The kickoff race will be missing both of last year’s World Champions, Great Britain’s Alistair Brownlee and Australia’s Emma Moffatt, due to injuries.

Check out a preview of the upcoming season in the video below.

Written by: Aaron Hersh

Jet disc Flamme Rouge: $1350 ($300 more than the standard Jet disc)

The products that come out of the HED Cycling factory in Minnesota have always been designed as race tools, not bike jewelry, and HED’s insatiable desire for speed has motivated them to upgrade their already outstanding disc wheels.  Both the Stinger and Jet discs are now available in Flamme Rouge versions, HED’s deluxe demarcation, with lighter components and exclusive decals that announce your good taste to those in the know.

Both HED discs are spoked wheels covered by permanently fixed carbon sidewalls.  These fairings are present for aerodynamics only and serve no structural purpose.  This construction is just as aero as a structural disc but the flexible walls feel chintzy in hand.

The standard HED discs utilize 3k carbon for the fairing that hides the inner structural wheel.  3k means there are 3,000 filaments per woven segment.  The sidewalls on the Flamme Rouge versions are made from 1k carbon, which allows HED’s carbon manufacturer to make thinner, and therefore lighter, sidewall sheets. This thinner but weaker type of carbon sheet is an ideal upgrade for the HED discs because they rely on spokes rather than the sidewalls for structural support.

Stinger disc Flamme Rouge: $1600 ($250 more than the standard Stinger disc)

Both the hub ratchet ring and the skewer were upgraded from steel to titanium, which cuts a few more grams.   The metal rim on the Jet disc Flamme Rouge was upgraded to scandium from the heavier standard alloy rim found on the Jet disc.  All these upgrades make the Jet Disc FR a full 200grams leaner than the standard version and the Stinger FR upgrades cut 140grams from its cheaper counterpart.

Discs are the optimal time trial wheel because of their aerodynamic characteristics, not their weight.  The upgrades found on these wheels don’t affect wind drag—they won’t cut minutes from your bike split—but they add a little speed and panache to wheels that were already amongst the worlds fastest.  And, true to form, the HED Flamme Rouge discs offer a performance value that other manufacturers cannot match.

The Jet disc Flamme Rouge retails for  $1350 ($300 more than the standard Jet disc).

The Stinger disc Flamme Rouge retails for $1600 ($250 more than the standard Stinger disc).

Last year Alexander faced off against fellow Australian Chris McCormack at this race. This year his competition does not look to be as tough. Alexander will be pushed on the bike by a couple of strong cyclists, but once bike turns to run Alexander should easily take the victory. Swallow will be forced to face rising 70.3-star Caroline Steffen of Switzerland.

See the complete pro start list below:

Men

Craig Alexander won his first race of the year at Ironman 70.3 Geelong on Feb. 7. Photo: Delly Carr

Craig Alexander (AUS)
Stephen Bayliss (GBR)
Jan Rehula (CZE)
Christopher Legh (AUS)
James Cunnama (RSA)
Bryan Rhodes (NZL)
Alessandro Degasperi (ITA)
Paul Matthews (AUS)
Kent Horner (RSA)
Aaron Farlow (AUS)
Domenico Passuello (ITA)
Balazs Csoke (SUI)
Fredrik Croneborg (SWE)
Jan Matejovsky (CZE)
Daiki Masuda (JAP)

Women
Jodie Swallow (GBR)
Caroline Steffen (AUS)
Claire Horner (RSA)
Kelly Jarrett (AUS)
Melissa Vandewater (AUS)
Elly Franks (AUS)
Yasuko Miyazaki (JAP)
Anna Cleaver (AUS)
Rebecca Preston (AUS)
Margaret Shapiro (USA)
Erin O’Hara (NZL)

Leor Pantilat and Joelle Vaught Both Win Their Second Way Too Cool 50k

Written by: Bryon Powell

The American ultrarunning season kicked off in earnest this past weekend with the Way Too Cool 50k (WTC) in Cool, California. This race
is the most competitive trail 50k in North America, if not the world.

The start list for this year’s WTC showed a world-class field. Among those toeing the line were Ultrarunning Magazine’s 2009 Ultrarunners of the year Kami Semick and Geoff Roes; a multiple-time American representative at the IAAF Cross Country World Championships, Max King; past Way Too Cool champions, including Leor Pantilat (2009) and Joelle Vaught (2006); and many other laudable trail runners.

Going into the day, it looked like it would be a three-man race for the men’s title and it was. In order to repeat, returning champion Pantilat would have to outrun King and Roes, a duo more likely to set a course record than be beaten in a long trail race.

Under sunny skies, Pantilat established the early pace with King following close behind on a course that had seen more than an inch of rainfall in the preceding 24 hours. Around mile 15, King passed Pantilat and slowly built a lead of nearly a minute. Roes, an Alaskan who excels under tough conditions, hung back in the early going. On-course estimates had him anywhere from two to five minutes behind
the leaders.

Through the day, the runners were slowed by a dozen stream crossings, some as high as waist deep. In the last third of the race, the course
doubled back upon itself. Here, the churning of 500 sets of feet earlier in the race created the muddiest conditions of the day.

Not far before the Goat Hill Aid Station, which sits just past the marathon mark, Pantilat retook the lead from King. He did not hold the
lead for long. Shortly after the aid station, Roes flew past Pantilat on a technical descent. Already thinking that Roes had more left in
his tank than himself, Pantilat had his hopes of a repeat further deflated when he turned his ankle at the next stream crossing.

A few miles later, Pantilat crossed the finish line proud to have placed second to Roes with a time of 3:41:48. Moments later he
realized that he’d broken the tape. He’d won Way Too Cool for the second year in a row. Unbeknownst to him, Roes had followed the wrong
flagging with 2.5 miles left and went far off course before realizing his mistake. King also took advantage of Roes’s misfortune to take
second in 3:47:39. Roes slipped to third with a time of 3:51:52. Pantilat’s training partner, Gary Gellin, finished as the top masters
runner with a fourth-place finish in 3:54:52.

Both Pantilat and Roes learned valuable lessons from the race. Following the race, Pantilat admitted that he allowed the combination
of Roes passing him and turning his ankle to get the better of him. He mentally threw in the towel, internally settling for second. Seeing
how easily things can go awry for others taught him to never take his foot off the gas. On the other hand, Roes admits on his website that
he learned a lesson in “acceptance.” He had to accept that he made an “impatient mistake” when he chose the wrong turn on the trail.

Despite the stellar field, the actual women’s race was a one-woman show this year. Joelle Vaught passed Kami Semick after the first aid
station and did not look back. She won the race in 4:13:54, adding a second WTC victory to her title from 2006, another muddy year.

Vaught ran strong all day and believes she benefited from the longer races she added to her schedule in 2009. Those races taught her to
stay on top of her nutrition and hydration. She felt these changes had her running much stronger up the hills later in the race that
previously made her dizzy. Vaught, once an international-level adventure racer, has begun concentrating specifically on her
ultrarunning. This means she’s running every day rather than alternating between running and riding her mountain bike. That also
means trouble for her ultrarunning competitors!

With her win at Way Too Cool in the books, Vaught is looking to run a 50-mile or 100k race this spring before attempting her first 100-mile
race at the Western States Endurance Run in June.

Finishing 16 minutes behind Vaught, Beverley Anderson-Abbs took second for the women and was the top master in a time of 4:29:41. Darcy

Africa took third in 4:37:12. Kami Semick eventually dropped out due to illness.

*

Bryon Powell is a competitive trail runner, coach and editor of iRunFar.com.

A good triathlon has to cover all the basics: proper aid stations, a clearly marked course, scenic surroundings, friendly volunteers and all those other little details that make the entry fee feel justified. A great triathlon needs to cover more than just the basics. The scenery has to be so good that you forget about your speedometer for the entire bike leg. The volunteers have to be so friendly that you’re inspired to finally volunteer at a race. In order for a race to be one of the greatest on Earth, participating in it should be a life-changing experience and one that you know you’ll never forget.

Looking for a hard race? Check out the Savageman triathlon in Maryland. Photo: Dan Hicok

We first chose 13 categories of races that represent the full gamut of triathlon—from off-road to women only to where you can find the best post-race parties. In each category we’ve selected an overall winner, explained what makes the winner worthy, and also listed a number of “best of the rest” in each category. Whether you’re looking to test the limits of your fitness on the hardest climbs in Europe or you’re just looking to unwind with an easy swim, bike and run on a tropical island, you’ll find your new favorite race here.

10 Hardest Races on Earth

10 Most Anticipated New Races of 2010

10 Greenest Races

10 Most Scenic Races

10 Best Urban Races

Best 140.6-mile Races

10 Best Excuses For a Vacation

5 Best Off-Road Races

5 Most Family-Friendly Races

5 Best Triathlon Festivals

5 Races with the Best Post-Race Festivities

5 Best Multi-Stage Races

5 Best Women-Only Races

Compiled by Triathlete editors.

Pip Taylor is a professional triathlete and sports nutritionist. Photo: Larry Rosa

Matt will have on hand copies of his new book, Racing Weight, to which Pip contributed a wealth of delicious and nutritious recipes. Representatives from Pacific Health Labs will share product samples with all attendees. Bring your nutrition-related questions and join in the fun!

Wednesday, March 24th
5-7pm
Hi-Tech Bikes
7638 Claremont Mesa Blvd
San Diego, CA 92111

Written by: Sean McKeon

Kenyan Wesley Korir will look to defend his Los Angeles Marathon title this weekend on the all-new “stadium-to-the-sea” course. Korir set a personal best 2:08:24 winning last year, and in the process took home $188,705 for winning both the men’s race and the “gender challenge.

Facing Korir will be 2:06:45 marathoner Richard Limo of Kenya, last year’s runner-up Tariku Jafar of Ethiopia and the third place finisher from a year ago, Laban Kipkemboi of Kenya. Overall seven men in the field have run under 2:10 and six more have run under 2:12.

The women’s race will feature Slivia Skvorsova, who will look to become the sixth consecutive Russian to win the race. Ethiopian Ashu Kasim will come in to the race with the fastest personal best (2:25:49) and the confidence from her runner-up finish in Paris in 2009. Paige Higgins will carry the hopes of America as she looks to improve upon her 2:33:06 personal best.

The men’s and women’s races will feature the gender challenge that will award the first person across the finish line with a $100,000 bonus. The elite women’s field will be given a head start that will be announced when the official fields are determined on Friday.

You can watch the race streamed live on Universal Sports or visit LAMarathon.com for results on Sunday.

[sig:SeanMcKeon]

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

There’s a funny phenomenon in endurance sports that I like to call “becoming a one-speed athlete.” It happens to long-distance runners, cyclists and triathletes whose training becomes so focused on sustained efforts at race intensity and below that their ability to work at higher intensity levels atrophies. The one-speed athlete phenomenon presents itself most notably when elite endurance athletes do shorter tune-up races in the weeks preceding a longer peak race and embarrass themselves by proving unable to go any faster over the shorter distance than they intend to go over the longer. A great, gaping hole in their fitness is revealed for all to see.

Keep your short-course speed while training for long-distance races. Photo: Triathlon.org/Frank Weschel

The problem with becoming a one-speed athlete is that it hinders performance in long-distance races as well as in shorter ones. Here’s how: Recent research has shown that rating of perceived exertion (RPE)—not heart rate or blood-lactate level or any other physiological factor—is the best predictor of fatigue during exercise. In maximal efforts over any distance, the athlete’s RPE increases linearly throughout the event, consistently reaching a level 5, or “hard”, rating after 20 percent of the distance has been covered and peaking at a level 10, or “maximal”, rating when the finish line is within sight. (The only exceptions to this pattern are beginners who lack the experience needed to calibrate the brain-based mechanisms that make RPE such a reliable fatigue predictor in experienced athletes).

Athletes improve by training in ways that make a pace that once felt hard at the 20-percent mark of a given race distance seem slightly easier in the next race—thus enabling the athlete to sustain a faster pace while working at the same RPE. This change occurs as a natural result of everything you do in a sensible training program. For example, simply increasing the amount of basic aerobic training you do will increase your aerobic capacity and efficiency, enabling you to race faster with equal perceived effort. But there are also specific things you can do to exploit the relationship between RPE and fatigue to your benefit. One of these things is performing hard workouts at pace levels exceeding your race pace so your race pace feels easier. When you cut back on such training too much in the pursuit of peak performance at long distances, your brain will hit the panic button when you try to race faster at shorter distances, causing your RPE to spike and therefore limiting your pace perhaps more than necessary. Hence the one-speed phenomenon. But your performance at longer distances also will be negatively affected by too much training specialization at your race pace. Exposing your body to fatigue in prolonged efforts at faster paces will result in nervous system adaptations that push back the wall of fatigue in your long-distance peak race.

Long, slow rides and race-pace rides certainly have their place in the bike training of long-distance triathletes, but these workouts need to be supplemented with others that expose your body to fatigue at slightly higher intensities. Here are three such workouts.

1. Pre-fatigued time trial: This is a grueling workout but a very beneficial one to do three to six weeks before a long-distance race. The concept is simple: You perform a maximal-effort time trial after fatiguing yourself with prolonged moderate riding. If you’re training for an Ironman, I suggest you begin with 40 to 50 miles of moderate riding and finish with a 40km time trial. If you’re training for an Ironman 70.3, begin with 30 to 40 miles of moderate riding and finish with a 20km time trial.

2. Watts (or speed) for duration: This workout is as hard as the pre-fatigued time trial and no less beneficial. If you have a power meter, first determine your race-day power-output level. Begin the workout with 10 to 20 minutes of spinning to warm up, and then increase your power output to 110 percent of your race-day power-output level. For example, if you’re training for an Ironman and your race power-output level is 250 watts, then ride at 275 watts. Or if you’re training for an Ironman 70.3 and your power-output level over this distance is 265 watts, then ride at 292 watts.

Continue until your RPE reaches 10 or you are no longer able to sustain this power-output level. If your peak race is an Ironman, you’re probably looking at a 50- to 60-mile ride. If your peak race is an Ironman 70.3, you will most likely hit the wall after 30 to 35 miles. Those lacking a power meter can do the same workout by determining their race speed and riding 10-percent faster.

Mixing your workouts up with hill workouts can help keep you sharp. Photo: Nils NIlsen

3. Mountain stage: This workout is only feasible if you live within reach of some tough hills. To do it, plan the hilliest route possible with a total distance of 70 to 80 miles if you’re training for an Ironman and 50 to 60 miles if you’re training for an Ironman 70.3. Ride the flat and downhill sections at a moderate intensity level but attack the hills, riding them as hard as you can without bonking before reaching the top of the last hill on your ride.

Don’t become a one-speed cyclist. Incorporate these workouts into your training for long-distance races and reap the benefits on race day.

Take-home message

Long, slow rides and race-pace rides certainly have their place in the bike training of long-distance triathletes, but these workouts need to be supplemented with others that expose your body to fatigue at slightly higher intensities.

When you cut back too much on higher-intensity training in the pursuit of peak performance at long distances, your brain will hit the panic button when you try to race faster at shorter distances, causing your RPE to spike and therefore limiting your pace perhaps more than necessary. Hence the one-speed phenomenon.

Interview by: Matt Fitzgerald

The design was simple, but the results were profound. Samuele Marcora, an Italian-born exercise physiologist at England’s Bangor University, and his colleague Walter Staiano brought 10 male athletes into their lab and had them perform a simple exercise protocol. Each pedaled on a cycle ergometer as hard as he could for 5 seconds (a test of maximal voluntary cycling power, or MVCP), and his power output was recorded. Then the subjects rode the same bikes as long as they could at a fixed power output level that corresponded to 90 percent of their individual VO2max. Immediately after completing this ride to exhaustion, which ended when the required wattage simply could not be sustained any longer (or approximately 12 minutes, on average), each subject then repeated the 5-second maximum power test.

Marcora and Staiano found that, on average, power output in the second 5-second MVCP, performed in a state of exhaustion, was roughly 30 percent lower than the power produced in the first MVCP, performed in a fresh state. Yet the power output in the second MVCP was still roughly three times greater than the power that each cyclist was required to maintain in the ride to exhaustion.

Wait a minute: If the subjects cycled at roughly 242 watts until they physically could not complete another pedal stroke at that level, how were they able to pedal at 731 watts for 5 seconds immediately afterward?

Marcora and Staiano’s answer to this question could not be simpler, yet it completely shatters the concept of endurance fatigue that most of us believe in. In a paper on their study published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology, they wrote:

“It is traditionally assumed that exhaustion during high-intensity aerobic exercise occurs because fatigued subjects are no longer able to generate the power output required by the task despite their maximal voluntary effort…We have demonstrated for the first time that this is not the case… [I]f our subjects were able to voluntarily produce 731W for 5s immediately after exhaustion, they must have been physiologically able to produce 242W for much longer. The most likely explanation for the very high MVCP produced immediately after exhaustion is psychological. Subjects knew that the final MVCP test was going to last only 5s, and such knowledge motivated them to exert further effort after the time to exhaustion test which had a longer and unknown duration.”

As intuitively sensible as this explanation is, it is scientifically revolutionary. I recently spoke to Dr. Samuele Marcora by phone about the broader implications of his provocative new study.

Matt Fitzgerald: You propose to replace the conventional model of endurance fatigue, which centers on the muscles and the cardiovascular system, with what you call a psychobiological model of endurance fatigue. Please explain that.

Samuele Marcora: My proposal is actually based on general motivation theory. What we call exhaustion is not the inability to continue; it’s basically giving up. The reality is that the neuromuscular system is actually able to continue. My idea is that it’s basically a safety mechanism like many other sensations. So you have sensations motivating you to take a certain course of action for survival. Think about thirst or hunger or pain. All these sensations are there to make us do something. That is actually beneficial for our survival, and I think perception of effort does the same.

There’s this idea that perceptions are mere perceptions and can be overridden through conscious will in a way that purely physiological limitations cannot. Have you encountered resistance to your model on this point?

My physiology colleagues think that because something is a perception, in some way it is less real and can be overcome. Obviously, it can be overcome  to a certain extent, but that doesn’t make it any less powerful. That’s why people believed this assumption [that fatigue is caused by hard physiological limits] for so long, because it feels like that. The perception of effort makes you feel like you can’t continue. You feel, “I am giving my maximal effort. I feel I cannot continue. Therefore I’ll stop.”

If you think about pain, pain is created in your brain based on a certain signal such as a broken foot. If you didn’t feel that pain, of course you can keep going. There are people who genetically don’t feel pain and they usually die quite young. Just because something is a perception doesn’t make it any less powerful in controlling your behavior. If you are very thirsty you might kill somebody for a glass of water. You wouldn’t keep running if you ran over a piece of glass and cut your foot. If you didn’t have perception of effort, you could run your marathon much faster, definitely!

One thing that exercise physiologists are baffled by is that when very high-level endurance athletes do a physiological test, they aren’t very different from each other. They all have very high VO2max, they all have good economy. You can’t really differentiate between them based on physiological parameters. But there is something extra that makes some of them champions. For example, I’m doing some tests on perceived ability, or what psychologists call self-efficacy, which show that beliefs about personal limits tend to be self-fulfilling. People who wish they can push harder and do more usually can. This phenomenon makes perfect sense in my model. So it certainly gives you a range of flexibility that the traditional model, where you stop regardless of your will, doesn’t give you.

Every perception is associated with a distinct set of physiological events in the brain. So is it really the conscious perception of effort that causes fatigue or is it the physiological events underlying that perception?

So the next question is, “What are the neuophysiological mechanisms underlying perception of effort?”, and that’s a very big question. It’s like trying to understand the neurophysiological basis of any other phenomenon. That’s why I’m doing studies in collaboration with cognitive neuroscientists using techniques such as brain imaging and EMG, trying to tease out the neurophysiology underlying perception of effort.

I really want to tease out the mechanisms by actually studying the brain. It’s no different from studying any other perception. Hopefully, after learning more about it we can also modify it and help athletes to improve their performance, although you have to be careful, because messing around with a sensation that is there to protect you may also have detrimental effects.

Think about caffeine. Everybody now agrees that the ergogenic effects of caffeine are 90 percent mediated by the effect on the brain and therefore the perception of effort and not by the metabolic effects. So, if you like, this is the first application of the model that perception of effort is important and I think in the future we will see more and more of these things.

Your study did find evidence of fatigue within the muscles themselves—not enough to explain the fatigue that occurred in the time to exhaustion tests, but muscle fatigue nevertheless. So, what is the role of actual muscle fatigue in your model?

In a previous study, I looked experimentally at the effect of muscle fatigue on endurance performance. So, if I pre-fatigue your muscles before I put you on a bike and ask you to do an endurance test, your endurance performance will be reduced. But the effect was relatively small. It was a 16 percent reduction in time to exhaustion. In a time to exhaustion test, a 16 percent reduction in performance is a small result.  In a time trial (it’s unpublished but we did the same thing) we had a 3 percent reduction in performance, which is also a small reduction. That study made me think about whether fatigue is the limiting factor. I reduced muscle function to the same level that people have after an endurance test. So, if muscle fatigue was the limiting factor, they shouldn’t have been able to even start the test. Instead, they latest only a couple of minutes less. So that started to put doubts in my mind.

But if muscle fatigue doesn’t cause exhaustion, why does muscle fatigue reduce performance? The reason is simple. If you cycle with muscle fatigue, your perception of effort will increase simply because, if you have fatigued muscles, in order to produce the same power output [as when your muscles are not fatigued], you will have to recruit the muscles more. The main stimulus for perception of effort is how much we are recruiting our muscles—leg muscles or inspiratory muscles. So if I am forced by having fatigued muscles, or even damaged muscles, to increase my muscle recruitment, I will perceive that as an increase in effort, and that increase in effort will make me reach my maximal level of effort and stop earlier than when I don’t have muscle fatigue. So muscle fatigue does have an effect on performance, but it is indirect. It is not a direct effect as traditionally assumed.

I did another study where, instead of using muscle fatigue, I used mental fatigue. The effect of mental fatigue on performance was the same as muscle fatigue. You wouldn’t think so. Why does playing a videogame for 90 minutes reduce your endurance performance as much as muscle fatigue? It doesn’t make any sense according to the traditional model, but it actually makes perfect sense in terms of my model. I don’t know exactly what the mechanisms are, but during the cognitive task,  I induced some changes in the brain that made my subjects perceive the effort required to cycle as being higher than in the normal condition. You see, it doesn’t matter why perception of effort is increased or decreased. Everything that has an effect on perception of effort will have an effect on performance.

[sgi:MattFitzgerald]

Featured athletes include professional athletes Chris McDonald and Michael Lovato.

In this episode, the host, Robert, competes in his own culinary version of the Ironman competition. Just as the Ironman has three grueling components in one race, Robert will have three tough challenges in one mission.

Check local listings for air time.

Click here to learn more.