I've been a traveling fool as of late (though forever a fool) and blogging has taken a back seat to my backseat driving. Below is a question I received a day or two ago about the whole rigmarole of doing back-to-back Ironmans.
Quick question... Why when training for two ironmans relatively close together do your athletes taper for the first but not the second one? How far away do the races need to be to taper for both??
For those I coach taking part in back-to-back Ironmans this is indeed the case. I'll advise the athlete to taper for the first Ironman and then skip the whole taper process for their second race, when the two "overlap". Tapering works but only when fitness is high (relative to one's self) going into an event. Of course fitness is high (and perhaps even higher) after an Ironman but so too is fatigue, and herein lay the "problem".
Fatigue and fitness trend similarly but Ironman fatigue demands full respect and FULL recovery. So if a second Ironman falls five or six weeks later there's no easy way to recover and taper in time for the second. Otherwise too much race fitness is lost. And since recovery really cannot be denied, the taper generally has to go. (On this note what I've witnessed as an athlete and now as a coach is that the taper process might even be over-emphasized some, because four out of five times the athlete performs better in their second Ironman. This could be due to many factors of course [e.g., experience that hasn't yet been forgotten] but methinks it's most often due to over-tapering the first time around, something I try hard to avoid. I've rearranged my whole line of attack over the years as to how an athlete tapers for an Ironman. The event is nothing like your average endurance event [or those pinpointed in "scientific studies"] and so its requirements aren't and probably shouldn't be the same.)
As to how far apart two Ironmans should be to require a similar taper for both, that's the difficult part of your question. The easy answer is that it depends on the individual, the race demands, and the athlete's diligence toward hastening post-race recovery (this, by the way, is the real secret to making gains: being diligent toward speeding recovering). Since there is no easy Ironman (contrary to what others might say about Arizona or Florida) it's obviously important to be fully prepared. In order to be fully prepared one must be fit first, then rested (in addition to nailing those tricky tasks of nutrition and race day pacing.) Where many Ironman athletes go wrong (and their coaches too) is in thinking they need to be "fresh" before the race. As I've said before, Ironman ain't a tampon ad, so feeling fresh is quite simply the wrong line of thinking.
Freshness essentially means a loss of fitness (remember: fatigue and fitness are cut from the same mold) and fitness (along with smart execution on race day) are what will get you to the finish line in the least amount of time, the goal for the vast majority of us.
But post-Ironman fatigue cannot be so great as to limit your gains in fitness, as measured not by how you "feel" but by what the numbers say. They don't generally lie. Try an aerobic test after an Ironman and the results are stunning. The muscle damage incurred won't even allow your motor to get the job done, despite the fact it's ripe for the task. But in a matter of days the numbers improve and may even exceed those seen pre-Ironman. This is a great sign you're making strides in recovery but then there's the "deep-seated" fatigue, the residual stuff that leaves your immune system suppressed, your hormones out of whack and your desire to live generally pretty low. Your leg muscles may be saying, "Man, I feel good," but muscles are only a petty part of Ironman recovery. There is so much more needing focus: tendons, ligaments, your heart, other organs, adrenals, hypothalamus, you name it. Even your bones and blood need rest after an Ironman. So too does your skin (and I'm not just referring to the blisters on your feet).
Unfortunately, it's hard to speed up all of this damage but you certainly can to a degree. Soaks, massage, improved nutrition, naps, elevation, compression, supplementation, hyperbaria, the NormaTec device, medication (and so on) can all help take the typical Ironman recovery from 3-6 weeks to 1-3. Again, much of it depends on the athlete (age, gender, fitness, weight, build, etc) and there is no cut and dried "this is how long it takes" response. Partying post-race delays recovery, incidentally. Note to self: no stage dives post-Ironman.
If an athlete approaches me and informs me they're entered in two Ironmans that are virtually back-to-back (Lake Placid and Louisville, for example) and their goal is to qualify for Kona at either event, we focus primarily on the initial one (assuming they're also willing to dish out the big bucks for my coaching services, of course). But first we look at the athlete as an individual and what the race entails. If the athlete cannot climb all that well on the bike and despises cooler weather, for example, then Lake Placid makes for a tough proposition. The individual is the primary consideration, the race secondary. We can all be prepared for that which we do not normally excel in.
Now, if the athlete failed to reach Kona by way of Lake Placid we have no option but to try our damndest at Louisville. This first means recovering fully from Placid. (On this note it is hopeful if the athlete also didn't kill himself or herself during the failed attempt.) Training then becomes anything (legal) to hasten recovery, and usually for two to three weeks. Fitness is lost but then so too is fatigue. We maintain fitness the best we can (i.e., in water or through short, frequent spins) but with the sole goal of stripping away all that nastiness caused by the brutality of Lake Placid. (…Placid, my ass!) Then after two or so weeks we start more serious movement (though I don't quite call it "training" at this point): hiking, jogging uphill, longer spins, harder pull-set swims. This movement can last a week or so when the real training (i.e., race practice) kicks in, just two weeks shy of Louisville. But two weeks of training is plenty of time to "reinstate" race-required fitness, so long as the whole notion of tapering is removed and a quality fitness "base" was established earlier in the training year. The taper process is no longer a procedure but simply a couple of days sans harder training. I've even had a few athletes skip those two easier days in the past, if they're still making gains right up to race start. While fitness isn't built in a day (unlike Rome), it does take days to get the job done, and days are what make up great race days.
So…
1) Taper as you normally would for the first Ironman, if fitness is "normal".
2) Do everything in your power to hasten recovery post-Ironman.
3) Don't rush into "real" training until your body is 100% ready; ignore your head and listen to your body. Maintain fitness through less abusive means.
4) Don't taper for the second Ironman if your fitness isn't as least as high as before. If gains are yet to be had, keep the momentum building right up to race day. Momentum is a good thing when doing or building toward an Ironman.
5) And if none of the above appeals to you, consider spreading your Ironmans out a little more (12+ weeks). Then again, if it's worth doing, it's worth over-doing!
Quick question... Why when training for two ironmans relatively close together do your athletes taper for the first but not the second one? How far away do the races need to be to taper for both??
For those I coach taking part in back-to-back Ironmans this is indeed the case. I'll advise the athlete to taper for the first Ironman and then skip the whole taper process for their second race, when the two "overlap". Tapering works but only when fitness is high (relative to one's self) going into an event. Of course fitness is high (and perhaps even higher) after an Ironman but so too is fatigue, and herein lay the "problem".
Fatigue and fitness trend similarly but Ironman fatigue demands full respect and FULL recovery. So if a second Ironman falls five or six weeks later there's no easy way to recover and taper in time for the second. Otherwise too much race fitness is lost. And since recovery really cannot be denied, the taper generally has to go. (On this note what I've witnessed as an athlete and now as a coach is that the taper process might even be over-emphasized some, because four out of five times the athlete performs better in their second Ironman. This could be due to many factors of course [e.g., experience that hasn't yet been forgotten] but methinks it's most often due to over-tapering the first time around, something I try hard to avoid. I've rearranged my whole line of attack over the years as to how an athlete tapers for an Ironman. The event is nothing like your average endurance event [or those pinpointed in "scientific studies"] and so its requirements aren't and probably shouldn't be the same.)
As to how far apart two Ironmans should be to require a similar taper for both, that's the difficult part of your question. The easy answer is that it depends on the individual, the race demands, and the athlete's diligence toward hastening post-race recovery (this, by the way, is the real secret to making gains: being diligent toward speeding recovering). Since there is no easy Ironman (contrary to what others might say about Arizona or Florida) it's obviously important to be fully prepared. In order to be fully prepared one must be fit first, then rested (in addition to nailing those tricky tasks of nutrition and race day pacing.) Where many Ironman athletes go wrong (and their coaches too) is in thinking they need to be "fresh" before the race. As I've said before, Ironman ain't a tampon ad, so feeling fresh is quite simply the wrong line of thinking.
Freshness essentially means a loss of fitness (remember: fatigue and fitness are cut from the same mold) and fitness (along with smart execution on race day) are what will get you to the finish line in the least amount of time, the goal for the vast majority of us.
But post-Ironman fatigue cannot be so great as to limit your gains in fitness, as measured not by how you "feel" but by what the numbers say. They don't generally lie. Try an aerobic test after an Ironman and the results are stunning. The muscle damage incurred won't even allow your motor to get the job done, despite the fact it's ripe for the task. But in a matter of days the numbers improve and may even exceed those seen pre-Ironman. This is a great sign you're making strides in recovery but then there's the "deep-seated" fatigue, the residual stuff that leaves your immune system suppressed, your hormones out of whack and your desire to live generally pretty low. Your leg muscles may be saying, "Man, I feel good," but muscles are only a petty part of Ironman recovery. There is so much more needing focus: tendons, ligaments, your heart, other organs, adrenals, hypothalamus, you name it. Even your bones and blood need rest after an Ironman. So too does your skin (and I'm not just referring to the blisters on your feet).
Unfortunately, it's hard to speed up all of this damage but you certainly can to a degree. Soaks, massage, improved nutrition, naps, elevation, compression, supplementation, hyperbaria, the NormaTec device, medication (and so on) can all help take the typical Ironman recovery from 3-6 weeks to 1-3. Again, much of it depends on the athlete (age, gender, fitness, weight, build, etc) and there is no cut and dried "this is how long it takes" response. Partying post-race delays recovery, incidentally. Note to self: no stage dives post-Ironman.
If an athlete approaches me and informs me they're entered in two Ironmans that are virtually back-to-back (Lake Placid and Louisville, for example) and their goal is to qualify for Kona at either event, we focus primarily on the initial one (assuming they're also willing to dish out the big bucks for my coaching services, of course). But first we look at the athlete as an individual and what the race entails. If the athlete cannot climb all that well on the bike and despises cooler weather, for example, then Lake Placid makes for a tough proposition. The individual is the primary consideration, the race secondary. We can all be prepared for that which we do not normally excel in.
Now, if the athlete failed to reach Kona by way of Lake Placid we have no option but to try our damndest at Louisville. This first means recovering fully from Placid. (On this note it is hopeful if the athlete also didn't kill himself or herself during the failed attempt.) Training then becomes anything (legal) to hasten recovery, and usually for two to three weeks. Fitness is lost but then so too is fatigue. We maintain fitness the best we can (i.e., in water or through short, frequent spins) but with the sole goal of stripping away all that nastiness caused by the brutality of Lake Placid. (…Placid, my ass!) Then after two or so weeks we start more serious movement (though I don't quite call it "training" at this point): hiking, jogging uphill, longer spins, harder pull-set swims. This movement can last a week or so when the real training (i.e., race practice) kicks in, just two weeks shy of Louisville. But two weeks of training is plenty of time to "reinstate" race-required fitness, so long as the whole notion of tapering is removed and a quality fitness "base" was established earlier in the training year. The taper process is no longer a procedure but simply a couple of days sans harder training. I've even had a few athletes skip those two easier days in the past, if they're still making gains right up to race start. While fitness isn't built in a day (unlike Rome), it does take days to get the job done, and days are what make up great race days.
So…
1) Taper as you normally would for the first Ironman, if fitness is "normal".
2) Do everything in your power to hasten recovery post-Ironman.
3) Don't rush into "real" training until your body is 100% ready; ignore your head and listen to your body. Maintain fitness through less abusive means.
4) Don't taper for the second Ironman if your fitness isn't as least as high as before. If gains are yet to be had, keep the momentum building right up to race day. Momentum is a good thing when doing or building toward an Ironman.
5) And if none of the above appeals to you, consider spreading your Ironmans out a little more (12+ weeks). Then again, if it's worth doing, it's worth over-doing!
2 comments:
Interesting comments regarding recovery from an IM not being complete even when muscles feel ready to go. I would imagine the typical athlete thinks that recovery is complete when the legs feel better, I know I did (though we held off hard training for a bit longer as you discussed).
My ears perked up when you said 4 out of 5 times the second stacked IM is a superior race. That has been my experience as an athlete and as a coach. Part of that may be the 'acute' pacing reminders of the first IM and part of that may be the CNS aknowledgement that 'you will not die' and part of that may be the reduced stress an athlete feels when doing something with less expectation. Ooops, maybe I should not have said that :-)
Post a Comment