first time triathlete drownns

Oryx

peter kern wrote: »

What is better one dead person that enters a race or 3000 that die of modern world I desases because they don't get their backside up?
In the bigger picture the more people participate in sport health costs will go down

Thats not an excuse for haphazardly taking on a sport you havent trained for properly.

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

Not convinced. Look around at the next 10km or triathlon that you are at. Play guess the BMI. Then come back to me on healthy. Some use a little bit of sport to justify a lifestyle of total excess.[/QUOTE

yes!
but those live the lifestyle of total excess anyway so even a bit of sport is better than nothing.

peter kern

Oryx wrote: »

Thats not an excuse for haphazardly taking on a sport you havent trained for properly.

i look at it at whats the end result and iam pretty sure at the end you are better of having more people participating than trying to make it to complicated.
and fact is most of the people that die in the swim are not beginners .
so you cnat say there is a clear corelation that inexpercienced atheltes are the ones that die.

the fact is many people that complain on this thread are the ones that have had broken bones endless visits to physios this year cronic fatique etc

desertcircus

tunney wrote: »

Not convinced. Look around at the next 10km or triathlon that you are at. Play guess the BMI. Then come back to me on healthy. Some use a little bit of sport to justify a lifestyle of total excess.

I think it's the opposite way round - people use the sport they do to mitigate against the effects of their lifestyle. I have a horrendous diet, but I had a horrendous diet from the day I started college, and I didn't take up sport until I was 28. Being heavy isn't necessarily the same thing as being unhealthy.

Kurt_Godel

peter kern wrote: »

and fact is most of the people that die in the swim are not beginners .
so you cnat say there is a clear corelation that inexpercienced atheltes are the ones that die.

Lets have some fun with logic:
Statement: "fact is most of the people that die in the swim are not beginners"
Conclusion: "so you can't say there is a clear correlation that inexperienced athletes are the ones that die"
Equivalence: "so you can say there is a clear correlation that experienced athletes are the ones that die"
Solution: Remove experience and less people die.

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

yes!
but those live the lifestyle of total excess anyway so even a bit of sport is better than nothing.

But by waddling around a 5km/10km/Tri then can delude themselves into thinking they are athletes and that BMI doesn't work on athletes......

joey100

'Being heavy isn't necessarily the same thing as being unhealthy'

I'm sorry but this just isn't true. If you are overweight you are unhealthy, unless you are a professional sumo wrestler or professional rugby player and even then you better lose that weight when you stop because your body will change very quickly. If you are overweight you are metabolically unhealthy, for example your immune system is lowered and you are open to more infections and sickness. You might be able to run a marathon and be overweight but that doesn't make you healthy, it means you have a certain level of fitness.

desertcircus

joey100 wrote: »

'Being heavy isn't necessarily the same thing as being unhealthy'

I'm sorry but this just isn't true. If you are overweight you are unhealthy, unless you are a professional sumo wrestler or professional rugby player and even then you better lose that weight when you stop because your body will change very quickly. If you are overweight you are metabolically unhealthy, for example your immune system is lowered and you are open to more infections and sickness. You might be able to run a marathon and be overweight but that doesn't make you healthy, it means you have a certain level of fitness.

The available evidence appears to suggest that mortality rates are at their lowest among people with a BMI of 27 or so, which is classed as overweight.

tunney

desertcircus wrote: »

The available evidence appears to suggest that mortality rates are at their lowest among people with a BMI of 27 or so, which is classed as overweight.

Link?

peter kern

Absolutely not but most death come from heart failure and ther is really no correlation between experience and not the correlation is more a certain age and gender

Kurt_Godel wrote: »

Lets have some fun with logic:
Statement: "fact is most of the people that die in the swim are not beginners"
Conclusion: "so you can't say there is a clear correlation that inexperienced athletes are the ones that die"
Equivalence: "so you can say there is a clear correlation that experienced athletes are the ones that die"
Solution: Remove experience and less people die.

desertcircus

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1555137

This next one is more nuanced, but cites studies that found no increase in mortality rates among cohorts classed as "overweight" based on BMI. Hitting 30 or more seems to be unambiguously bad, but the mortality risk in the 25-30 range seems very hard to define as greater than in the 18.5-25 range.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/119/25/3263.full

tunney wrote: »

Link?

strewelpeter

tunney wrote: »

But by waddling around a 5km/10km/Tri then can delude themselves into thinking they are athletes and that BMI doesn't work on athletes......

It sounds to me like that you are projecting your prejudice of what you imagine people think themselves to be, I never heard anyone like that describe themselves as an Athlete.

What I do see are thousands of 'bucket list fatties', 'first and second year experts' who would be 'better off playing golf' because they compete only against the course and themselves, who are getting off their arses and participating in events in order to get themselves a bit fitter and healthier. I'm sure many of them like to brag to their mates in the pub about what they have achieved and so what if they do? In my experience more will tend to keep it to themselves and just get on with it.

I can understand why some people who have been at it for years like to sneer at new participants who treat the sport as an event. Either set criteria for entry or get over yourself IMO.

The question here seems to be is Tri a suitable sport for mass participation or should it be reserved for people who are of a certain... well, what will we make the criteria?
BMI?
Fitness tests?
Qualification times?

FWIW regarding swim safety, I would be all for an OW swim proficiency cert for every participant. There are already plenty of opportunities through TI and Clubs for people to gain the experience needed before entering an event and it shouldn't be beyond the wit if TI to run such a programme.
In addition to that I believe that the next most effective safety change would be to reduce the number of people in mass swim start waves.

FlowerGarden

I've took up triathlons this year for the first time. I did four supersprints with short swims for first timers as my swimming wouldn't be great and I knew the open water would be a challenge. The first one I did the swim was only 200m and I was still very nervous. On the way to the start line one chap started going under water (very quietly and without thrashing around). He was grabbing on to me and another girl. I called over the kayak who hadn't noticed and she spoke to the guy to calm him down. The rescue boat pulled him out and he was fine. I was wrecked by the time I got to start line! Maybe all first timers should have to do one of the short swims first (though it didn't work for that guy!).

tunney

strewelpeter wrote: »

It sounds to me like that you are projecting your prejudice of what you imagine people think themselves to be, I never heard anyone like that describe themselves as an Athlete.

Good for you, I have. Search for the original 70.30 thread.

strewelpeter wrote: »

What I do see are thousands of 'bucket list fatties', 'first and second year experts' who would be 'better off playing golf' because they compete only against the course and themselves, who are getting off their arses and participating in events in order to get themselves a bit fitter and healthier. I'm sure many of them like to brag to their mates in the pub about what they have achieved and so what if they do? In my experience more will tend to keep it to themselves and just get on with it.

Q: How do you know if there is a triathlete at your party?
A: He'll tell you.

strewelpeter wrote: »

I can understand why some people who have been at it for years like to sneer at new participants who treat the sport as an event. Either set criteria for entry or get over yourself IMO.

Its not sneering, its acknowledging the reduction in event quality due to pandering to the lowest common denominator

strewelpeter wrote: »

The question here seems to be is Tri a suitable sport for mass participation or should it be reserved for people who are of a certain... well, what will we make the criteria?
BMI?
Fitness tests?
Qualification times?

Are duathlons suitable for mass participation? yes.
Are trtiathlons suitable for mass participation? no.

Whats the difference - the swim.

strewelpeter wrote: »

FWIW regarding swim safety, I would be all for an OW swim proficiency cert for every participant. There are already plenty of opportunities through TI and Clubs for people to gain the experience needed before entering an event and it shouldn't be beyond the wit if TI to run such a programme.
In addition to that I believe that the next most effective safety change would be to reduce the number of people in mass swim start waves.

The most effective safety change would be to reduce the number of people in the race. The talk of waves and TT style starts is to cope with the bucket lister that will get in trouble in a mass start.

tunney

desertcircus wrote: »

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1555137

This next one is more nuanced, but cites studies that found no increase in mortality rates among cohorts classed as "overweight" based on BMI. Hitting 30 or more seems to be unambiguously bad, but the mortality risk in the 25-30 range seems very hard to define as greater than in the 18.5-25 range.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/119/25/3263.full

*Off to get a packet of crisps*

Very interesting. I would love to get more detail into potential reasons. Any other links?

sconhome

strewelpeter wrote: »

The question here seems to be is Tri a suitable sport for mass participation or should it be reserved for people who are of a certain swim ability relative to the race distance

Swim ability should be proven either by attending organised club sessions and being independently verified, or participating in short events from try a tri and developing through the sport.

The prior statement of someone who signed up for an Olympic swim thinking its like a Sprint is scary. Where is personal responsibility? I think it is quite selfish to participate in an event when you are obviously under-prepared as you are putting you and others in danger and absorbing resources unnecessarily.

mylittlepony

This swim safety buoy would be ideal dont know why they are not in sport stores.

https://www.kiefer.com/kiefer-saferswimmer----large-open-water-swim-buoy-products-279.php

http://swimsafetydevice.com/

sconhome

mylittlepony wrote: »

This swim safety buoy would be ideal dont know why they are not in sport stores.

https://www.kiefer.com/kiefer-saferswimmer----large-open-water-swim-buoy-products-279.php

http://swimsafetydevice.com/

Shopping in the wrong stores

See earlier in the thread though as these are not a replacement for ability. They are marker buoys for visibility. They are of no help should you suffer a heart attack.

mylittlepony

Sorry you are right. But it wouln't let you sink if you were to have a bad cramp, swallow too much water or heart attack. So it could still help??

Obviously these wouldnt be in a high street store.

I should check the local watersports store myself as im interested to get it.

peter kern

Kurt_Godel wrote: »

Lets have some fun with logic:
Statement: "fact is most of the people that die in the swim are not beginners"
Conclusion: "so you can't say there is a clear correlation that inexperienced athletes are the ones that die"
Equivalence: "so you can say there is a clear correlation that experienced athletes are the ones that die"
Solution: Remove experience and less people die.

if done right you are correct

according to the statistic the higherst risk group to die in tri is male mid to late 40s
so if TI was to ban experieced males in their mid to late 40s they would reduce the risk more than banning inexpecerienced females in the 20-30 category.
i think the ratio is aobut 9 -1 one for males in 40s to females in 20-30 to die in a tri .

and btw before you now suggest that every male in their 40s needs to be tested according to the dr that advices Itu on this that would not really work either.

Kurt_Godel

Peter, your arguments are let down by spurious use of statistics. The ratio of deaths M45:F25 is irrelevant, what is more relevant is the rate of deaths between each group, which in any case are extremely low. None are statistically significant in relation to limiting participation in Tri.

Since this thread is going down the road of outliers and anecdote for evidence, let me give one. A couple of years back my Tri Club organised a pool swim block for beginner swimmers. After a winter of this the coach did an OW introduction evening with the group. Lots of new wetsuits and nervous beginners in Wicklow Harbour. The very first thing he did was have everyone lie on their back, to show that you cannot sink in a wetsuit. This immediately stemmed the nerves of those new to OW, and they went on to complete the rest of the evening. Several of them have since referred back to that evening when panicking in races or scrums or swallowing water. They trust themselves not to panic, that they can float if needs be, that they are in control in the OW. It was a very simple lesson in OW fundamentals that paid for itself many times over.

rooneyjm

mylittlepony wrote: »

This swim safety buoy would be ideal dont know why they are not in sport stores.

https://www.kiefer.com/kiefer-saferswimmer----large-open-water-swim-buoy-products-279.php

http://swimsafetydevice.com/

Honestly, if they brought that in id be off to McGuirks to get fitted for a driver.

rooneyjm

Kurt_Godel wrote: »

Peter, your arguments are let down by spurious use of statistics. The ratio of deaths M45:F25 is irrelevant, what is more relevant is the rate of deaths between each group, which in any case are extremely low. None are statistically significant in relation to limiting participation in Tri.

Since this thread is going down the road of outliers and anecdote for evidence, let me give one. A couple of years back my Tri Club organised a pool swim block for beginner swimmers. After a winter of this the coach did an OW introduction evening with the group. Lots of new wetsuits and nervous beginners in Wicklow Harbour. The very first thing he did was have everyone lie on their back, to show that you cannot sink in a wetsuit. This immediately stemmed the nerves of those new to OW, and they went on to complete the rest of the evening. Several of them have since referred back to that evening when panicking in races or scrums or swallowing water. They trust themselves not to panic, that they can float if needs be, that they are in control in the OW. It was a very simple lesson in OW fundamentals that paid for itself many times over.

And if your a big fat lad you could also let rip for the extra buoyancy (but don't follow through, that could sink you).

sconhome

rooneyjm wrote: »

Honestly, if they brought that in id be off to McGuirks to get fitted for a driver.

They're a required safety device for divers in Spain AFAIK, not sure of regs here. It let's boats and fishermen know there's a diver below.

The one I have is a dry bag so your towel, phone, keys can be safely brought with you and you are visible in the water

They are not PFD's though.

Oryx

Swim buoys wont prevent panic, heart attacks, or kicks in the face. They dont help you float. All they do is (as tunney bluntly said earlier) help find you if you die. Theyre very useful for practice swims so boats and spotters on land can see you but in a race environment they have no function.

mossym

AKW wrote: »

They're a required safety device for divers in Spain AFAIK, not sure of regs here. It let's boats and fishermen know there's a diver below.

The one I have is a dry bag so your towel, phone, keys can be safely brought with you and you are visible in the water

They are not PFD's though.

not required here. most divers use a deployable one attached to a roll of line. end of dive, on your ascent, unroll the buoy, shot of air, and it goes to the surface to warn surface traffic someone is below and on their way up. also means your own boat *should* be sitting there when you surface

i have on of those buoys, courtesy of the shopkeep in the west. years of scuba diving have me firmly of the mind that rather than being a buoyancy aid , anything trailing by means of a string is actually a liability as it can get tangled on weeds/other ropes/lines(used to carry a quickly accessed line cutter while diving for this very reason)

However where i swim OW is boat heavy, and more worryingly, jetski heavy, with many of the guys driving them absolute idiots. it won't do anything for the guys who intentionally buzz swimmers, but it at least makes you more visible to the guys that just don;t pay attention, and also to the multitude of folks learning to sail around the same area

peter kern

These are the statistics so please don't discredit facts because they don't support your argument that it's only inexperienced athletes that can go into trouble.
I only tell you the people who are statistically most at risk .
Anyway we seem to agree that there is no serious health risk n tri and that participation in tri overall is positive

Kurt_Godel wrote: »

Peter, your arguments are let down by spurious use of statistics. The ratio of deaths M45:F25 is irrelevant, what is more relevant is the rate of deaths between each group, which in any case are extremely low. None are statistically significant in relation to limiting participation in Tri.

Since this thread is going down the road of outliers and anecdote for evidence, let me give one. A couple of years back my Tri Club organised a pool swim block for beginner swimmers. After a winter of this the coach did an OW introduction evening with the group. Lots of new wetsuits and nervous beginners in Wicklow Harbour. The very first thing he did was have everyone lie on their back, to show that you cannot sink in a wetsuit. This immediately stemmed the nerves of those new to OW, and they went on to complete the rest of the evening. Several of them have since referred back to that evening when panicking in races or scrums or swallowing water. They trust themselves not to panic, that they can float if needs be, that they are in control in the OW. It was a very simple lesson in OW fundamentals that paid for itself many times over.

peter kern

Playing devils advocate in the non drafting thread Kurt said he expects for his entry fee that draft marshaled do their job. So why should an atete not expect to be taken care of in the water for the fee they pay.

Of course experience does help in open water tri but I do also see many experienced athletes that have done many races still being afraid in that environment
Good things to do an ex event company that always got accused on safty always did a swim course recci a week or so before the race and it is obiously a good thing to do that .
But again since overall tri is a healthy sport I really do not think it would be good to introduce more paper work for people to participate
Greater good for the greater people
quote="AKW;97020082"]Swim ability should be proven either by attending organised club sessions and being independently verified, or participating in short events from try a tri and developing through the sport.

The prior statement of someone who signed up for an Olympic swim thinking its like a Sprint is scary. Where is personal responsibility? I think it is quite selfish to participate in an event when you are obviously under-prepared as you are putting you and others in danger and absorbing resources unnecessarily.[/quote]

peter kern

[quote="Kurt godel
RIP to the swimmer but no-one knows what happened, could have been any number of issues unrelated to swim ability. On newbie ability though, OW swim certs showing the participant has undergone a 1 or 2 hour introductory OW swim under guidance of certified swim coach, thats the only way to go. No entry to first Tri unless produced.[/quote

Btw here you seem to say that there is a safety matter caused by beginners and I tell you again this is not statistically supported.
The main fact here is male and that is more risk than beginner

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

"Kurt wrote:

RIP to the swimmer but no-one knows what happened, could have been any number of issues unrelated to swim ability. On newbie ability though, OW swim certs showing the participant has undergone a 1 or 2 hour introductory OW swim under guidance of certified swim coach, thats the only way to go. No entry to first Tri unless produced.

Btw here you seem to say that there is a safety matter caused by beginners and I tell you again this is not statistically supported.
The main fact here is male and that is more risk than beginner

After work I'll go home and ask my five year old, maybe the three year old.

If most people in a race are boys, and only some girls - if someone is going to get dead is it more likely to be a boy or a girl?