More thoughts on "serious" vs. "recreational" athletes; a couple proposals - long

More thoughts on "serious" vs. "recreational" athletes; a couple proposals - long

Post by tekkychi » Sun, 27 Oct 2002 06:53:34


I can't believe I'm daring to post something on this forum.... hope
the flames don't get too hot!

One of the discussions going on here has to do with possibly limiting
the time on marathons; it then went into the whole discussion of
"real" athletes vs. people who are just doing events to finish, etc.
I'm sure you all remember it ... another one of those where a poster
declared anyone who wasn't dead should be able to do a 5K in 25 min.
(ok, it wasn't THAT extreme, but that gets the idea across). Up front,
I'll say I'm one of those who feels fairly fit but couldn't do a 5K in
25 min... I've done sprint tris and an Oly tri, and definitely am a
back of the packer. But I'm one of those whose goal has been to
finish; since I never jogged or swam laps before this year, I'm pretty
happy with my performance and certainly think I've earned the right to
say I did the triathlons! But I'm not fast... good endurance, but not
fast. And don't get me wrong - it's not that I'm slacking or not
trying! My heart rate stays at max the entire event. I go as hard as I
can. I take the event seriously. I'm just slow. But I still say that I
did the events; that I'm a triathlete. So I'm probably one of those
the other poster wouldn't want in his events.

So I was thinking that one of the things that's different about tris
(and maybe marathons) from some other sports is the lack of
"recreational" events as opposed to "race" events. I've been bicycling
for a few years now, and have done a lot of organized rides. In these
rides, you just go out and ride your distance - 100 mile, metric
century, half metric, whatever. There are some awesome cyclists who do
the 100 miles in 5 hours or less (they stop to eat too...); there are
the pure beginners who struggle to get through the half metrics. There
are those of us who maybe are comfortable at the metric century
distance but sometimes go for the full century (and take a lot longer
than 5 hours!) At any rate, no one cares that someone else finished
the same event in more time or less time; or that someone else who
would say they rode the same event maybe rode 75 miles less. But the
recreational riders don't show up at bike races. You don't see a
beginner on a mountain bike doing a bike race just to see if they can
finish it. It's understood that these are two different events; we
sort ourselves out as appropriate.

Or take bowling (since it got mentioned and it's a sport I enjoy; btw,
at least in California, smoking is banned inside bowling alleys) - if
you're a rank amateur, you stink, you're lucky to bowl 80 - you can
still go to your local bowling center and bowl. No one cares. You can
even join a league if you feel more motivated - with handicapped
leagues, your average isn't imporant; the handicap evens it out. So
handicapped leagues give beginners and experienced people a place to
bowl together. Now, scratch leagues are different - you don't even go
near those unless your average is around 200. Same with tournaments
and such. So once again, people sort themselves out into appropriate
events. And yet, anyone who bowls regularly calls themselves a bowler;
the averages are there to prove how good of one they are, as the times
are there for triathletes.

But triathlons don't really have this idea of recreational vs.
serious. Here in N. California, we have some sprint "tris for funs"; I
did a few of those, and they were packed. But most triathlons are
races. So "recreational" triathletes don't have any choice but to join
the same events that the racers join.

One proposal - What if more triathlons became "recreational" - the
understanding for these is that abilities would range all over the
place and none or very generous cutoff times. You could then also have
some tris that were more serious - that had tight time cutoffs and
enforced them on all three legs; that had lots of marshalls out on
course; etc. These would probably have to be more expensive than the
recreational ones because fewer people would do them, but the
"bragging rights" would be there. Most of us recreational people are
out there to improve our own times, not to beat others, so the other
tris would work for us.

My other thought - is what if there were "tri" courses like there are
golf courses? Right now, to do a tri you have to go to an event; it's
the only way to get the support to do all three sports at once (well,
you could do it on your own but it's more complicated). But if we took
land the size of a golf course... put a lake in the middle of it (with
a wave machine for making tougher courses if needed); a couple
criterium style bike courses around it (one flat, one hilly); and then
a couple run loops (flat & hilly again) as well - you could, just like
bowling, stop by and "do a tri". You could decide how long/how hard of
one you wanted to do. You could have tri leagues - both recreational
and hard core -  meeting on regular nights. That way the events
wouldn't be the only tri outlets. Getting this to pay off would be the
hard part; but I think in some areas of the country there are enough
of us to support it. You could open the place up to people who just do
one or two of the sports as well....

Anyway, just some thoughts about ways to accomodate multiple types of
triathletes. Time to go hide from the flames....

 
 
 

More thoughts on "serious" vs. "recreational" athletes; a couple proposals - long

Post by Jason O'Rour » Sun, 27 Oct 2002 07:25:24

Quote:

>One proposal - What if more triathlons became "recreational" - the
>understanding for these is that abilities would range all over the
>place and none or very generous cutoff times. You could then also have
>some tris that were more serious - that had tight time cutoffs and
>enforced them on all three legs; that had lots of marshalls out on
>course; etc. These would probably have to be more expensive than the
>recreational ones because fewer people would do them, but the
>"bragging rights" would be there. Most of us recreational people are
>out there to improve our own times, not to beat others, so the other
>tris would work for us.

Tekky - this is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't really exist.
The issue of slow triathletes is only a problem to a few blowhards like
Steamer.  Most people like the fact that pro and beginner alike go out
on the same battlefield.  The much bigger issue, at least to me, stems
from people going out and committing rules violations that make it hard
for people to do their race.  That's why we need buckshot for the drafting
police, as well ats cowcatchers to run down those blockers.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

 
 
 

More thoughts on "serious" vs. "recreational" athletes; a couple proposals - long

Post by Iron Pe » Sun, 27 Oct 2002 08:03:18

Quote:
>Tekky - this is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't really exist.
>The issue of slow triathletes is only a problem to a few blowhards like
>Steamer.  Most people like the fact that pro and beginner alike go out
>on the same battlefield.  The much bigger issue, at least to me, stems
>from people going out and committing rules violations that make it hard
>for people to do their race.  That's why we need buckshot for the drafting
>police, as well ats cowcatchers to run down those blockers.
>--
>Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Agreed. Listen Tekky. Just go out there and have fun. Of course, be mindful of
the rules, but, don't let a couple of people here tell you other than that you
are a true triathlete as well as everyone else who has completed a tri race,
whether you are in the front or in the back.

Although I would like to see some $10 triathlons spring up...heck, I'll go!
:-)

"Iron" Pete
USAT Certified Coach/NJ

Read My Mountain *** 50 Mile Run Report on www.ironpete.com

----------
|      26|
|   Fe   |
|        |
----------
The Best Element Of Racing

 
 
 

More thoughts on "serious" vs. "recreational" athletes; a couple proposals - long

Post by Tom Henderso » Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:27:44

Quote:

> I can't believe I'm daring to post something on this forum.... hope
> the flames don't get too hot!

Keep in mind that the negative stuff you heard about slow people was all
from one poster, and he has plenty of people to argue with!

As for the negative stuff about TnT, it's focused more on their lack of
respect for the sport and it's rules, not their ability.

On the other hand, I think you have a great idea for converting golf
courses into something useful for sports! (here we go again!)

 
 
 

More thoughts on "serious" vs. "recreational" athletes; a couple proposals - long

Post by hy » Sun, 27 Oct 2002 20:22:26

You know, thank you for writing this because I just realized that I am
not that slow as I thought I was.. I run with a little tiny dog
attached to me, and we take about 26 minutes to run 4.something miles.
This includes doggy pee breaks, so about a minute walk or stop every
10 minutes run, where I will stretch or talk to others).

On my brand new tri bike - that keeps breaking every time I change
gears - I have only ridden while sick and go about 40 kilometers in an
hour and a half. (I felt like I was just about dying, and I had to
blow my nose every 30 seconds)

On my mountain bike I would ride 45 Miles in 3-5 hours, fully loaded
with 100 pounds of camping crap. And hey, I was pretty happy when I
was able to do a 4 mile climb on an over pass, without stopping, with
all that drag. Yay.. that was an improvement for me. Especially since
the wind was always amazing, and always in my face.

Quote:
> Up front,
> I'll say I'm one of those who feels fairly fit but couldn't do a 5K in
> 25 min...

well, I came from sitting around for years because of an injury, so I
wasn't very fit, although, I am much fitter now after the summer time.
I Only started to swim in March, and haven't done so since July (for
some reason I don't feel like getting wet since then, but I am going
to start a class, I think, but the only thing I can find is a 3/4
*** class, which only goes 100 meters without stopping, which sounds
sort of not worth going to, except maybe for stroke improvement,
anyone have suggestions? (none of the swimming groups have called me
back.. are they on hiatus or something? And the local pool needs 15
people to start a stroke improvement class, and I am number 3.. signed
up about 3 months ago, and still no one is joining).

Quote:
> I've done sprint tris and an Oly tri, and definitely am a
> back of the packer. But I'm one of those whose goal has been to
> finish;

hah, mine too. At the time I did mine, I could only run 2 minutes and
walk a minute, and I sort of walked for a bit and chatted with another
girl, who I didn't want to leave because for some reason I feel that I
should stay with her, and it made it feel really good for me. However
that run potion was really tough at the time (June?)

Now I am up to running for 40 minutes, but haven't tried to go
further, even when I feel like I can go a lot longer, just because I
always have my doggy with me, and she has really short legs, and she
starts to wander and get tired around that time.

Quote:
> since I never jogged or swam laps before this year,

heh.. me too. I never rode my bike either. I am definitely a newbie. I
only started to run a few weeks before the sprint. But I was not
planning on doing a tri, until a few weeks before the tri. I never
knew they had such things that was relatively doable for me.

Quote:
> I'm pretty
> happy with my performance and certainly think I've earned the right to
> say I did the triathlons! But I'm not fast... good endurance, but not
> fast. And don't get me wrong - it's not that I'm slacking or not
> trying! My heart rate stays at max the entire event. I go as hard as I
> can. I take the event seriously. I'm just slow.

So, time will help make you faster, I am sure. What about a coach? I
Have been wondering about that. The tri clubs that I have tried to get
into, either are full, have a long wait list, aren't taking new people
until next year, or haven't contacted me yet, so I don't really know
what else to do to help me out here, except train, and I am not all
together sure that I am training right.

Quote:
> But I still say that I
> did the events; that I'm a triathlete. So I'm probably one of those
> the other poster wouldn't want in his events.

so. :) Don't listen to them. Do it for you. :) I know you can do it.
:)

Quote:
> So I was thinking that one of the things that's different about tris
> (and maybe marathons) from some other sports is the lack of
> "recreational" events as opposed to "race" events. I've been bicycling
> for a few years now, and have done a lot of organized rides. In these
> rides, you just go out and ride your distance - 100 mile, metric
> century, half metric, whatever. There are some awesome cyclists who do
> the 100 miles in 5 hours or less (they stop to eat too...); there are
> the pure beginners who struggle to get through the half metrics.

I don't really know where I stand there, as I probably could have gone
a lot faster with out all the luggage on my bike, and a sore body from
tenting. Still, I think I did ok.

Quote:
> There
> are those of us who maybe are comfortable at the metric century
> distance but sometimes go for the full century (and take a lot longer
> than 5 hours!) At any rate, no one cares that someone else finished
> the same event in more time or less time; or that someone else who
> would say they rode the same event maybe rode 75 miles less. But the
> recreational riders don't show up at bike races. You don't see a
> beginner on a mountain bike doing a bike race just to see if they can
> finish it.

I did my sprint with my mountain bike.. And darn, did I ever do silly
stuff (like forget to check my bike over, before the race, but after
getting it tuned, and having my seat fall down and then having it
crooked, having it jiggle all over because I wasn't used to having a
hundred pounds to hold it down, and many other things).

Quote:
> It's understood that these are two different events; we
> sort ourselves out as appropriate.
> But triathlons don't really have this idea of recreational vs.
> serious. Here in N. California, we have some sprint "tris for funs"; I
> did a few of those, and they were packed. But most triathlons are
> races. So "recreational" triathletes don't have any choice but to join
> the same events that the racers join.

There are tries for beginners. Aren't sprint sized tri's mostly for
beginners, and half olympic sizes?

Quote:
> One proposal - What if more triathlons became "recreational" - the
> understanding for these is that abilities would range all over the
> place and none or very generous cutoff times. You could then also have
> some tris that were more serious - that had tight time cutoffs and
> enforced them on all three legs; that had lots of marshalls out on
> course; etc. These would probably have to be more expensive than the
> recreational ones because fewer people would do them, but the
> "bragging rights" would be there. Most of us recreational people are
> out there to improve our own times, not to beat others, so the other
> tris would work for us.

I always wondered about those people who never made it out of the
water.. would they know? Do they look for you if you don't cross the
finishing mat at the end of the swim?

Any ways, very thoughtful post that you have written.

 
 
 

More thoughts on "serious" vs. "recreational" athletes; a couple proposals - long

Post by Jason O'Rour » Sun, 27 Oct 2002 21:44:33

Quote:

>There are tries for beginners. Aren't sprint sized tri's mostly for
>beginners, and half olympic sizes?

Or those interested in the tri equilivent of a 10k - basically an all
out sprinting effort throughout the course.  You can go fast, you don't
need much of a taper, and the recovery time is minimal.  (Though I learned
one probably shouldn't race a 10k the next day)

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

 
 
 

More thoughts on "serious" vs. "recreational" athletes; a couple proposals - long

Post by Tom Rodger » Mon, 28 Oct 2002 06:56:28

The age group classifications and waves take care of this for most people,
as do the Clydesdale and Athena divisions for larger athletes. I don't think
there is anything wrong with doing a triathlon recreationally, and you see
pros in Kona cheering the older and slower folks till midnight. I have just
as much respect for them as I do for finishing in 10:41 or for Tim Deboom in
8:29. Same goes for the last cyclist or runner in a local spring race--we
all stand up and cheer as we head home with our bikes when the last
competitor closes the bike course.

Most well-run races are very careful to cater to the older, slower
competitors, and I think they themselves would still prefer to be seen as
"competitors," though their only goal is to finish. In fact, if you're over
60, and perhaps female, finishing a larger even can often mean winning your
age group or qualifying for Kona.

My first year in the sport, which really includes my first run-only
marathon, my only prayer was to finish standing up and to stay healthy. Now
I did train and race my best, and suprisingly I got faster and even
qualified for Kona. But I would never have dreamed of this, never wished for
it starting out. Finishing Kona at all is still a big deal for me, and I'm
surprised at how many MUCH better athletes from this Texas area DNF'd this
year. Same at Ultraman, where half the field DNF'd in 2000 and I managed to
get fifth overall. Again, this from a larger, not-very-natural athlete with
no experience at all in endurance sports. Finishing is honorable, whether
it's an Ironman, a 24-hour cycling race, your first century, your first
marathon, or your first 1.5-hour sprint race.

I do support the longer marathon finishers, and I do support the older
triathletes and the "just-for-fun" century cycling events. But know that in
the lead peleton are the best road racers and triathletes, and we are
setting up for the sprint at the end. The only practical problem is the
security and safety issue of opening up courses, hiring police, shutting
down roads, etc., and also making sure slower folks go in the proper wave or
at least get out of the way of the faster marathoners. When you see walkers
talking up the whole lane, almost taunting the fast folks, and this goes for
races and for training paths, it's very frustrating. We don't deliberately
run into them or push them out of the way onto the ground. Clogging or
blocking is something I never would have done when I started as a ten-minute
miler or in my early triathlons. At least by making it a race with rules,
you can eliminate dangerous clogging by slow cyclists riding three or more
a***.

I think there's a good balance right now offered by race and tour promoters,
and the basic issue is one of courtesy between the fast and the slow. I
don't try to run older folks off the road if they leave in an earlier wave,
or are fast female swimmers who are slower on the bike, but I don't want
them to just sit there in my way either. Same with running, same with trying
to keep a lane in the water without deliberately climbing up someone's back
or kicking them in the face.

We have have the AARP senior triathlons now, kids triathlons, womens
triathlons--it goes on and on, including the physically challenged
division--where by the way, the competitors want the MINIMUM special
treatment and absolutely no sympathy--we should all learn from them.


Quote:
> I can't believe I'm daring to post something on this forum.... hope
> the flames don't get too hot!

> One of the discussions going on here has to do with possibly limiting
> the time on marathons; it then went into the whole discussion of
> "real" athletes vs. people who are just doing events to finish, etc.
> I'm sure you all remember it ... another one of those where a poster
> declared anyone who wasn't dead should be able to do a 5K in 25 min.
> (ok, it wasn't THAT extreme, but that gets the idea across). Up front,
> I'll say I'm one of those who feels fairly fit but couldn't do a 5K in
> 25 min... I've done sprint tris and an Oly tri, and definitely am a
> back of the packer. But I'm one of those whose goal has been to
> finish; since I never jogged or swam laps before this year, I'm pretty
> happy with my performance and certainly think I've earned the right to
> say I did the triathlons! But I'm not fast... good endurance, but not
> fast. And don't get me wrong - it's not that I'm slacking or not
> trying! My heart rate stays at max the entire event. I go as hard as I
> can. I take the event seriously. I'm just slow. But I still say that I
> did the events; that I'm a triathlete. So I'm probably one of those
> the other poster wouldn't want in his events.

> So I was thinking that one of the things that's different about tris
> (and maybe marathons) from some other sports is the lack of
> "recreational" events as opposed to "race" events. I've been bicycling
> for a few years now, and have done a lot of organized rides. In these
> rides, you just go out and ride your distance - 100 mile, metric
> century, half metric, whatever. There are some awesome cyclists who do
> the 100 miles in 5 hours or less (they stop to eat too...); there are
> the pure beginners who struggle to get through the half metrics. There
> are those of us who maybe are comfortable at the metric century
> distance but sometimes go for the full century (and take a lot longer
> than 5 hours!) At any rate, no one cares that someone else finished
> the same event in more time or less time; or that someone else who
> would say they rode the same event maybe rode 75 miles less. But the
> recreational riders don't show up at bike races. You don't see a
> beginner on a mountain bike doing a bike race just to see if they can
> finish it. It's understood that these are two different events; we
> sort ourselves out as appropriate.

> Or take bowling (since it got mentioned and it's a sport I enjoy; btw,
> at least in California, smoking is banned inside bowling alleys) - if
> you're a rank amateur, you stink, you're lucky to bowl 80 - you can
> still go to your local bowling center and bowl. No one cares. You can
> even join a league if you feel more motivated - with handicapped
> leagues, your average isn't imporant; the handicap evens it out. So
> handicapped leagues give beginners and experienced people a place to
> bowl together. Now, scratch leagues are different - you don't even go
> near those unless your average is around 200. Same with tournaments
> and such. So once again, people sort themselves out into appropriate
> events. And yet, anyone who bowls regularly calls themselves a bowler;
> the averages are there to prove how good of one they are, as the times
> are there for triathletes.

> But triathlons don't really have this idea of recreational vs.
> serious. Here in N. California, we have some sprint "tris for funs"; I
> did a few of those, and they were packed. But most triathlons are
> races. So "recreational" triathletes don't have any choice but to join
> the same events that the racers join.

> One proposal - What if more triathlons became "recreational" - the
> understanding for these is that abilities would range all over the
> place and none or very generous cutoff times. You could then also have
> some tris that were more serious - that had tight time cutoffs and
> enforced them on all three legs; that had lots of marshalls out on
> course; etc. These would probably have to be more expensive than the
> recreational ones because fewer people would do them, but the
> "bragging rights" would be there. Most of us recreational people are
> out there to improve our own times, not to beat others, so the other
> tris would work for us.

> My other thought - is what if there were "tri" courses like there are
> golf courses? Right now, to do a tri you have to go to an event; it's
> the only way to get the support to do all three sports at once (well,
> you could do it on your own but it's more complicated). But if we took
> land the size of a golf course... put a lake in the middle of it (with
> a wave machine for making tougher courses if needed); a couple
> criterium style bike courses around it (one flat, one hilly); and then
> a couple run loops (flat & hilly again) as well - you could, just like
> bowling, stop by and "do a tri". You could decide how long/how hard of
> one you wanted to do. You could have tri leagues - both recreational
> and hard core -  meeting on regular nights. That way the events
> wouldn't be the only tri outlets. Getting this to pay off would be the
> hard part; but I think in some areas of the country there are enough
> of us to support it. You could open the place up to people who just do
> one or two of the sports as well....

> Anyway, just some thoughts about ways to accomodate multiple types of
> triathletes. Time to go hide from the flames....

 
 
 

More thoughts on "serious" vs. "recreational" athletes; a couple proposals - long

Post by hy » Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:59:06

Quote:


> >There are tries for beginners. Aren't sprint sized tri's mostly for
> >beginners, and half olympic sizes?

> Or those interested in the tri equilivent of a 10k - basically an all
> out sprinting effort throughout the course.  You can go fast, you don't
> need much of a taper, and the recovery time is minimal.  (Though I learned
> one probably shouldn't race a 10k the next day)

lol.
how long does it take to recover from ironman's?
 
 
 

More thoughts on "serious" vs. "recreational" athletes; a couple proposals - long

Post by Iron Pe » Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:10:19

Quote:
>lol.
>how long does it take to recover from ironman's?

After talking to a lot of people on that subject, I say the average time the
body *physically* recovers from an Ironman is about 3-4 weeks. As for mental
recovery, that depends on each individual. The time and effort it takes to
train for an Ironman is immense, and the mind is usually the last thing to
recover. Sometimes it can take as long as 6 months.

"Iron" Pete
USAT Certified Coach/NJ

Read My Mountain *** 50 Mile Run Report on www.ironpete.com

----------
|      26|
|   Fe   |
|        |
----------
The Best Element Of Racing

 
 
 

More thoughts on "serious" vs. "recreational" athletes; a couple proposals - long

Post by Treemos » Tue, 29 Oct 2002 00:00:00

Quote:
> about 26 minutes to run 4.something miles.
>This includes doggy pee breaks, >>>

Pretty good run there. You are fast.

Quote:
> go about 40 kilometers in an
>hour and a half. >>>>

Not too good there. You are kind of slow.

Quote:
>On my mountain bike I would ride 45 Miles in 3-5 hours, fully loaded
>with 100 pounds of camping crap>>>>

Damn good there. You must be superman. Better you ride your fully loaded mtn
bike than the road bike you used in the 40k.
I must say you are a better biker than you are a camper. 100 pounds, jeez.
 
 
 

More thoughts on "serious" vs. "recreational" athletes; a couple proposals - long

Post by hy » Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:44:58

Quote:

> > about 26 minutes to run 4.something miles.
> >This includes doggy pee breaks, >>>

> Pretty good run there. You are fast.

darn it.. I was plagued with this thought all morning, thinking that I
should come back and correct this, and then I come here, and you have
pointed it out so blatantly. Any ways, I was wrong, I am near 36
minutes of running with 4-6 minutes of walking. Sorry about that. I am
26 minutes of running with 9-12 minutes of walking. See, I almost walk
as slow as I run. I eat my friends dust.

Quote:
> > go about 40 kilometers in an
> >hour and a half. >>>>

> Not too good there. You are kind of slow.

yep.. I know. But I was very sick too. I had to actually get my friend
to come pick me up about 8 blocks from home.

Quote:
> >On my mountain bike I would ride 45 Miles in 3-5 hours, fully loaded
> >with 100 pounds of camping crap>>>>

> Damn good there. You must be superman. Better you ride your fully loaded mtn
> bike than the road bike you used in the 40k.
> I must say you are a better biker than you are a camper. 100 pounds, jeez.

heh, it was fun to ride over the truck scales.

It was a long trip (over a month) through many different climate
zones, needing lots of different clothes (and I had 4 pairs of shoes
(my runners, my good mules (very heavy) some water shoes, and my bike
shoes) so of course I had lots of water and food that went with all of
this. And two big books, 4 pairs of cycling shorts, 3 cycling shirts
and 2 good shirts, and my ski pants and ski jacket, and a nice comfy
mattress that sucked, a few swim suits, a stove, 2 container of gas
for the stove, pots and pans :) :) :), hey, I wasn't going for the
camping, I was going for the ride and the fun in each new city). I had
4 panniers and 2 trunks, and I also had a BOB trailer to carry it all.

It was very apparent that I sucked at packing as I actually mailed
some of it back home. Customs made me pay 80 dollars to pick it up
(thankfully they paid it back a few months later).

And to think, I don't even carry a purse or pack sack with me, and I
rarely have pockets.

 
 
 

More thoughts on "serious" vs. "recreational" athletes; a couple proposals - long

Post by hy » Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:40:48

Quote:

> >lol.
> >how long does it take to recover from ironman's?

> After talking to a lot of people on that subject, I say the average time the
> body *physically* recovers from an Ironman is about 3-4 weeks. As for mental
> recovery, that depends on each individual. The time and effort it takes to
> train for an Ironman is immense, and the mind is usually the last thing to
> recover. Sometimes it can take as long as 6 months.

by the mind, do you mean emotionally, or in terms of all that work
burning you out, or having a falling feeling after you have completed
something so big *the feeling that's it, that's what it was all for*?
Or do you mean recovery for nutritional reasons, or all of these?

Quote:
> Read My Mountain *** 50 Mile Run Report on www.ironpete.com

I am reading it!
 
 
 

More thoughts on "serious" vs. "recreational" athletes; a couple proposals - long

Post by hy » Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:56:08

Thanks Iron Pete :)

Quote:

> Read My Mountain *** 50 Mile Run Report on www.ironpete.com

You have great humour, all the way through your story.
I love reading these stories.
Congratulations, Iron Pete. You made it!