recover, is an HRM necessary for a runner who has cycled a couple of times through hard days and recovery days to naturally fall into the individual optimal %HRmax range on a recovery run? Thanks again for the citations. — Patrick

Response:

I hastily posted something that was a bit off…..typing faster than one’s brain will do that. In regards to %Vo2max and %maxHR, the most linear relationship is really in using %HRR and %VO2Reserve.  HRR is MaxHR-RestingHR.  To set intensity, one would decide on the % intensity, multiply it by HRR and add back in Resting HR.  So if I have a MaxHR of 180 and a Resting HR of 50 and want to work at 75% HRR: (180-50) * 0.75 + 50= 147.5 (148) VO2Reserve is VO2max-VO2rest.  Obviously VO2max differs but VO2rest is pretty stable at 3.5 ml/kg/min.  So if my VO2max is 60.5, then my VO2Reserve is 57.0.  The formula below will look similar to something you have seen before: (60.5-3.5) * 0.75 + 3.5 =  46.25 ml/kg/min Swain has shown this relationship of %HRR to %VO2Reserve to be a better match so that 75% of HRR = 75% VO2Reserve (at least pretty damn close). Swain, D.P. and Leutholtz, B.C.  Heart rate reserve is equivalent to %VO2Reserve, not to %VO2max.  Medicine and Science in Exercise and Sport. 29 (3):  410-414, 1997. Also, I found a couple of papers on using HR to set intensity.  Two studies published in the scientific journals showed that using HR set intensity better than using one’s perception or RPE.   Gilman is the author of both (although one is really a case study).   In the true study, Gilman found that runners using RPE overestimated the intensity for the most part.  Most thought they were running harder or at a higher intensity than the HR data showed.  One subject listed 3 sessions of 5 as being easy when the HR data showed that she (all the subjects were females who were runners although of various ability) was in fact running at a moderate intensity 60% of the time.  Many of us make the case for a HRM to be used as a feedback tool to slow one down on recovery or easy days. Gilman, M.B.  The use of heart rate to monitor the intensity of endurance training.  Sports Medicine.  1996 21(2):  73-79 Gilman, M.B. and Wells, C.L.  The use of heart rates to monitor exercise intensity in relation to metabolic variables.  International Journal of Sports Medicine.  1993 14:  339-344. Potteiger and Evans also found that using HR to set intensity resulted in intensities that more closely mimicked blood lactate values than RPE.   In the study, subjects were told to run at an intensity that matched the intensity that elicited a blood lactate concentration of 4.0 mmol/L (a common value used to delineate an increase in anaerobic metabolism) from a lab based treadmill test.  When the athletes ran based on RPE, the exercise intensity underestimated the metabolic responses.  When intensity was pegged to HR, the blood lactate values were similar to those found on the treadmill test. Potteiger, J.A. and Evans, B.W. Using heart rate and ratings of perceived exertion to monitor intensity in runners.  Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 1995 35: 181-186. — A democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

Response:

Question:

In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.0005021236070.26521-

[snip] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Let’s say you race at 6:00/mile pace at 180 strides per minute. That works out to just under 5 feet per stride, which includes 4 feet airborne plus the length of your foot. (I’ll assume your foot is 1 foot long — what else?) Assuming you move forward at constant speed that means you spend about 1/5-th of the time on the ground. (This also assumes your foot does not slide when planted.) Thus you are doing 180 ballistic airborne phases in 48 seconds, so each phase lasts .26 seconds. Half of this is .13 seconds, and the distance covered by a freely falling body in .13 seconds is .27 feet, or 3.2 inches. So I’m claiming that under the above stated running conditions your center of mass is displaced vertically from the instant of takeoff by about 3.2 inches. As others have noted, the displacement downward of the center of mass during the contact phase could also be considered part of "bounce", but estimating its size is quite a different problem.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you not describing the motion of a rigid object?  An efficient runner will flex, or shorten the airborn leg in order to provide the optimum force and trajectory for the next foot-strike. Thus, you must take into account the amount of vertical motion of the entire body that is prevented by this contraction.  If, in fact the runner is not setting the leg at the optimal angle, the effect of the next foot-strike would be to propel the entire body in a more vertical manner, or ‘bounce’.  It has always been my assumption that any bounce associated with running was a result of a failure to place the leg at an angle that would provide the most possible forward force, while also providing just enough force to overcome the gravitational forces associated with the displacement of the upper body. Of course, I could be all wet… — … tramps like us, Before you buy.

Response:

180 strides per minute is 1/3 second per stride. It therefore takes 1/6 second to rise to the peak of one’s parabolic arc. From s = 16t^2 this works out to 4/9 foot. But the 4/9 of a foot is the peak of the arc measured by the foot relative to the ground, no?   A portion of the "bounce" will be mitigated by knee and hip flex and therefore less than 5 inches will translate to head "bounce?"  

yes. the 4/9 of a foot is for the body’s center of mass. as your legs can’t get longer but a you mentioned can flex (up) the head will have to compensate (down from 4/9 ‘ up) to keep the center of mass at 4/9 foot. i think rajeev

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 180 strides per minute is 1/3 second per stride. It therefore takes 1/6 second to rise to the peak of one’s parabolic arc. From s = 16t^2 this works out to 4/9 foot. But the 4/9 of a foot is the peak of the arc measured by the foot relative to the ground, no?   A portion of the "bounce" will be mitigated by knee and hip flex and therefore less than 5 inches will translate to head "bounce?"   yes. the 4/9 of a foot is for the body’s center of mass. as your legs can’t get longer but a you mentioned can flex (up) the head will have to compensate (down from 4/9 ‘ up) to keep the center of mass at 4/9 foot. i think

I’ll revise my earlier estimate slightly to take into account time spent on the ground. Let’s say you race at 6:00/mile pace at 180 strides per minute. That works out to just under 5 feet per stride, which includes 4 feet airborne plus the length of your foot. (I’ll assume your foot is 1 foot long — what else?) Assuming you move forward at constant speed that means you spend about 1/5-th of the time on the ground. (This also assumes your foot does not slide when planted.) Thus you are doing 180 ballistic airborne phases in 48 seconds, so each phase lasts .26 seconds. Half of this is .13 seconds, and the distance covered by a freely falling body in .13 seconds is .27 feet, or 3.2 inches. So I’m claiming that under the above stated running conditions your center of mass is displaced vertically from the instant of takeoff by about 3.2 inches. As others have noted, the displacement downward of the center of mass during the contact phase could also be considered part of "bounce", but estimating its size is quite a different problem. — Terry R. McConnell   Mathematics/304B Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1150

Response:

[snipped]   Apropos this notion, I recall the term ’superior ankle flexure’ of the Kenyans — that they stayed in contact with the ground longer than was typical even of elite runners.  If remembered correctly, and true, then it may well be that the elites are spending even less time in the air than the rest of us, having found good ways to maintain contact with the ground longer (pushing longer) and in converting some of the energy of landing back to forward motion. Mechanical efficiency.

Everything that I have read about this topic suggests the opposite: that a characteristic of elite runners is that their feet spend less time in contact with the ground. And the superior ankle flexure with a shorter time means that their push off is a more explosive one as it must be to produce a longer stride. However, until someone nails down exactly what Noakes was talking about we’re on bit of a wild goose chase here. — Peter James Ontario, Canada

Response:

Have someone videotape you running. Before you buy.

Response:

180 strides per minute is 1/3 second per stride. It therefore takes 1/6 second to rise to the peak of one’s parabolic arc. From s = 16t^2 this works out to 4/9 foot.

This does not take into account for the significant amount of time spent in contact with the ground. Robert’s post postulates that the ‘elite bounce’ is infact a dip as they sink at the knee to aid the push-off at the next stride. This suggests they spend more time in contact with the ground than the rest of us. By contrast, I understand that Michael Johnson’s unique action has him spend less time in contact with the ground than everyone else – but he isn’t going for efficiency… IanB.

Response:

180 strides per minute is 1/3 second per stride. It therefore takes 1/6 second to rise to the peak of one’s parabolic arc. From s = 16t^2 this works out to 4/9 foot. This does not take into account for the significant amount of time spent in contact with the ground. Robert’s post postulates that the ‘elite bounce’ is infact a dip as they sink at the knee to aid the push-off at the next stride. This suggests they spend more time in contact with the ground than the rest of us.

Yes, you are absolutely right. In my simplistic analysis I didn’t attempt to account for time spent in contact with the ground because I have no idea how to do that. As you suggest, percentage of time in contact with the ground may well vary from runner to runner. I should also clarify that by "bounce" I meant maximum vertical displacement of center of mass. The word has probably been used to mean several different things in the course of this thread. By contrast, I understand that Michael Johnson’s unique action has him spend less time in contact with the ground than everyone else – but he isn’t going for efficiency… IanB.

– Terry R. McConnell   Mathematics/304B Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1150

Response:

[snip] We all bounce to some degree when we run.  The questions remain, how much is too much and how little is too little?

Bounce can be inferred from stride frequency by simple ballistics. If 180 strides per minute is optimal (a figure that has been mentioned here more than once,) then optimal bounce height is just over 5 inches. 180 strides per minute is 1/3 second per stride. It therefore takes 1/6 second to rise to the peak of one’s parabolic arc. From s = 16t^2 this works out to 4/9 foot. The 180 spm figure seems to be empirical. It would be interesting to see a theoretical argument that supports it. — Terry R. McConnell   Mathematics/304B Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1150

Response:

Bounce can be inferred from stride frequency by simple ballistics. If 180 strides per minute is optimal (a figure that has been mentioned here more than once,) then optimal bounce height is just over 5 inches.

Question:  Does anyone have a clue what Noakes meant by "bounce?"  I’ve looked on the net and can’t find his comments or any significant comments on "bounce." When someone says "bounce" I think head movement. 180 strides per minute is 1/3 second per stride. It therefore takes 1/6 second to rise to the peak of one’s parabolic arc. From s = 16t^2 this works out to 4/9 foot.

But the 4/9 of a foot is the peak of the arc measured by the foot relative to the ground, no?   A portion of the "bounce" will be mitigated by knee and hip flex and therefore less than 5 inches will translate to head "bounce?"   jennifer

Response:

  The elites do have very long strides, but not by having great vertical motion.  What Noakes is calling ‘bounce’ is almost certainly something other than distance between feet and ground at the peak of the airborne phase. Suppose two canons with equal firepower and canonballs of equal mass were aimed in the same direction.  Canon A is fired parallel to the ground. Canon B is fired 37 degrees vertical of the horizon.  Which canonball goes further?

  True enough for ballistic flight, … but … your Canon B is going to be in flight much longer than the Canon A.  We have the observation that the plodders (me, for instance) are taking strides at about the same rate as the elites.  Hence, we’re spending about the same _time_ in taking our strides.   Partial answer, and which makes some energetic sense, is that the ‘bounce’ was in a different part of the stride.  Not in launching oneself into the air, but in flexing the knees.  Absorb some energy in the muscles as you sink a bit at landing and return some of it as you push forward.   In terms of vertical bounce (feet off ground distance), I’m now to the point of having fairly little.  But, in the landing, I don’t flex the knees much.  _If_ I were to find the right landing/takeoff to convert that energy to useful work, that is an energy source that doesn’t have a biochemical cost.  There is the biomechanical issue/cost of learning how to make this different stride work.  And there is quite possibly a strength cost in being able to take that flex without going all the way down.   Apropos this notion, I recall the term ’superior ankle flexure’ of the Kenyans — that they stayed in contact with the ground longer than was typical even of elite runners.  If remembered correctly, and true, then it may well be that the elites are spending even less time in the air than the rest of us, having found good ways to maintain contact with the ground longer (pushing longer) and in converting some of the energy of landing back to forward motion. Mechanical efficiency.   Bouncing or not, one thing is clearly true of the elites: They run very fluidly and smoothly.  Each stride is much the same as the previous because each stride is _right_.   They do not hammer the ground in their landings, and in leaving the ground, they’re not launching themselves.  Rather, they’re moving so gracefully fast that gravity can no longer keep them on earth. — Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Response:

(snip)   The elites do have very long strides, but not by having great vertical motion.  What Noakes is calling ‘bounce’ is almost certainly something other than distance between feet and ground at the peak of the airborne phase. — Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur

activities notes and links. Suppose two canons with equal firepower and canonballs of equal mass were aimed in the same direction.  Canon A is fired parallel to the ground. Canon B is fired 37 degrees vertical of the horizon.  Which canonball goes further? Now, picture running next to a very long chalkboard with a piece of chalk sticking out laterally from your neck and perpendicular to your upright body axis.  If you were to have no bounce, you would inscribe a straight horizontal line on the chalkboard.  Too much bounce and you would draw a series of steep parabolic arcs.  If one were to zoom in on either the beginning or end of one of these parabolas, then an angle with respect to the horizon could be determined.  My guess is that Noakes’ putative bounce is somewhere in the range of 30 to 45 degrees. We all bounce to some degree when we run.  The questions remain, how much is too much and how little is too little? — Patrick

Response:

you are right everyone bounces some, just some less than others. the canonball analogy is a tad weak for comparing humans (self-propelled) vs inanimate objects being propelled for distance. Most articles I’ve read really reduce bounce down to what is most economical: running up (bounce) or running forward ( as little bounce as possible) all but the high jumpers seem to want to go forward more than up. In addition consider that when no feet are on the ground pulling/pushing you forward you are in a state of deceleration, so taking the feet up is again not a economical.  This is probably why stride rate is more important to speed than stride length for speed. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (snip)   The elites do have very long strides, but not by having great vertical motion.  What Noakes is calling ‘bounce’ is almost certainly something other than distance between feet and ground at the peak of the airborne phase. — Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Suppose two canons with equal firepower and canonballs of equal mass were aimed in the same direction.  Canon A is fired parallel to the ground. Canon B is fired 37 degrees vertical of the horizon.  Which canonball goes further? Now, picture running next to a very long chalkboard with a piece of chalk sticking out laterally from your neck and perpendicular to your upright body axis.  If you were to have no bounce, you would inscribe a straight horizontal line on the chalkboard.  Too much bounce and you would draw a series of steep parabolic arcs.  If one were to zoom in on either the beginning or end of one of these parabolas, then an angle with respect to the horizon could be determined.  My guess is that Noakes’ putative bounce is somewhere in the range of 30 to 45 degrees. We all bounce to some degree when we run.  The questions remain, how much is too much and how little is too little? — Patrick

Response:

Hi there, Could the bouncing while passing simply be an indicator of a more "urgent" effort? It seems to me that all/ most of the examples you cited were runners passing other runners…which would indicate a more pressing effort on the part of the passer. Did all those bouncers eventually win? Or did I miss something? I have been trying to reduce my vertical "hops"..and maintain more of a gliding stride. It not only feels better and smoother, but I am far less tired after completing the same distance (that I used to bounce  through) I use a treadmill and my mirror…or a brimmed cap (thanks Denny, for that tip). Tell me…was this all for naught? Teresa <turn the cap backwards to sport a ‘tude, dude

Response:

I doubt that it was for naught.  I think that the point is that a shuffle is not the best way to run.  On the other end of the spectrum, when you run you don’t want to look like you on the second jump of the triple jump. Also, what I was trying to convey in my examples is that in the Ironman races you can see the difference in a good form and bad form more clearly because you have runners of greatly different abilities side by side.  If anyone felt any sense of urgency in these situations it would be the passee, after all how would you feel getting passed after leading a race for 4+hrs? All of the bouncers I pointed out ran among the fastest.  Peter Ried ran 2:47, Luc Van Lierde ran 2:41 and Lori Bowden ran an incredible 2:59.  Pretty fast for a marathon after 2.4 miles swimming and 112 miles on the bike. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi there, Could the bouncing while passing simply be an indicator of a more "urgent" effort? It seems to me that all/ most of the examples you cited were runners passing other runners…which would indicate a more pressing effort on the part of the passer. Did all those bouncers eventually win? Or did I miss something? I have been trying to reduce my vertical "hops"..and maintain more of a gliding stride. It not only feels better and smoother, but I am far less tired after completing the same distance (that I used to bounce  through) I use a treadmill and my mirror…or a brimmed cap (thanks Denny, for that tip). Tell me…was this all for naught? Teresa <turn the cap backwards to sport a ‘tude, dude

Response:

Tim Noakes never stated that great runners bounce higher than other runners, but rather that they bounce.  I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.  Dr. Noakes used the visual example a pencil bobbing across a desk.  The best example I have seen of this is in the ‘98 Hawaii Ironman when Peter Ried (who was bouncing) passed Jurgen Zack (who was not bouncing). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When viewed from a biomechanics standpoint two things differentiate speed in a runner.  One is stride length (measured in meters per stride) the other is turnover (measured in strides per min).  If a runner were to have the longest stride length and the fastest turnover he or she would be the fastest in the race.  To have a long stride length one must have bounce because a long stride length means that the runner is not touching the ground for longer during the stride.   I think some things got lost in the translation.   The cadences of elite runners, say 10k and marathon (that’s what you counted, right Denny?), is pretty much all the same, about 190. (Even I, far from elite, managed 170-180 in yesterday’s 10k race) Stride length is then the only variable to speak of.  ’Bouncing’ more, greater vertical motion, is not required.  Indeed, it would cause a _slower_ cadence.   Simply this: a) If you go up in the air farther, it takes longer to come back down.    (reduced cadence) b) While you’re in the air, you don’t get to push against the earth    to produce forward momentum.   The elites do have very long strides, but not by having great vertical motion.  What Noakes is calling ‘bounce’ is almost certainly something other than distance between feet and ground at the peak of the airborne phase. — Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Response:

When viewed from a biomechanics standpoint two things differentiate speed in a runner.  One is stride length (measured in meters per stride) the other is turnover (measured in strides per min).  If a runner were to have the longest stride length and the fastest turnover he or she would be the fastest in the race.  To have a long stride length one must have bounce because a long stride length means that the runner is not touching the ground for longer during the stride.  

  I think some things got lost in the translation.     The cadences of elite runners, say 10k and marathon (that’s what you counted, right Denny?), is pretty much all the same, about 190. (Even I, far from elite, managed 170-180 in yesterday’s 10k race) Stride length is then the only variable to speak of.  ’Bouncing’ more, greater vertical motion, is not required.  Indeed, it would cause a _slower_ cadence.     Simply this: a) If you go up in the air farther, it takes longer to come back down.      (reduced cadence) b) While you’re in the air, you don’t get to push against the earth    to produce forward momentum.   The elites do have very long strides, but not by having great vertical motion.  What Noakes is calling ‘bounce’ is almost certainly something other than distance between feet and ground at the peak of the airborne phase. — Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Response:

On the other hand, bounce is good, but too much is bad so you might actually be a runner that previously had too much bounce and now you are bringing it to an appropriate level.

Well, that gets to the heart of the matter.  I agree, as would everyone here, that some amount of bounce is required by the way all human beings run.  It’s just a question of how much, and more specifically and pedagogically, do most people bounce too much or not enough?  After all, if we’re trying to dispense some sort of wisdom here, then that’s an important thing to know. In swimming, stroke style and mechanics are very personal, and a good swimming teacher/coach is one who can help an individual do what works best for them.  I suspect much the same is true in running, and I’ll probably look into getting some individual coaching at some point in the future. One idea I’ve been toying with is getting the hardware to take video of myself running and post it somewhere on the web where people can comment on my form.  Perhaps a good summertime project for me.  Someone on the swimming newsgroup has taken excerts from TV coverage of world-class swim meets (ESPN) and put them on a web site.  It’s fascinating to watch, especially the one or two slow-motion clips he’s put up. -S-

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – An interesting finding, especially for me in light of the fact that, while I’ve never participated in a triathlon (sp?), I do swim and bicycle avidly (6-10k yards and 50-100 miles weekly, respectively, on average).  As I’m sure someone else will volunteer if I don’t, the fact that some good runners bounce doesn’t make it good technique. Slow motion videos of world class and even world record swimmers almost invariably show flaws in their strokes.  When, yesterday, I concentrated on not bouncing, I felt more efficient and like I was using my energy to move myself forward and not up and down.  That seems a good thing to me.  Again, to make the analogy to swimming and also to support your point, one has to roll from side to side a good bit while doing the front crawl in order to move oneself forward at the best and most efficient speed, so I don’t rule out the possibility of some bounce being a good thing. -S-

I gave the example of the triathlon because it is a rare instance where you can see a great runner (Luc Van Lierde) run right next to a not so great runner (Thomas Hellriegel and Jurgen Zack).  In the footage you can see the great runners bounce.  But again that was just one example and not the entire case for the position.  If you were to watch an Olympic 10,000m race you could probably see the runners bounce (especcially when the camera follows along with the pack).  It would just be harder because they are all doing it. To get back to Tim Noakes work.  Basically his position that all great runners bounce is a result of a great deal of work by biomechanists and physiologists to determine what it is biomechanically that separates great runners from the rest.  In examining the data a great deal of variation was found, so great runners had a neutral footstrike, some pronated slightly, some ran with a relaxed armswing, some ran with their arms high at their sides.  All great runners bounced, and it comes down to physics.  I don’t have Tim’s work in front of me, so this next part is from memory.  It basically works like this: When viewed from a biomechanics standpoint two things differentiate speed in a runner.  One is stride length (measured in meters per stride) the other is turnover (measured in strides per min).  If a runner were to have the longest stride length and the fastest turnover he or she would be the fastest in the race.  To have a long stride length one must have bounce because a long stride length means that the runner is not touching the ground for longer during the stride.  Now the longest stride length does not win the race, because a overly long stride can slow one down (you can’t accelerate in the air only decelerate).  So to be fastest a runner must be able to travel the furthest in a given time.  That means that biomechanically them must have the fastest combination of stride length and cadence. To get back to your swimming example, if a large number of world class swimmers had their stroke analyzed you would find a great deal of variation. All would probably make some errors in stroke mechanics, BUT they all would not make the same error.  Tim Noakes found that all great runners bounce. If it is an identifying factor between great and not great runners I don’t think it can be called an error. As for your personal experience, I assume that you are talking about your perception of improvement.  Did you measure your efficiency, HR, or even your actual vertical movement?  I have the benefit of working in the same institute as many of the top physiologists and biomechanists in the country and I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to have my running technique analyzed.  Some of the mistakes I was making in form were things that I could not feel while running. On the other hand, bounce is good, but too much is bad so you might actually be a runner that previously had too much bounce and now you are bringing it to an appropriate level. Jeremy

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So you’re stating the opposing point of view here, that bounce is _good_? I am just passing along information presented by one of the world’s most respected experts on running.  I have never done research in this area, and biomechanics of running is not my area of expertise, but I have read a great deal of Tim Noakes work.  Anecdotally, I have noticed that during Ironman Hawaii ‘99, Lori Bowden (2:59 marathon off the bike), Luc Van Lierde (2:42 marathon off the bike) bounced and they both passed people that didn’t.  I think that it is harder to see while watching a race like Boston or New York because all the runners you see in the TV coverage will bounce. During Dr. Noakes presentation (and in many of his papers) he has pointed out that many elite runners (and fast running triathletes) show a great deal of variation in form, but the one constant was that they all bounced.

An interesting finding, especially for me in light of the fact that, while I’ve never participated in a triathlon (sp?), I do swim and bicycle avidly (6-10k yards and 50-100 miles weekly, respectively, on average).  As I’m sure someone else will volunteer if I don’t, the fact that some good runners bounce doesn’t make it good technique.  Slow motion videos of world class and even world record swimmers almost invariably show flaws in their strokes.  When, yesterday, I concentrated on not bouncing, I felt more efficient and like I was using my energy to move myself forward and not up and down.  That seems a good thing to me.  Again, to make the analogy to swimming and also to support your point, one has to roll from side to side a good bit while doing the front crawl in order to move oneself forward at the best and most efficient speed, so I don’t rule out the possibility of some bounce being a good thing. -S-

Response:

So you’re stating the opposing point of view here, that bounce is _good_?

I am just passing along information presented by one of the world’s most respected experts on running.  I have never done research in this area, and biomechanics of running is not my area of expertise, but I have read a great deal of Tim Noakes work.  Anecdotally, I have noticed that during Ironman Hawaii ‘99, Lori Bowden (2:59 marathon off the bike), Luc Van Lierde (2:42 marathon off the bike) bounced and they both passed people that didn’t.  I think that it is harder to see while watching a race like Boston or New York because all the runners you see in the TV coverage will bounce. During Dr. Noakes presentation (and in many of his papers) he has pointed out that many elite runners (and fast running triathletes) show a great deal of variation in form, but the one constant was that they all bounced.

Response:

Since cadence is already "up there", then your next goal should to "minimize" vertical motion.

At the 1998 Ironman Sports Medicine Conference, Dr. Timothy Noakes stated that the one thing that you can immediately see in a great runner is that they bounce. Jeremy

Response:

So you’re stating the opposing point of view here, that bounce is _good_? -S- – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Since cadence is already "up there", then your next goal should to "minimize" vertical motion. At the 1998 Ironman Sports Medicine Conference, Dr. Timothy Noakes stated that the one thing that you can immediately see in a great runner is that they bounce. Jeremy

Response:

Steve, To reduce vertical movement, the bouncing up and down, once you’ve arrived and shorter quicker steps.   When you’ve reduced your stride by increasing your cadence, the issue is in lifting the knees and not the whole body. This is when I talk about marching in place.  If you march in place, you touch down ball/heel.  Your body is moving up and down, you’re just lifting your knees.  If you lean from the ankle and keep the body erect you’ll notice that you’re still lifting your knees but now they’re touching down a few inches in front of the 0ther foot but it’s still under your center of gravity.  Check out my repost on running down hill. The image of your body as a broom handle balanced in your palm and starting to fall forward.  If you keep up with the lean of the broom handle it keeps on falling as long as you keep up with it.  It doesn’t bounce.  The earth is the palm of the hand and if you keep on falling and placing your feet down after lifting the knees, you’ll find that you’ll have minimal vertical bounce. Remember if you only lift your center of gravity a half inch more than needed with each step, then every 24 steps you have lifted your body weight one foot up and not gotten anywhere.  That’s why once you learn to run smoothly, without any other additional training you are able to run faster because you’re not wasting any excess energy but turning it into running faster. During your runs, I’d suggest that you stop and massage out the calves and hamstrings along the way.  The idea is that during your training runs, you’re looking at working  on training form.  So if you stop 4 or 5 times to loosen up your muscles as you practice you new form, then start when you start again, you should find that gradually your running time is faster…and amost importantly, the end of your runs are not tiring since you’ve loosened up the muscles during the entire run so that you’re not practicing bad running habits and form during the later parts of your run when  you’re tired. Regarding your shoulders, your head is moving up and down but you are probably feeling the vertical more in the shoulders as you come down. Ozzie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Since cadence is already "up there", then your next goal should to "minimize" vertical motion. Quickest way to test yourself is to wear a billed cap. Adjust the visor so that it intersects the horizon along your sight line. The amount of relative "vertical displacement" of bill-horizon with each stride gives a good idea of form faults. I did my long run this morning and took the opportunity to see how much I bounce around.  In no particular order:  *  My glasses suffice to see how much my head is bouncing.  *  Focusing on reducing the bounce at my head helps – I bounce  *  less, and I feel like my expenditure of energy is directed  *  more towards moving me forward.  *  I watched my shadow on a few occassions when the sun was behind  *  me.  Very interesting.  Even though my _head_ isn’t moving much  *  at all, my shoulders are moving up and down quite a bit.  What,  *  if anything, does this signify? I ran an unmeasured distance today, running about a mile to the local multi-use path then on it until my total run time reached 33:17 and I reached one of the points where I’d considered turning around.  My return leg was 1:10 slower than the outbound one, total running time of 1:07:44.  Estimated distance, assuming an 8:20 overall pace, of 8.1 miles.  Legs are a little sore, I’m a little tired, keeping what form I have for the last few miles was tough – it was hard enough to run the distance.  I’m definitely out of practice at this long a run but for a 5k I guess it’s not all that big a deal. Since my next long run will be three weeks before my 5k, I’m thinking of going for a slightly shorter distance and a slightly faster pace, perhaps an easy walk/run warmup to the 10k course start and then try to run it at 8:00 all the way through. Steve "-3.50 diopters" Freides

– In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Maintainer – rec.running FAQ Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975 Mindful Running:   http://www.mindfulness.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Since cadence is already "up there", then your next goal should to "minimize" vertical motion. Quickest way to test yourself is to wear a billed cap. Adjust the visor so that it intersects the horizon along your sight line. The amount of relative "vertical displacement" of bill-horizon with each stride gives a good idea of form faults. I did my long run this morning and took the opportunity to see how much I bounce around.  In no particular order: *  My glasses suffice to see how much my head is bouncing. *  Focusing on reducing the bounce at my head helps – I bounce *  less, and I feel like my expenditure of energy is directed *  more towards moving me forward. *  I watched my shadow on a few occassions when the sun was behind *  me.  Very interesting.  Even though my _head_ isn’t moving much *  at all, my shoulders are moving up and down quite a bit.  What,

Shoulders up/down ‘quite a bit’ mans there’s work to be done! *  if anything, does this signify?

Signifying that you are ducking your head out of phase with body to keep Glasses from bouncing? Unconsciously? Try the cap with bill. Run upright, head up letting head move up/down in phase with the body. Visualize a line attached to the top of your head, forcing you to keep it upright at all times. Then, if able to sustain the upright position,  the magnitude of  relative vertical motion will be quite apparent from the horizon-bill relationship.   Steve "-3.50 diopters" Freides

Denny – 3.00 diopter.

Response:

Since cadence is already "up there", then your next goal should to "minimize" vertical motion. Quickest way to test yourself is to wear a billed cap. Adjust the visor so that it intersects the horizon along your sight line. The amount of relative "vertical displacement" of bill-horizon with each stride gives a good idea of form faults.

I did my long run this morning and took the opportunity to see how much I bounce around.  In no particular order:  *  My glasses suffice to see how much my head is bouncing.  *  Focusing on reducing the bounce at my head helps – I bounce  *  less, and I feel like my expenditure of energy is directed  *  more towards moving me forward.  *  I watched my shadow on a few occassions when the sun was behind  *  me.  Very interesting.  Even though my _head_ isn’t moving much  *  at all, my shoulders are moving up and down quite a bit.  What,  *  if anything, does this signify? I ran an unmeasured distance today, running about a mile to the local multi-use path then on it until my total run time reached 33:17 and I reached one of the points where I’d considered turning around.  My return leg was 1:10 slower than the outbound one, total running time of 1:07:44.  Estimated distance, assuming an 8:20 overall pace, of 8.1 miles.  Legs are a little sore, I’m a little tired, keeping what form I have for the last few miles was tough – it was hard enough to run the distance.  I’m definitely out of practice at this long a run but for a 5k I guess it’s not all that big a deal. Since my next long run will be three weeks before my 5k, I’m thinking of going for a slightly shorter distance and a slightly faster pace, perhaps an easy walk/run warmup to the 10k course start and then try to run it at 8:00 all the way through. Steve "-3.50 diopters" Freides

Response:

Question:

-hug (who, in the past 10 years, has become quite tired of people asking "When are you gonna do an Ironman?"!)

Me. AJ — If swimming is so good for the figure, explain whales Simon Haigh Illawarra Triathlon Club – Australia http://members.xoom.com/ajsimon/index.htm   <—- New web site      

Response:

    <snip     I work 50 hrs a week and still fit in 3 workouts a night, whats  your excuse for being lazy, fat, unmotivated and non-competitive??     You can see my Home Page at http://www2.fwi.com/~furnissp/index.htm     I work 60hrs a week, have a 6-yr old son, and still fit in 3hrs of commuting a day. My excuse is that I’m lazy & unmotivated. (I’m not genetically predisposed to the fat thing, and if I was non-competitive I wouldn’t be responding to this tagline, would I?)     jk         ps. cool site

Response:

oppps, sorry, thats my signature I use for my friends that say they cant find the time to exercise, this was in no way met for anybody on this news group.  60 hrs,  wow, I dont feel so bad now.  When do you sleep?? — I work 50 hrs a week and still fit in 3 workouts a night, whats  your excuse for being lazy, fat, unmotivated and non-competitive?? You can see my Home Page at http://www2.fwi.com/~furnissp/index.htm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    <snip    I work 50 hrs a week and still fit in 3 workouts a night, whats  your excuse for being lazy, fat, unmotivated and non-competitive??    You can see my Home Page at http://www2.fwi.com/~furnissp/index.htm    I work 60hrs a week, have a 6-yr old son, and still fit in 3hrs of commuting a day. My excuse is that I’m lazy & unmotivated. (I’m not genetically predisposed to the fat thing, and if I was non-competitive I wouldn’t be responding to this tagline, would I?)    jk    ;-)    ps. cool site

Response:

was only one of what pass for my jokes. No sweat. Sleep? What’s that . . ..

Response:

Do other sprint/olympic distance triathletes get discouraged or angry when the non-triathletes view you as not doing a "real" triathlon?  Do you have any good comebacks?

I have to say that I’ve never gotten that from another triathlete.  If I did, my retort wouldn’t be printable in a public forum. I do get it from non-triathletes and I look at it as a "teachable moment." It’s an opportunity to explain that the IM isn’t the only tri out there, that there are lots of shorter tri’s that are also a challenge but are also a lot of fun. And then I invite them to think about doing a sprint tri, since the distances are manageable for most people. And I mention the specific sprint races in our area and when they’ll be. "If you’re really interested, there’s a real nice sprint series in May, June, and July in Ponte Vedra…" The most common reaction is that they don’t think they could do even the shorter distance. For some reason, the question of whether it’s a "real" tri doesn’t come up. <g  But you’ve turned it into a friendly discussion and an offer to participate in our sport. Mike Tennent "IronPenguin" ‘98 Ironman Canada, 16:17:03

Response:

Clive: You have no need to be discouraged.  Only a "real" triathlete would call an event that last over an hour a sprint. Keep up the good work. Alan Erquitt

SO true!  It ticks me off when someone tells me they "just" want to try a "mini-tri" some day – making it sound like it’s some short little wimpy event that anyone can do without training at all.  I always make a point to let them know that it is not a "MINI"-tri – it is called a "sprint", and that term is technically incorrect.  What other sports have sprints that last an hour or more?  While the distance is shorter (and more managable for beginners) it is in no way less of a triathlon than an Ironman or Olympic distance tri. In swimming some people are sprinters and some are distance specialists.  Sprinters are not looked down upon just because they race 50m instead of 1500m (well, except maybe by some of us distance swimmers who are just jealous that they don’t have to put in the same kind of yardage and can go so damn fast!)  One distance is not "real" and all others invalid! In fact since sprint tris are so "short" the effort is typically more intense. I encourage them to give it a try (while suggesting a suitable training schedule) but tell them to call it a sprint tri. -hug (who, in the past 10 years, has become quite tired of people asking "When are you gonna do an Ironman?"!)

Response:

Hello r.s.t! Well, after great advice from tri-baby, Wade, Brian, Mike (Schwing), Mike (Tennant), Julie, etc., I am now on my way to training for my first triathlon. And it’s alot of fun.  Cross-training is alot more enjoyable than running 6 times a week (although I usually do sneak in 5 runs). Anyways, while at the gym a friend asked me what I was doing and I said training for a few summer sprint tri’s and a fall marathon.  He asked if those triathlons were the ones "that they run in Hawaii where people collapse and are disoriented".  When I said "no, that’s an Ironman Triathlon", he said something to the effect – "oh, so you’re not doing a _real_ triathlon". Do other sprint/olympic distance triathletes get discouraged or angry when the non-triathletes view you as not doing a "real" triathlon?  Do you have any good comebacks? It was just sort of a put-down to me after starting to train for a tri that others may view my efforts as not "real". Cheers everybody. Clive

Response:

In Sweden they call the Ironman "Fulldistans" or full distance, that annoys me, although it also gets called J

Question:

Thank you, Steve. —                   __o       o                 _ <_      <      __/o_    (_)/(_)     /      "Train hard, Race often"

Response:

Where did Gatorade come from they haven’t been interested in the sport for years.

Huh?  I think you might be mistaken here, Tom.   Gatorade was involved with IMC in 1995. And, I think they sponsor a triathlon series in Florida.  I am sure there is alot more as well.   -Rolf — I am Iron Mac.            The Ironman is over in the blink of an eye.                                                    Enjoy it! IMC’94/14:07    IMC’95/11:59    IMC’97/12:12    IMC’98/Confirmed

Response:

   I like the thought. Still say the quickest resolution will be to get NBC and the other major sponsors (Gatorade, etc. ) to work behind the scenes with the parties. Only speculation on my part, (take it for what it is worth) all those sponsorship agreements with WTC, bet they might be affected, paticularly if they are long term agreements with termination clauses for any change in status of the race, that sure could add to damages…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Here’s my $.02:    Bring a class action against the ITU, the USOC, et al., for antitrust violations; have the leading pro’s make up the class and allege that they have been harmed because of the ITU’s stance re sponsorship prohibitions with respect to uniforms, emblems, etc. Seems to me that a federal district court could sort out this mess promptly, and issue the appropriate restraining order accordingly . .

Response:

Here’s MY $ .02. Lets kill all of the lawyers and let the athletes sort it out. There I go again. Sorry, John Schiller (TriNurse)

Response:

Seems to be a lot of Lawyer triathletes.  Maybe some big guns might help the "World" of Triathlon. — Jay "TriJay" Japka Jay’s World Web Page http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Field/2336/index.htm

Here’s my $.02:     Bring a class action against the ITU, the USOC, et al., for antitrust violations; have the leading pro’s make up the class and allege that they have been harmed because of the ITU’s stance re sponsorship prohibitions with respect to uniforms, emblems, etc. Seems to me that a federal district court could sort out this mess promptly, and issue the appropriate restraining order accordingly . . . . Anyone else have comments?   anyone, anyone . . . Brian.

Response:

Seems to be a lot of Lawyer triathletes.  Maybe some big guns might help the "World" of Triathlon. — Jay "TriJay" Japka Jay’s World Web Page http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Field/2336/index.htm

Response:

Bravo Steve! Bravo! — TriMol AKA: Eric P. Gilchrist Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta GA

Response:

To the USAT Membership and RST Readers:

             .              .           snip              .              . Ya see!  It’s the LAWYER’S fault!!!!    ;-)  ;-) —    LSC (aka Larry Chapman)    (970) 229-3117

Response:

Steve, good for you. Thank you. Had you included the statement "USAT’s attorneys have advised us against making any further statements at this time", many of the burn marks on your newsreader would not be there. Personally, I’d tell your attorney to soak his head. I always deeply afraid of asking attorneys about how to spin a story, because spin is part of their job description. Further flames in abeyance while we watch and wait. To the USAT Membership and RST Readers:

snipped answers we’ve been asking for. Sincerely, Steven M. Locke Executive Director, USA Triathlon

Rick Denney Take what you want and leave the rest.

Response:

Finally, Larry, somebody we can both despise equally. To the USAT Membership and RST Readers:             .             .          snip             .             . Ya see!  It’s the LAWYER’S fault!!!!    ;-)  ;-)

Rick Denney Take what you want and leave the rest.

Response:

To the USAT Membership and RST Readers: I sincerely apologize to all of my friends and to the supporters of USAT about  any misunderstandings that may have been caused by last week

Question:

Water temp at Mrs. T’s is usually cold (60’s) but I’ve survived the last two years without a wetsuit (these were my first two years doing tris and I didn’t want to spend the money on a wetsuit until I was sure I’d do more). I believe it’s been warmer than usual the last 2 years though (near 70 I think). I’ve since purchased a wetsuit (for Pacific Grove last Sept.) and plan to use it at Mrs. T’s this year whatever the water temp (I don’t think we count on Lake Michigan being uncharacteristically warm every year!). I’ve heard stories of high 50’s/low 60’s from the past. ….. David – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ll be doing the Mrs. T’s Chicago Triathlon for the first time this August. Can anyone tell me what the water temperature is usually like there and whether I’ll need to purchase a wetsuit for it or not? —                                        http://www.midplains.net/~spev

Response:

I’ll be doing the Mrs. T’s Chicago Triathlon for the first time this August. Can anyone tell me what the water temperature is usually like there and whether I’ll need to purchase a wetsuit for it or not?                                        http://www.midplains.net/~spev

The water temp in Chicago really depends on the winds over the days previous to the race. If the wind has been blowing from the west, the warm surface water actually gets blown over to Michigan and cold subsurface water rises to the top. The temp can be in the low 60s in August. Steve Lowery                    http://www.sourcebar.com

Response:

I’ll be doing the Mrs. T’s Chicago Triathlon for the first time this August. Can anyone tell me what the water temperature is usually like there and whether I’ll need to purchase a wetsuit for it or not? —                                        http://www.midplains.net/~spev

Response:

Question:

Anyone know the date for Ironman Hawaii 97′ ? Thanks!

Response:

October 18 is the confirmed date for the Ironman Triathlon World Championship in 1997… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anyone know the date for Ironman Hawaii 97′ ? Thanks!

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (TUCKERNEW) writes: A.J. I’ll be at both and will look out for you.  I’m assuming that our Multi-Sport School of Champions training will have prepared us for these races.  I look forward to comparing notes with you races days. Tucker Newberry Is anyone keeping a list of RSTers going to Columbia?  I plan on being there, though racing it is yet to be determined.  What’s the lake temp – anyone know? -hug

I stop by the lake the other day during lunch, it was real cold. I will take my thermometer over there later this week and post the results. It is ashallow lake and can warm up quickly if we get some sun this week. TriRef aka Bruce Platt

Response:

Is anyone keeping a list of RSTers going to Columbia?  I plan on being there, though racing it is yet to be determined.  

I’ll be there, hoping I’ve done enough in the last two months to get in shape for it.                                         — John — John Walker        Jackson & Tull Chartered Engineers, Seabrook, Maryland WWW URL:   http://xenon.stanford.edu/~walker  

Response:

I am racing at Columbia Maryland on May 18, Virginia on the 25th,and June 1 for the Ironman Qualifier (1/2 Iron Man) is anyone else going to be at these races?                                                   Tri-Freak                         Swim – Bike – Run : What else is there?

Response:

I am racing at Columbia Maryland on May 18, Virginia on the 25th,and June 1 for the Ironman Qualifier (1/2 Iron Man) is anyone else going to be at these races?                                                 Tri-Freak                         Swim – Bike – Run : What else is there?

I’ll be at Columbia! (so no drafting!) TriRef

Response:

A.J. I’ll be at both and will look out for you.  I’m assuming that our Multi-Sport School of Champions training will have prepared us for these races.  I look forward to comparing notes with you races days. Tucker Newberry

Response:

(TUCKERNEW) writes: A.J. I’ll be at both and will look out for you.  I’m assuming that our Multi-Sport School of Champions training will have prepared us for these races.  I look forward to comparing notes with you races days. Tucker Newberry

Is anyone keeping a list of RSTers going to Columbia?  I plan on being there, though racing it is yet to be determined.  What’s the lake temp – anyone know? -hug

Response:

Has anyone gotten their Columbia triathlon entry form for the May race?             Harry

Response:

No – Robert sent them out one year presorted third class, but learned his lesson. We’ll probably see them by the end of the month. If you were there last year, don’t worry … you’ll get one. PRAY FOR COLD WEATHER

Response:

If you’re talking about Columbia, MD, I got mine!!!!  I’ll probably be one of the first, living about 3/4 mile from the course, so don’t despair, they’re on the way! BTW, since this is my first Columbia race, I don’t know if I should check of Age Group or Open.  Is there an advantage to either?  Just a note, I don’t plan on taking home any trophies, maybe a war wound or two, but definitely no wining times. Paul Gimbel "Try-Athlete"

Response:

Don’t say pray for cold weather!! I did one in May, 1991 and it was so cold, they allowed help in the bike to run transition, as the athletes were frozen onto their $3000 seats

Response:

Question:

Training intensity and HRMs I bought a heart rate monitor (HRM) some time ago to improve my training. and Henderson’s "Fitness Running" and a very comprehensive Dutch one "Training, Lactate and Heart Rates" by Peter G.J.M. Janssen. All contain valuable information but unfortunately they are also all ambiguous on the kind of advise I’m after: i.e. at what intensity level (in terms of beats per minute, bpm) should I train to obtain the results I’m looking for. Admittedly Edwards’ book indicates clearly by way of tables what intensity levels (given as percentages of maximum heart rate, MHR) are optimal for different age groups to achieve different objectives (heart training, fat burning, improved aerobic capacity etc.). Later in the book, however, as well as in Janssen’s, other methods for calculating training intensity are suggested based on Karvonen’s formula, the Conconi test to determine the lactate treshold and others. In short there seems to exist a lot of parallell and differing theories on how age, resting heart rate, maxpuls and so on should be related to each other. Having tried to use various calculation methods I find differences that (based on my own experience) may be big enough to cause injuries. I’m interested to learn whether there has been any recent research in this field establishing more consensus regarding relations between the different parametres and values. I would also be grateful to anyone able to give advise out of his or her own experience. Svein

Response:

[...] I’m interested to learn whether there has been any recent research in this field establishing more consensus regarding relations between the different parametres and values. I would also be grateful to anyone able to give advise out of his or her own experience.

At my university the instructors say that the aerobic(?) threshold is at approximately 70% of the max HR; the anaerobic threshold is at 85% of the max HR. One should train with a HR between these limits. Two totally different types of training: long and slow (70%) vs high intensity (85%) and short. It all depends on what you try to accomplish I guess. Btw, I have also seen these figures in the Dutch edition of Runner’s World. Just my $0.02, Maurice — University of Nijmegen, Computing Science Institute Toernooiveld 1, 6525 ED Nijmegen, The Netherlands Phone +31 24 3652710, Fax +31 24 3553450 http://www.cs.kun.nl/~mauricek

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Training intensity and HRMs I bought a heart rate monitor (HRM) some time ago to improve my training. and Henderson’s "Fitness Running" and a very comprehensive Dutch one "Training, Lactate and Heart Rates" by Peter G.J.M. Janssen. All contain valuable information but unfortunately they are also all ambiguous on the kind of advise I’m after: i.e. at what intensity level (in terms of beats per minute, bpm) should I train to obtain the results I’m looking for. Admittedly Edwards’ book indicates clearly by way of tables what intensity levels (given as percentages of maximum heart rate, MHR) are optimal for different age groups to achieve different objectives (heart training, fat burning, improved aerobic capacity etc.). Later in the book, however, as well as in Janssen’s, other methods for calculating training intensity are suggested based on Karvonen’s formula, the Conconi test to determine the lactate treshold and others. In short there seems to exist a lot of parallell and differing theories on how age, resting heart rate, maxpuls and so on should be related to each other. Having tried to use various calculation methods I find differences that (based on my own experience) may be big enough to cause injuries. I’m interested to learn whether there has been any recent research in this field establishing more consensus regarding relations between the different parametres and values. I would also be grateful to anyone able to give advise out of his or her own experience. Svein

Svein, I’d suggest that you read Coach Roy Benon’s HRM training book.  He has a background (MS) in exercise physiology, but he is a coach. I have been through the same gammett of books as you have and although I felt very knowledgeable when I finished reading all of them I did not have a clue about how to effectively train with my HRM.  Roy’s book spells it out in black and white … do this I believe it is available through Cedar Winds Publishing and be sure to note it is different (a bit more indepth) than the booklet he wrote to accompany a Polar HRM purchase.   Now if I could only find such an easy to follow recipe for triathlon training! Lucy

Response:

Training intensity and HRMs I bought a heart rate monitor (HRM) some time ago to improve my training. Brown and Henderson’s "Fitness Running" and a very comprehensive Dutch one "Training, Lactate and Heart Rates" by Peter G.J.M. Janssen. All contain valuable information but unfortunately they are also all ambiguous on the kind of advise I’m after: i.e. at what intensity level (in terms of beats per minute, bpm) should I train to obtain the results I’m looking for.

(snipped some stuff) In short there seems to exist a lot of parallell and differing theories on how age, resting heart rate, maxpuls and so on should be related to each other. Having tried to use various calculation methods I find differences that (based on my own experience) may be big enough to cause injuries. I’m interested to learn whether there has been any recent research in this field establishing more consensus regarding relations between the different parametres and values. (snip) Svein

There will never be consensus on the best way to train. The body and sport are too complex for that (though there might be some consensus on really BAD ways to train).  But that’s part of the beauty of sport. You’ve picked some good reading and what I suggest is trying to apply the various ideas presented to your own running.  See what seems to make sense and work for you.   John Tomlinson

Response:

: Training intensity and HRMs : I bought a heart rate monitor (HRM) some time ago to improve my training. : and Henderson’s "Fitness Running" and a very comprehensive Dutch one : "Training, Lactate and Heart Rates" by Peter G.J.M. Janssen. All contain : valuable information but unfortunately they are also all ambiguous on the : kind of advise I’m after: i.e. at what intensity level (in terms of beats : per minute, bpm) should I train to obtain the results I’m looking for. : Admittedly Edwards’ book indicates clearly by way of tables what : intensity levels (given as percentages of maximum heart rate, MHR) are -snip- Check out "SERIOUS training for Serious Athletes".  It describes an approach that begins with your goals in mind and outlines a training year.  If you are just trying to get in reasonable shape, it is a little bit of an overkill, but you can take out of it what you want, so… -J

Response:

Question:

Now here’s a curly one (as the nun said to the vicar): The WC for Duathlon (that’s World Champs, not a toilet) is 10/40/5 (km, correct me if I’m wrong.  Actually, having said that I now realise I have all this time only ASSUMED these are the distances – bear with me anyway). The NZ Champs is 10/40/5. The US Champs would appear to be 3/20/3 MILES, which is..um..err..(hurried calculation – knew I did that Math degree for something) 4.8/32/4.8 km. Now the gnarly bit:  WHY? I can currently outride anyone round here over 30-odd ks after a wee 5k run, but I’m sure I’ll have to work bloody hard to keep up with the speed freaks over 40k after a 10k run. Apples and oranges? Tri-Git

Response:

10th Annual MARLBOROUGH DUATHLON 1996 USA TRIATHLON  NATIONAL DUATHLON  CHAMPIONSHIP MARLBOROUGH, MA SUNDAY, JULY 7,1996 8:30 AM 3 mile run  20 mile bike  3 mile run Presented by the Marlborough Lions Club 1996 WORLD DUATHLON QUALIFYER Ferrera, Italy minimun of 2 slots per age group 1996 F.I.R.M. GRAND PRIX SERIES RACE COURSE & DISTANCES Run 3miles – 1 mile flat, 1 mile up and 1 mile down. Bike 20 miles – 5  loops over a hilly though not mountainous course. Run 3 miles – Same run as the first but in reverse. AWARDS Three deep male & female in all of the folowing age groups: 13-14,  15-16,  17-19,  20-24,  25-29 30-34,   35-39,   40-44,  45-49,   50-54 55-60,  60-64,  65-69,  70-74,  75-79 Relay Teams: Male – Female – Mixed DEADLINES The field is limited to 600 athletes. The last day to register is June 26, 1996.  No exceptions. HOST HOTEL Best Western Royal Plaza Hotel Hotel located 1 mile from course, 1.5 mile from start/finish Marlborough, MA 01752 (508) 460-0700 ($75 double occ) OFFICIAL BIKE STORE The Spoke’n Wheel Group will be providing technical support along the race course.  Visit their booth at the expo. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Saturday, July 6         9:00 am – 4:00 pm       Mandatory Packet Pick-Up         Sports Expo         Best Western Hotel Sunday, July 7         8:30 am Race Starts         12:00 Course Closes         2:00  pm – 4:00 pm         Awards Banquet         Best Western Hotel         (sit down vegetarian meal) AMMENETIES Post-race refreshments Massage Tent National Championship T Shirt Raffle Prizes Water Bottle FEES Individual:  $50.00         Subtract $5 with USA Triathlon number Relay Teams: $65.00         Subtract $5 per USA Triathlon number Sorry, fees are 100% non-refundable after June 10,1996. TRAVEL INFORMATION USA Triathlon Travel Desk 1-800-426-4055 Ask about free bike transportation A complete information packet will be mailed to all registered athletes. Photocopied entries accepted For information send a SASE to F.I.R.M., 46 Bruce Rd., Marlborough, MA 01752 RACE  APPLICATION In consideration of this entry being accepted, I do hereby forever waive and release Fiske Independent Race Management and the sponsoring organizations and companies, their agents,  representatives, assigns and successors from all claims of action which I at any time acquire as a result of participation in the event for which entry relates.           (please print or type) RELAY TEAM ENTRY: Check Category:  ___MALE  ___FEMALE   ___MIXED Both team members must fill out seperate individual applications and submit together with one check INDIVIDUAL: M_____ F_____ AGE(race day) _______ Make checks payable to F.I.R.M. Be sure when printing to hard copy that the entire waiver appears on the same page as your signature.  Incomplete or fragmented waivers cannot be accepted. Full color (who needs it) applications are available through snail mail. Email me for one. I’ll post this application every few weeks for RSTers to download. Randy Scott co-race director

Response:

Question:

What does R.S.T think of this kind of Triathlon.  Do many of you own Rollerblades? Jamie Sarkisian Sark Products 206 Jerico Hill Road Waltham MA 02154 617-647-9777

Response:

I think its always fun to do something different Bruce Platt

Response:

What does R.S.T think of this kind of Triathlon.  Do many of you own Rollerblades?

I think Tri-Maryland had a rollerblade/bike/run event in Columbia, MD this past fall. I remember seeing it in one of their flyers last spring, but didn’t follow up to see if it actually happened. My legs ache just thinking about it… Jordan

Response: