Why Is Swimming the Most Deadly Leg of a Triathlon? (Page 3)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Tom Demerly. - 2011-08-10 1:24 PM "I have no problem with individual race directors requiring swim clinics, or prior experience. But I do not think it should be mandated by the USAT or any other organization." I think your perspective mirrors the majority based on what I've heard and read over the past two or three years at events and on forums. My question is, why? Why shouldn't swim safety be mandated to a similar degree that cycling safety is during competitive events? We have a helmet rule on the bike, and drafting rules, and pre-race meetings where a focus is often the bike course and navigation and hazards on it. As a practical consideration, it's cheap and easy to determine if someone has a helmet, is drafting, has bar end plugs etc or to hold a meeting giving out bike course information. It's cheap and easy to determine if someone is using an mp3 player. Requiring swim clinics or prior experience, not so much. This would increase costs and raise the barrier to entry too high. Also, most deaths in the water seem to be the result of underlying medical conditions. No clinic or certification is going to be able to create the race day conditions that result in the physiological states that bring on these deaths. Triathlon has some inherent dangers, some of which cannot be entirely mitigated. There is no rationale to assume responsibility for that which is out of our control. You spin the wheel and you take your chances. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Tom Demerly. - 2011-08-10 12:24 PM "I have no problem with individual race directors requiring swim clinics, or prior experience. But I do not think it should be mandated by the USAT or any other organization." I think your perspective mirrors the majority based on what I've heard and read over the past two or three years at events and on forums. My question is, why? Why shouldn't swim safety be mandated to a similar degree that cycling safety is during competitive events? We have a helmet rule on the bike, and drafting rules, and pre-race meetings where a focus is often the bike course and navigation and hazards on it. When our sport started, bike helmets were not required. When we got a governing body it was one of the very first rules drafted. There was push back then to the helmet rules. ... But what about the other 85%? Does the sport have a responsibility to somehow "safeguard" them? This isn't a question of individual preference, it is a question of the collective health of the sport. Helmets are a different beast. They have a proven track record of helping safety. Do swim clinics? Would they have helped those that died last weekend? If you want to mandate some of the emergency swim belts that were linked to above. Or some similar safety device that can be activated or activates if under water more than X.. then ... well one more thing to buy... but maybe. Bottom line, I don't see mandated clinics as solving the problem, or even reducing it significantly (yes, every life is significant.... but you want a solution that is reasonably effective). Would swim belts.. I dont know. One problem is that there is 1.5 deaths out of 100,000 participants thus it is very hard to test a solution and know if it helps significantly without using it millions of times. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() NewClydesdale - 2011-08-10 10:10 AM moldoverb - 2011-08-10 10:03 AM Unless I am doing something wrong statistically (and I know there's a bunch of other science-types on here who can correct me if I am), here are three telling numbers: Incidence of MI (heart attack) in general population (age adjusted): ~0.21%, or 208 out of 100,000 Incidence of FATAL MI (heart attack) in general population age 45-64: 7.8% Incidence of death in triathlons (all ages): 0.0015%, or 1.5 out of 100,000 My conclusion is that the risk of death in a triathlon is very low, media hype notwithstanding. The biggest issue is that as the majority of incidences occur in water they have a high fatality rate. Lots of potential reasons for that. I am not a statistician BUT. Aren't we comparing apples and oranges here? If you say Incidence of MI in population is X% is that per year? Per lifetime? Certainly not per day. If you talk about the incidence in triathlons I THINK you are talking per EVENT. 2-17 hour time period. Those can't really be compared, can they? (Edited for spelling) Kind of apples and oranges. The incidence in triathlons was calculated by total number of deaths (14) in 2006-2008 divided by number of participants (959,214). So technically if you want to get a per-year mortality rate it's half that. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Valid points. Each of them. Another side of this discussion is the rising price of entry fees, a small component of which relates to the rising costs of liability indemnification- insurance. I wager some additional "assumption of risk" training and certification could potentially arrest the upward trend in liability costs. I'm not so unrealistic to suppose it would reduce it- but it may slow the upward spiral. An attroney defending in a case for an event could examine or establish in pre-trial deposition that a plaintiff had been familiarized with the risks an potential losses to be incurred and had been compelled to get a medical exam prior to participation. That could reduce the event's exposure significantly. I've served as expert witness to the defense in liability cases in our industry and disqualifying the claim is often the preferred route in reducing liability. It's cheaper than the insurance company going to court or cutting a check. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() But Tom, I'm still not convinced that either attendance at a swim clinic or some type of medical certification would have, again, mitigated what happened to these individuals. As has been stated, a majority have occured because of cardiac issues. Which may, or may not, have been cause by anxiety, adrenaline rush, etc. And which may, or may not, have been detectable by simple EKG's or other cardiac tests. Maybe it is apples to elephants comparisons (I'm tired of oranges right now) but in some recent crits I've done, I've pushed my HR up to 196 in the final sprint. What if I have a massive event at that point, in the middle of the final sprint and also take out others. What if I die? What if I permanently inure others? Should USAC then institute medical certification before a crit? A road race? A TT? I guess, what I'm getting at, is that I think the application of a perceived solution is misplaced. I don't believe the clinic, previous experience (who do you get the first one?) or medical "certification" would mitigate the issues that have been seen. Therefore, I'm not conviced it is worth doing. BTW, fantastic discussion on all parts by everyone. Love this type of discussion and debate. Very civil. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() moldoverb - 2011-08-10 8:22 AM NewClydesdale - 2011-08-10 10:10 AM moldoverb - 2011-08-10 10:03 AM Unless I am doing something wrong statistically (and I know there's a bunch of other science-types on here who can correct me if I am), here are three telling numbers: Incidence of MI (heart attack) in general population (age adjusted): ~0.21%, or 208 out of 100,000 Incidence of FATAL MI (heart attack) in general population age 45-64: 7.8% Incidence of death in triathlons (all ages): 0.0015%, or 1.5 out of 100,000 My conclusion is that the risk of death in a triathlon is very low, media hype notwithstanding. The biggest issue is that as the majority of incidences occur in water they have a high fatality rate. Lots of potential reasons for that. I am not a statistician BUT. Aren't we comparing apples and oranges here? If you say Incidence of MI in population is X% is that per year? Per lifetime? Certainly not per day. If you talk about the incidence in triathlons I THINK you are talking per EVENT. 2-17 hour time period. Those can't really be compared, can they? (Edited for spelling) Kind of apples and oranges. The incidence in triathlons was calculated by total number of deaths (14) in 2006-2008 divided by number of participants (959,214). So technically if you want to get a per-year mortality rate it's half that. The problem with comparing heart attack deaths with triathlon deaths is that a heart attack can occur at any time...24/7, 365 days a year. A triathlon death can only occur in a triathlon race. Which may be 1-17 hours, maybe 1-10 days per year. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() "But Tom, I'm still not convinced that either attendance at a swim clinic or some type of medical certification would have, again, mitigated what happened to these individuals." I have to agree. In the sometimes impersonal business side of the sport we have the agenda of risk management, and the costs associated with it. On the street level I wish there was something we could do to make at-risk swimmers much safer in the water. On the business level I'm sensitive to the fact that we need to curb entry fee increases and the threat to the sport from costs of liability insurance. Reducing the cost of insurance may be one way to stop the increase in cost. An ancillary benefit may be that someone, perhaps, is saved from a tragedy. Either through swim certification or mandatory health exams like they require in the Marathon des Sables and did require in the Raid Gauloises. For both of those events participants were required to submit an EKG print out with their entry dossier'. I don't like the added layers of administration, but we'd be remiss in not considering this as a potnential countermeasure. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() There is a very popular open water swim here that attracts 1000 or so swimmers. Until this year it was no wetsuits. f you didn't do the year before, you have to do a checkout with the lifeguards on one of 3 specified days. Last year I did it with a guy who was won or come in second something like 7 of the last 10 years, so there are no exceptions. Every year it seems they get more swimmers, so it is not discouraging many people. SOS requires completion of a half in a certain time limit within the previous year (and they used to specify certain swim times). It's sold out every year in minutes. Again, no one is getting discouraged. Checkouts can be done. Although it's best if its location specific. Getting checked out in a Texas lake won't help much when you see Pacific surf Are swim clinic/certifications/checkouts a cure all? Of course not. And if it discourages someone that isn't ready for the swim from trying, I've got no problem with that. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() if I thought for a second that requiring swim certification would prevent deaths i would be all for it - but that does not seem to be the case.
If I thought for a second that doing an EKG or a stress test would prevent deaths I would be all for it - but it is not only not medically indicated but likely would not have caught any of these issues. The closest I can think is IHSS - which would be detected by echocardiogram- and has been deadly for high school and college athletes - again, for the 1 in several million it would save does it justify cost? I don't know - I DOUBT private insurers will cover - should government sponsored cover? It is certainly more likely to (if we ever get single payor) - as then it might be part of a preparticipation physical - the kind private insurers do NOT cover. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tri808 - 2011-08-10 2:20 PM moldoverb - 2011-08-10 8:22 AM NewClydesdale - 2011-08-10 10:10 AM moldoverb - 2011-08-10 10:03 AM Unless I am doing something wrong statistically (and I know there's a bunch of other science-types on here who can correct me if I am), here are three telling numbers: Incidence of MI (heart attack) in general population (age adjusted): ~0.21%, or 208 out of 100,000 Incidence of FATAL MI (heart attack) in general population age 45-64: 7.8% Incidence of death in triathlons (all ages): 0.0015%, or 1.5 out of 100,000 My conclusion is that the risk of death in a triathlon is very low, media hype notwithstanding. The biggest issue is that as the majority of incidences occur in water they have a high fatality rate. Lots of potential reasons for that. I am not a statistician BUT. Aren't we comparing apples and oranges here? If you say Incidence of MI in population is X% is that per year? Per lifetime? Certainly not per day. If you talk about the incidence in triathlons I THINK you are talking per EVENT. 2-17 hour time period. Those can't really be compared, can they? (Edited for spelling) Kind of apples and oranges. The incidence in triathlons was calculated by total number of deaths (14) in 2006-2008 divided by number of participants (959,214). So technically if you want to get a per-year mortality rate it's half that. The problem with comparing heart attack deaths with triathlon deaths is that a heart attack can occur at any time...24/7, 365 days a year. A triathlon death can only occur in a triathlon race. Which may be 1-17 hours, maybe 1-10 days per year. I agree but I'm not sure it's relevant to the way these numbers were calculated. It's rate of deaths per year per 100,000. It doesn't take into account the fact that it's a small percentage of the actual year for triathletes. If you were to try and calculate the probability of death while racing, then it would be important (and to us, a much more meaningful statistic). These types of analyses were done for marathon runners to calculate relative risk. There was about 1 death per 396,000 hours of running. The relative risk was about 7 times that of dying during a workout or race than dying "in front of the TV" as the study reported. So you would need exactly the data you describe to calculate relative risk for triathletes in competition. I believe USAT would have all the required data on athletes in sanctioned events. Someone should do this!
Edited by moldoverb 2011-08-10 6:46 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() flashpoint145 - 2011-08-10 7:15 AM GaryRM - 2011-08-09 5:54 PM Going with this I have read threads/RR's where very good pool swimmers who have panic in open water. It isn't always those who haven't trained enough. ME ME ME ME ME Yup, me too. The limiting factor in my case is climate. My first OWS practice this year was in early July and the lake was only 52 degrees. Swimming before that or getting any kind of regular OWS training before tri season starts is greatly impeded by the thick layer of ice on top of the water. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriMyBest - 2011-08-10 6:04 AM Race conditions can be simulated to a great degree. I've been involved in clinics where we practiced wave starts with a few dozen people. The coaches and experienced people would intentionally swim into less experienced people and grab their feet as well as occasionally swim over them. This is the sort of thing that would be a necessity of any certification like Tom Demerly proposes. . I started in the sport last year and trained with TNT for my 1st HIM. Our head coach, after we developed the endurance for that distance, would have us all swim in a "compressed" pack inside the pool (lane dividers removed) and would encourage us to swim in circles and to keep pushing/pulling/hitting each other. He would call out folks who were moving away from the pack to get back in. Then he would line us up like a mambo line with one swimmer going through the 'line' Those on the line had kickboards and it was our job to create waves and splash water--lots of it---onto the swimmer who was passing the line aiming at the upper body/face to force the swimmer to breath bilaterally and to tolerate all that choppiness. When we finally started doing OWS he would continue to encourage us to spend some time swimming in each other's faces/bodies. So teaching that chaos is surely doable. It's simulating the drastic temps changes from pool to real life that's hard to simulate since most pools we train in are open pools where non-tri folks swim too and need to be kept warm.
|
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Tom Demerly. - 2011-08-10 1:24 PM My point is that we- you and I- don't own the sport anymore. We aren't the middle 85%. A new culture is entering the sport and there is anecdotal suggestion this new demographic may not be entirely competent in an open water setting- they may lack basic survival skills. They may have a pre-existing medical condition that places them at risk. That may contribute to greater risk and/or poor risk management. So, questions for you and the veterans in this board (15-20 yrs+) : - were swimming fatalities this common back then? or well known? were causes discussed? The recent articles we're quoting only looked at data for a short period of time relative to how long the sport has been around. It seems to me a historical meta-analysis needs to be done to truly understand swim death incidences. But I doubt that data exist for the early years of the sport.
Questions for anyone; Was this the first tri where 2 people died in the swim? Was this the first tri series where 3 folks died within such a short time frame (3 yrs?) Someone earlier on mentioned about the 26 other folks who needed help. Is that a reasonable % for this size of event? I did Chicago and NAtion's last year, both larger than NYC, and we didn't hear numbers like that. OR, are hearing those numbers because 2 died and normally those numbers are not published.
|
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() moldoverb - 2011-08-10 6:36 AM A lot more research needs to be done. I saw the JAMA article and it's basicially a short communication summarizing two year's worth of data. More statistical analysis is needed. Fortunately there is a lot of data available. Water temperature, air temperature and humidity, number of athletes in the water, prior experience, etc. "Drowning was the declared cause of each swimming death, but 7 of 9 athletes with autopsy had cardiovascular abnormalities identified." Had this occurred on land they likely would have been classified differently. But this is what is intriguing me so much. A lot of these casualties had previous experience in events and training. Why didn't their problems surface then? |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() trainforacure - 2011-08-10 9:48 PM moldoverb - 2011-08-10 6:36 AM A lot more research needs to be done. I saw the JAMA article and it's basicially a short communication summarizing two year's worth of data. More statistical analysis is needed. Fortunately there is a lot of data available. Water temperature, air temperature and humidity, number of athletes in the water, prior experience, etc. "Drowning was the declared cause of each swimming death, but 7 of 9 athletes with autopsy had cardiovascular abnormalities identified." Had this occurred on land they likely would have been classified differently. But this is what is intriguing me so much. A lot of these casualties had previous experience in events and training. Why didn't their problems surface then?
many things can lead to a cardiac event. electrolyte imbalance is one example, combine that with stress leading to increased cortisol levels and that shifts it even more. extra caffeine... a perfect storm of events and face down in the water.... |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() trainforacure - 2011-08-10 8:48 PM But this is what is intriguing me so much. A lot of these casualties had previous experience in events and training. Why didn't their problems surface then? Statistically who says it didn't. I mean. We have no information on training related deaths / Heart incidents. It could be that 20 people who signed up, or planned to, for the race had some kind of incident while training and either dealt with it, or did not attend the race.
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() Exhibit A: http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=264429&posts=2#M3638638 |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriToy - 2011-08-09 9:24 PM IIRC most of the deaths have been attributed to either heart attack or heart arrhythmia - which likely would NOT be caught by a screening EKG. I DO think that especially with larger triathlons (NY, St Anthony's, Chicago....) some sort of swim screen needs to happen - especially if that is the first triathlon someone is doing. I agree some sort of swim screen should be required though logistically especially for bigger events it could be tough. Still I cringe when I read comments like those posted on another thread today from a first timer who can barely swim 50m in a pool without resting and has their first tri coming in a week or others comments saying just get the swim out of the way before the real race/fun starts. With respect to screening ECGs this issue has been debated not only for triathlons but for competative sports in general with arguments on both sides. Those favoring it site the lives that might be saved while those against it say it isn't cost effective given the vast number of athletes participating in sports and the rare fatalities that occur (but who always make the press). There are many published articles on both sides of the debate and countries that requires ECG screens for participation in certain sports on various levels from HS to pro. Italy is a good example of a country that requires such screening at many levels (there is also a higher incidence of certain arrhythmias inherent in part of the italian population.) The relativly rare form of Long QT 1 syndrome can be easily from a relatively inexpensive screening ECG (as well as other arrhythmias that a person may not realize they have)...and interestingly for unknown reasons has been associated with fatalies in swimming (including pool swims). Still enforcing these screens might be tough given the vast number of participants and the vast number and types of races. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() moldoverb - 2011-08-10 8:03 AM Unless I am doing something wrong statistically (and I know there's a bunch of other science-types on here who can correct me if I am), here are three telling numbers: Incidence of MI (heart attack) in general population (age adjusted): ~0.21%, or 208 out of 100,000 Incidence of FATAL MI (heart attack) in general population age 45-64: 7.8% Incidence of death in triathletes (all ages): 0.0015%, or 1.5 out of 100,000 My conclusion is that the risk of death in a triathlon is very low, media hype notwithstanding. The biggest issue is that as the majority of incidences occur in water they have a high fatality rate. Lots of potential reasons for that. I'm not sure that the 1.5 out of 100,000 figure is really correct, but perhaps. Seems low given total deaths against total participation numbers that I think I've seen, but maybe not. I'll look them up again. However...is that number per 100,000 entries or 100,000 athletes? If it's entries, then there's a smaller population and a higher rate of death per individual athlete (since many athletes undoubtedly entered multiple events during the period in question). And...I have to agree with the other poster: You really are comparing apples and oranges. For the comparison to be meaningful, you'd need to calculate only for time actually spent in triathlon during the period for each member of the population and find rate of death per athlete per hour (or day or whatever unit of time you opted for) and compare that against the equivalent rate of fatal MI per person per time unit for that same period. Comparing rate of occurence per opportunity vs rate of occurance over all of two years isn't valid. If I assume 3 hours as the duration of an "average triathlon" (assuming thereby that each of the 100,000 "triathletes" represents someone active over a unique 3 hour segment of time), when I adjust the general population rate of MI over 2 years to a rate per individual per 3 hours, that rate drops all the way down to 0.00003%, much lower than your .0015% for tri deaths. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Well I think a lot of it is just hot aggressive people are in the swim. Nothing can really prepare you for you all the violence in the washing machine.
I wonder are you more likely to die in a tri or a marathon? I bet marathon. Remember golden rule. Its not how or when you die its how you lived that counts. |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() This user's post has been ignored. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tcovert - 2011-08-10 11:11 PM moldoverb - 2011-08-10 8:03 AM Unless I am doing something wrong statistically (and I know there's a bunch of other science-types on here who can correct me if I am), here are three telling numbers: Incidence of MI (heart attack) in general population (age adjusted): ~0.21%, or 208 out of 100,000 Incidence of FATAL MI (heart attack) in general population age 45-64: 7.8% Incidence of death in triathletes (all ages): 0.0015%, or 1.5 out of 100,000 My conclusion is that the risk of death in a triathlon is very low, media hype notwithstanding. The biggest issue is that as the majority of incidences occur in water they have a high fatality rate. Lots of potential reasons for that. I'm not sure that the 1.5 out of 100,000 figure is really correct, but perhaps. Seems low given total deaths against total participation numbers that I think I've seen, but maybe not. I'll look them up again. However...is that number per 100,000 entries or 100,000 athletes? If it's entries, then there's a smaller population and a higher rate of death per individual athlete (since many athletes undoubtedly entered multiple events during the period in question). And...I have to agree with the other poster: You really are comparing apples and oranges. For the comparison to be meaningful, you'd need to calculate only for time actually spent in triathlon during the period for each member of the population and find rate of death per athlete per hour (or day or whatever unit of time you opted for) and compare that against the equivalent rate of fatal MI per person per time unit for that same period. Comparing rate of occurence per opportunity vs rate of occurance over all of two years isn't valid. If I assume 3 hours as the duration of an "average triathlon" (assuming thereby that each of the 100,000 "triathletes" represents someone active over a unique 3 hour segment of time), when I adjust the general population rate of MI over 2 years to a rate per individual per 3 hours, that rate drops all the way down to 0.00003%, much lower than your .0015% for tri deaths. That's relative risk and I posted on that and agree that it's a more meaningful number, to do it accurately you would need timing data for the population being analyzed. And it's number of athletes, not number of entries. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() trainforacure - 2011-08-10 8:48 PM moldoverb - 2011-08-10 6:36 AM A lot more research needs to be done. I saw the JAMA article and it's basicially a short communication summarizing two year's worth of data. More statistical analysis is needed. Fortunately there is a lot of data available. Water temperature, air temperature and humidity, number of athletes in the water, prior experience, etc. "Drowning was the declared cause of each swimming death, but 7 of 9 athletes with autopsy had cardiovascular abnormalities identified." Had this occurred on land they likely would have been classified differently. But this is what is intriguing me so much. A lot of these casualties had previous experience in events and training. Why didn't their problems surface then? Having myself been diagnosed (after many years) with a potentially lethal (but thankfully treatable) cardiac abnormality, I can attest that it is quite possible, even probable, to successfully compete in dozens of races and do hundreds of training sessions, including interval training, without issues. And then out of nowhere have an episode. In my opinion, (aside from panic related drownings) you usually need a "perfect storm" of events to create a life-threatening situation. Unless there is serious reason for concern, there is no medical screeening that a doctor can order that will allow him to "clear" an athlete for something like a triathlon. No way. If there IS real reason for concern, and you are in fact given definitive tests like an electrophysiology study, cardiac caths, graduated stress tests, or genetic testing, it is already very highly suspected that you have a serious problem. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Having recently (2/15/11) had heart surgery for mitral valve repair (regurgitation at level 4), and a maze procedure to correct persistent atrial fibrillation, I was someone with a congenital heart issue. That alone would not have been an indicator of risk for swim, in my opinion. I had the leakly mitral valve (not as bad, and no afib) when I did a HIM less than four years ago, with a sub 2 hour run. Biked across CT (hills), too. Last fall, with bad regurg and afib, did a 10 mile race in 1:21 (8:07). Ran 12 miles on Christmas eve. Now I knew I needed to be careful (and wouldn't have done an OLY or thought about a HIM when I realized things were getting worse last fall). But I think it is unreasonable (as well as impractical) to expect race organizers to require some screening for heart issues (are they going to require echocardiagrams? How about a catheterization for 10 grand?!). In my case, I had a heart murmur that I didn't know about until I retired after 25 years in the military. It didn't affect my performance until several years after I knew that I had it - and could tell from my training that it was getting worse. Knowing my body was the best indicator. Now, my heart is fixed - but my pace is slower than before! Go figure. At least I have a "normal" heartbeat - and no more leaky valve! |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I also ended up with Mitral valve Repair surgery this past winter. Had it done Dec at Mayo in MN. In the doctor's words, I was in "free flow" which basically indicated that the regurge was so bad they didn't understand why I was not short of breath. They could only figure that all this training made me able to work off the O2 that was getting delivered. The conditioning might have compensated, though I was frustrated at why I was training so hard and not seeing any gains. It is rare, but it is possible to develop a lethal arrythmia due to the prolapse. At least one doctor suggested I would have just had annoying palpitations, but since I was regularly pushing myself, I put myself in greater danger. There is an incidence of younger or athletic people dying suddenly, with the only known issue being mitral valve prolapse (particulalry women). But this seems to be a very small population. But there are just not enough people with that condition, who are doing endurance training, that the med community to be able to study. I also am a lot slower since surgery, but the story I hear is it can take a year or more to regain that level, if ever again. |
|