[1]

July 2008

Circling the Drain by Lee Gruenfeld

Registration is still OPEN! Sign your kids up for the first annual Tri

Fusion Kids’ Triathlon at www.tri-fusion.com/

kids

Weight Loss Study,

page 3

Circling... cont’d,

page 2

Cycling Science,

pages 4-6

BoD, Sponsors, Calendar,

page 8

No Ordinary Tuna

Recipe,

page 7

Forgive me for being serious just this once. Thankfully, it doesn't happen often.

I'm not normally prone to a lot of touchy-feely romanticizing about spiritual matters that are largely the self-serving inventions of people to whom concepts like "evidence" and "science" are regarded with suspicion. The way I look at it, anybody who believes in homeopathy, astrology, oxygenated water or wheat grass deserves to get swindled. But one thing I've come to believe in strongly — because the evidence for it is overwhelming — is the mind-body connection and the extraordinary degree to which the mental can affect the physical. The examples are legion and there's no sense repeating the oft-told stories, so I'd just like to throw in another one that might have some relevance in the endurance sports world.

Last Thanksgiving my wife Cherie wrote a piece about her father for her monthly column on the BioBuilde

Website. Glenn is 96, and Cherie spoke movingly about how he still rode his bike every day, rain or shine, even though he lives in western Washington, where there's plenty of rain and little shine.

A few months after that article came out, Glenn was taken off his blood thinning medication so he could undergo cataract surgery. (That was so he could keep his driver's license, if you can believe that.) Somehow, he wasn't informed of the risks of going off the med or what signs to watch for. So a few days later when he developed a pain in his leg, he did what came natural: sucked it up and tried to ignore it. What he didn't know was that he'd developed clots that were blocking the flow of blood in his leg. Eventually the pain got too bad and he let someone know. Surgeons had to open his leg pretty much from top to bottom to get at the clots, but the damage to muscle tissue from all of those hours with no blood flow was irreversible.

Glenn spent three weeks in the hospital, looked after by Cherie's brother Larry, who lives just a few blocks from Glenn. We got several reports a day from Larry, and didn't know from minute to minute whether Glenn would live or die. The assault on his aging body was just too much. Eventually he was cleared to enter a rehab facility, and was transferred the same day Larry had to leave the country for five weeks, which meant that it was Cherie's turn to manage the situation.Larry was familiar with the rehab facility and warned us to be prepared. "It's full of people who are just circling the drain," was how he put it (Larry has a way of cutting to the heart of a matter quickly) and, harsh as that metaphor was, it was apt. I went up there the day Glenn was moved in, and walking those halls was depressing as hell. Not only did the patients look like the only thing they had to look forward to was the last rites, the staff treated them the same way. And it was hard to blame them.

[2]

Circling...cont’d

Glenn looked awful. He could barely hold his head up or keep his eyes open. He sat in a wheelchair, drooling and nodding off frequently, and it was all he could do to bring a spoonful of Jell-o to his mouth. How he was managing to stay alive was beyond me. I learned a lot those first couple of days, about DNR instructions and euphemisms like "keeping him comfortable," and how wills and probate were administered in the state of Washington. Glenn was definitely circling the drain.

Until a force of nature named Cherie Gruenfeld hit town a few days later. Now, if you don't know Cherie, let me tell you that she is the sweetest-natured human being you'd ever want to meet. She doesn't have a mean bone in her body, nor an enemy in the world. I mean that literally. She would no more cause another human being a moment's misery than jump off a cliff. Which makes you wonder why the people running the rehab clinic were ready to kill her.

She touched down like a tornado and said, "You will not treat my father like he's waiting to die!" She got him up and dressed, she dragged the physical therapist down to his room and demanded a plan, she went to meals with him and practically stuffed food into his mouth. "You're going to kill him," they said. "It's too much. Trust us, we've been there many times." "You think he's going to die anyway," she shot back, "so what's there to lose?"

I'm going to make a very long story very short. As of this writing, Glenn is back in his own apartment, completely on his own except for meals that are provided for all the residents. He voluntarily gave up his driver's license, but he's learned how to ride the bus. Cherie went up to visit a few weeks ago, and asked Glenn if he wanted to try to get on a stationary bike.

"What the hell are you talking about?" he said. "I've been out riding my regular bike!"

So this guy who was circling the drain has his life back. He's not quite at the same level as before — the shock of the episode was too severe — but he's

on his own, getting fitter every day and still enjoying a bourbon before dinner every night. He even had a follow-up skin graft last week and weathered it beautifully, whereas a few weeks ago the doctors were afraid to perform the procedure because they weren't sure he could take it.

In her recent book about Ironman, Cherie wrote, "Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're probably right." I used to think that was a somewhat treacly sentiment but now I look at it as one of the truest things I've ever heard. What gets people up Mt. Everest or through an Ironman or past the speed of sound or running a sub-four minute mile is the unshakable belief that it's possible and the willingness to put your life on the line to prove it.

I've always wondered what it is that truly separates the champions from the merely good. Is it genes? Discipline? Hard work, competitive drive, the ability to withstand pain? Probably all of those things, in various combinations. But what I'm coming to believe more and more is that the most important thing is an almost delusional conviction that the highest goals are not only possible, but inevitable. When Kobe launches a three-pointer at the buzzer with his team down by two, he isn't hoping it's going to go in. He knows it is. Even if he's missed his last five attempts, there's not a doubt in his mind that this one will make it. It's why champions always want the ball in the clutch and are never afraid of looking bad.

Which brings us back to Cherie's father. Cherie isn't a faith healer and there were no miracles involved. What she brought to the table was an attitude adjustment. "We can assume he's as good as dead, or we can assume he's going to get better." Admittedly, Glenn had a few things going for him that made it easier than for most folks: He's always been incredibly disciplined and fiercely determined, and all he needed to channel those strengths in a productive direction was somebody to convince him that it would pay off.He also needed someone to convince the people responsible for his day-to-day care that it would pay off, and that was a much tougher job. Candidly, I

don't know if they bought into it at first, but they sure behaved as though they did, because the last thing they needed was The Beast getting up in their faces if they lapsed into treating the old man like a goner. It was a lot easier to just follow her plan, and if he keeled over in the process, well, it would be her fault, not theirs.

The best part of the experience for Cherie, not counting getting her father back in her life, was the look on the faces of the residents and staff when Glenn stood up and walked out of the rehab center under his own power. I like to think that a few of them were inspired by the sight. Maybe some of the staff won't be so quick to write off patients in the future, having seen first hand that attitude can play more of a role in recovery than any particular therapeutic modality. Maybe some of the patients will stop seeing themselves as "circling the drain" and come to believe that there can be more to their lives than staving off pain until they die.The sub-four-minute mile was once thought to be impossible. It was finally achieved by someone who was convinced it could be done. Now it's not even news when high schoolers do it. Climbing Everest was another impossibility, but two weeks ago a 76-year old made it to the top. Thomas Edison tried over a thousand substances before he hit on tungsten to make an electric light, keeping at it because he was dead convinced something would work and he'd eventually figure it out.

It doesn't always work. People die attempting foolhardy feats, and some waste their entire lives in pursuit of the unattainable. Sometimes it's hard to know what's really possible and what isn't. But of one thing I’m fairly certain: Attitude really is everything. Not a new sentiment, I know. But it's one worth repeating, especially if you or someone you love is circling the drain.

[3]

A Study in Weight Lossby Joe Friel

A triathlete recently wrote to ask how he could lose weight before an important race he has coming up in a few weeks. He'd like to shed 5 pounds (2.3kg) before his A-priority race. There is indeed a cost to be paid when carrying excess fat around. One extra pound (0.45kg) costs about 2 seconds per mile running and takes roughly 3 watts to get it up a hill on a bike. So that 5 pounds represents about 10 seconds per mile running and 15 watts on a climb. That's significant and so dropping a bit of excess baggage has the potential to make him faster on race day. The problem is timing. Trying to lose weight while also training at a high level is not conducive to high performance. Losing weight is additional stress for a body already dealing with the stress of quality training. Recovery will be compromised. Such a path is likely to lead to illness, injury and possibly overtraining.

Nevertheless, I told him I'd post an article I wrote on this sometime back. Here's a quick review of the literature on weight loss from an athletic perspective...What’s the best way go about it? Should you reduce your intake of fat, or perhaps carbohydrate, which seems to be the trend recently. Or should you simply eat fewer calories? Or maybe you should train more. What’s the best alternative?

There have been many studies conducted to answer the question regarding the relative mix of macronutrients in the diet in order to lose weight. The majority of the results report the same conclusion: To reduce body weight, it doesn’t matter whether you eat a high-carbohydrate or a high-fat diet as long as total calories are reduced. For example, in one study, three groups of women dined on a 1,200-calorie-per-day diet for 10 weeks. One group ate 25 percent carbohydrate, another ate 45 percent carbohydrate, and the third ate 75 percent carbohydrate. Each of the diets contributed to weight loss with no significant differences between the groups.

In similar research, 43 women spent six weeks in a hospital on a 1,000-calorie-per-day diet with about half of them eating 53 percent fat and 15 percent carbohydrate. The other half ate 26 percent fat and 45 percent carbohydrate. Again, there was no significant difference in weight loss between the two groups, although the high-fat group lost slightly more weight – about three pounds (1.4kg).

From our perspective, the problem with most all of the studies of weight loss is that they use obese, sedentary subjects making the conclusions questionable for athletes. But a study on the effect of diet on coronary heart disease risk factors of runners may provide some better insights. The subjects were serious runners who ate either a 16-percent- or a 42-percent-fat diet for four weeks each.

At the end of the test periods, there was no significant difference between the two diets in terms of the subjects’ weights or body compositions. (It’s interesting to note that risk factors for heart disease improved on the higher-fat diet.) So the lessons of the previously mentioned studies appears to hold true for athletes as well – it doesn’t matter what the carbohydrate-fat mix of your diet is so long as you reduce calories.

Unfortunately, there have been few studies of serious athletes that strictly examined weight loss. But in 1985, McMurray and colleagues examined the issue in exactly the

way athletes view the challenge. The scientists attempted to find out if reducing caloric intake or increasing training workload was more effective in dropping excess body fat. They had six, endurance-trained males create a 1,000-calorie-per-day deficit for seven days by either exercising more while maintaining their caloric intake, or by eating less while keeping exercise the same. With 1,000 calories of increased exercise daily (comparable to running an additional 10 miles or cycling about 30 more miles each day), the subjects averaged a 1.67-pound (0.76kg) weight loss in a week. The subjects eating 1,000 fewer calories each day lost 4.75 (2.16kg) pounds on average for the week. According to this study, the old adage that “a calorie is a calorie” doesn’t hold true. At least in the short term, restricting food intake appears to have a greater return on the scales than does increasing training workload.

Notice that I said “on the scales.” The reduced-food-intake group in this study unfortunately lost a greater percentage of muscle than did the increased-exercise group. That is an ineffective way to lose weight. If the scales show you’re lighter, but you have less muscle to create power, the trade off is not a good one.

How can you reduce calories and yet maintain muscle mass? Unfortunately, that question hasn’t been answered for athletes, but it has been for sedentary women. I suspect the conclusions are still applicable. A few years ago Italian researchers had 25 subjects eat only 800 calories a day for 21 days. Ten ate a diet made up of 45-percent protein and 35-percent carbohydrate. Fifteen ate 20-percent protein and 60-percent carbohydrate. Both were restricted to 20 percent of calories from fat. The two groups lost similar amounts of weight, but there was a significantly greater loss of muscle on the high-carbohydrate, low-protein diet.

So what’s the bottom line? It appears that when calories are reduced to lose weight, which is more effective than increasing training workload, the protein content of the diet must be kept at near normal levels. This, of course, assumes that you’re eating adequate protein before starting the diet, which many athletes aren’t. When training hard, a quality source of protein should be included in every meal. This may be some combination of meat, fish, shellfish, poultry and eggs.

[4]

The Science of Cyclingsubmitted by Kathi Best

The author has based this section in part on the French book, "Guide du Vélo en Montagne" published by Altigraph, as well an Internet article by Rainer Pivit, originally published in German in Radfahren magazine, and translated by Damon Rinard. For the articles see the url: http://damonrinard.com/aero/formulas.htm.

As a cyclist, you have an intuitive understanding of the conditions that affect your riding speed. The following mathematical treatment and discussion, therefore, is given simply as an intellectual exercise. Perhaps you will enjoy knowing the "whys" of riding speed—and therefore distance . Perhaps you will understand better some of the dynamics of road bike racing, and of long distance touring.

Your biking speed depends upon your continuous power output to overcome the forces that slow down your bike: friction, air resistance, and (when going up hill), gravity.

Watts (like horsepower) are a measure of power. In the formulas below "Wrider" means the number of continuous watts of power put out by the efforts of the cyclist. 1000 watts = 1.34 horsepower. "Power" measures "force" times "distance" per unit of "time". Example: Moving an object against a resistive force of 1 pound, for a distance of 10 feet, in 1 second takes the same power as moving it against a force of 10 pounds for a distance of 1 foot in one second, or against a force of 100 pounds for 1/10 of a foot in a second. For a bicycle, it is evident that, using different gear combinations, a cyclist can apply the same power input to either go at high speeds (long distances/second) against low counteracting forces, or at low speeds to overcome high counteracting forces.

Overall Formula:x means "multliplied by". ^2 means squared, i.e., (V+Vwind) x (V+Vwind). The C's in the above formula are various constant amounts, which vary according to the input units used. Details are discussed below.

Wrider = Cfriction x V x P + Cair x (V + Vwind)^2 x V+ Cslope x P x Slope% x V + accelerationUsing the above equation, if we know the total power put out by a rider (Wrider) the coefficient of friction of the bicycle (Cfriction) the weight of the rider (P), the component of the Wind speed acting against (or in favor of) the rider, and the percentage of slope (Slope%), (and if we assume that the rider is not constantly braking and accelerating up to speed) we can calculate the speed (V) that will be attained by the rider, and therefore the distance he will cover in an elapse of time.

Now let us examine the power required on a more detailed basis.

Power of the Rider:A completely inexperienced rider, for long periods of time, can output 50 or 100 watts of leg power; whereas a Tour de France racer is said to be able to generate 500 watts or more of continuous power—still not up to a horse, but mighty impressive, none the less!

Experience teaches cyclists how much power they can put out on a sustained basis. Some riders may choose to use a heart rate (pulse) monitor as a supplement to their experience: during the course of a ride pulse correlates directly with power output (though not over weeks or years, as aerobic capacity may change). If there were no forces resisting the cyclist, even the inexperienced rider could accelerate a bike indefinitely—up even to rocket speeds. But there are resisting forces.

Friction:At low speeds and on flat surfaces and with no wind, the only resistance that counts comes from friction. That friction goes up proportionally to speed and to total weight. If you have ridden at a gym a stationery bicycle that uses a frictional brake, you know that the total effort required goes up proportionally to speed.

It is less obvious that friction should go up linearly with total weight. In fact, it doesn't exactly. The major components of friction, however, do rise more or less linearly with weight, such as the friction of the wheels on the hubs and the rolling resistance on the road. Compared to these, the resistance caused by pedals, pedal bracket, chain and derailleur are minor. As a first approximation, then, we put down the following formula:Watts_to_overcome_friction = 0.1 x V x P

When the velocity V is measured in meters/second and the weight P is measured in kilos, for a decent quality bike, with well-inflated racing tires on a smooth road, the metric Cfriction is said to be about 0.1. We can calculate, therefore, that at 5 meters per second, a rider and bike weighing 80 kilos faces a frictional resistance of about 40 watts. Poor quality bicycles and especially poor road surfaces can substantially increase the coefficient of 0.1, whereas the highest quality bikes on smooth roads may have coefficients as low as 0.08.

[5]

“Science of Cycling” (cont’d)

One meter per second is 3.6 kilometers per hour or 2.237 miles per hour, and one kilo is about 2.2 pounds. So in American units, roughly: watts_to_overcome_friction = .02 x MPH x Pounds. For our 176 pound rider plus bike going 11.2 miles per hour we calculate 39+ watts of resistance, approximately the same result as above.

Lightweight riders have an advantage over equally strong heavier ones. Similarly, riders with lighter bicycles and lower touring loads have an advantage. This advantage is proportionally more obvious at touring (slow) speeds, where air resistance is not a factor.

If friction were the only resistance, a typical untrained rider could zoom along at 28 miles per hour, putting out 100 watts to do so. The better the bicycle and the better the road surface, the faster would be his or her speed. But air resistance most definitely comes into play.

Air and Wind Resistance:Air is a "fluid", so to speak, though a thin one. When you move through a fluid faster, it puts up much more resistance. If you have been swimming, you know you can move your hand very easily in the water if you do so very slowly; but try to move it faster, a huge force is required..

The same is true, as any experienced cyclist knows, in the air. At a few miles per hour, (assuming no wind), you barely feel air resistance, but at 15 miles per hour, it pushes strongly against you. The resistance of fluids—certainly in the case of the wind—goes up with the square of

the velocity, and the faster one goes the more air resistance one encounters. Thus a 10% increase in speed requires a 33% increase in power, and a 25% increase in speed requires almost a doubling of power.

So, suppose you want to go 25% faster? You need to put out almost double the power! Well, at slower speeds, not quite. Because part of your original power was used to overcome the force of friction, and that part of your power needs only to increase 25%. At 12 miles per hour, about half of your total power is used in overcoming friction, and about one-half air resistance. To go 25% faster you need to increase your power about 61%. At 20 mph, four-fifths of your total power is already spent overcoming air resistance. To go 25% faster, you need to increase your total power by 83%.

The formula for the power to overcome air resistance is:W_to_overcome_air_resistance = Cair x (V + Vwind)^2 x V. If there is no wind, it is simply: Cair x V^3.

For the metric system, Cair ranges from perhaps 0.45 for a hybrid or upper position on a racing bicycle without baggage, to as low as 0.36 for full racing position on a conventional racing bike. Thus, a rider using a hybrid or the upright position on a racing bike, traveling at 5 meters per second (11.2 mph), will need to expend 56 watts to overcome air resistance. In racing position on a racing bike, the rider need to expend only 45 watts.

In American units, Cair ranges from approximately 0.04 for a hybrid and 0.032 for racing position on a racing bike. At 11.2 miles per hour (5 meters per second) on a hybrid bicycle, we calculate (as before) 56 Watts of resistance. Therefore, at 11.2 miles per hour, approximately slightly more than one-half of all power generated is spent overcoming air resistance—more on a mountain bike, less in racing position on a racing bicycle.

The previous paragraphs assume no wind. If there is a wind, we need to consider it, but not the total wind speed; rather only the portion of that speed that is against or behind the rider. Obviously, if the wind is directly behind a rider at the strong speed of 20 miles per hour, that rider will be able to ride much faster. If that rider could output 90 or 100 Watts of power, and thus ride about 12 mph in no wind, he will now be able to ride at perhaps 24 miles per hour. (At that speed he will have twice the frictional resistance but only a bit of wind resistance.)

On the contrary, if the wind is totally against this rider at 20 miles per hour, a biking speed of about 3 miles per hour for this occasional biker brings the equation into balance. If a Tour de France racer can put out 5 times the power of an occasional biker, then he should be able to ride about twice as fast on the same bike , that is, for (say) a hybrid bike, about 24 miles per hour rather than 12 (about 40 km/hr rather than 20). The racer of course actually goes faster than this: because his bicycle and clothing and position are more efficient and aerodynamic; and because he rides in a pack that greatly lowers air resistance.

[6]

“Science of Cycling” (cont’d)

Gravity Climbing Slopes:While climbing steeper hills gravity becomes important, and air resistance becomes unimportant.It is easy to see why: On the way up slopes, gravity greatly reduces speed, and at low speeds, air resistance is insignificant.

The formula for Gravity is: W_to_overcome_gravity = 9.81 x P x %slope x V.Where Cslope is a coefficient, P is your weight, and V is your speed on the road.The faster you go, the more you weigh, and the steeper the slope, the more power is required to take you up the hill.

The "percent of slope" technically measures the altitude gained per horizontal distance. Although this measure may be the one you see in signs, documents and formulas, it is not very useful in everyday bicycle touring. It measures the base of the triangle, not the hypotenuse along which runs the road.

For every day road biking and for use in this formula, we measure the altitude gained per distance of road. Maps or an altimeter show you the elevation gain, and your trip computer shows you the distance ridden. For low percent slopes, the two numbers are very, very close. For higher grades, the two numbers are still quite close: An 18% grade measured from the road corresponds to an 18.3 % slope measured from the base.

In Metric units, the formula uses weight in kilos, speed in meters per second, and a constant of 9.81. A rider weighing 80 kilos (with bike), riding at 2 meters per second (7.2 kilometers/hour) up a 6% slope must generate 94 Watts of power to overcome the force of gravity.

In American units we use pounds, miles per hour and a constant of 2. Thus the same rider and bike, weighing 176 pounds, and traveling at 4.47 miles per hour expends 94 Watts of power to overcome the force of gravity, as previously calculated.

At this speed (7.2 kilometers/hour - 4.47 miles/hour) our rider only needs to expend 16 Watts to overcome friction. Assuming that there is no wind, air resistance consumes less than 4 Watts. A total of 114 Watts of power is needed to climb the hill at this speed. That is the most this hypothetical occasional rider can muster.

If the hill is twice as steep—12%, this rider can only proceed at 3.6 kilometers per hour, or about 2.25 miles per hour. He must use his lowest mountain-bike gears. Maybe he would be better off pushing his bike up the hill!

Descending Slopes:On curvy mountain roads, total speed will be limited to what is safe. Power and gravitational acceleration make no difference.

In straight line descents without pedaling, on wide roads (ignoring the effects of wind), bikes will accelerate until wind resistance plus frictional resistance equals the acting force of gravity.

We take the general formula above, set the power input to zero, drop out the terms for the wind, and put the coefficient for gravity as a negative number, since gravity will be helping the rider, rather than opposing him.

0 = Cfriction x V x P + Cair x v^2 x v - Cslope x P x% slope x VSince V appears in every term on the right side of the equation, and since 0 is on the left, V can be dropped out of the equation. The equation now represents forces, rather than power.In metric units, 0 = Cair x V^2 + 0.1 x P - 9.81 x P x %slope. Transposing and factoring terms, we have:V^2 = P / Cair x (9.81 x %slope - 0.1)For the 80 kilo rider (including bike and baggage) on a 7% slope, with a 0.45 aerodynamic coefficient (hybrid) V will be 10.21 meters/sec = 36.8 kilometers/hour = 22 miles per hour. On a 12% slope, the speed obtained without pedaling and no wind would be 52 kilometers/hour or 31 miles/hour.

If the individual rider reduces air resistance by 20%, to a coefficient of 0.36, he will descend slopes of 7% and 12% at speeds that will be respectively 11% and 8% higher; i.e., at 41 and 56 kilometers per hour (25 and 34 miles per hour). Even if a rider wished to add pedal power at these speeds, his bicycle is unlikely to be equipped with the gears to do so. Tail winds and head winds can considerably effect the actual speed of a descent. Concluding remarks:Whereas, on the flat, and out of the pack, the bike racers with the most power and best aerodynamic position will do the best, even if he weighs slightly more, when it comes to going up steep hills, the rider with the best ratio of power to total weight will excel. (Coming down straight, steep hills, the rider with more weight will gain an advantage, but less so, as his speed does not pick up proportionally.) Since most of us are the weight we are, and have the power we have, and own the bicycle we own, the above mathematics are perhaps of theoretical interest only. For racers, it has always been obvious that it pays to lose fat from body and bike, to improve aerodynamic efficiency, to cut friction, and to increase personal power.

[7]

Not Your Average Tuna Sandwich!by Jessi Thompson

Recipe***1 french baguette (I use whole wheat/grain)

1 6-8 oz tuna steak1 bay leaf

5 whole peppercornJuice of 1 lemon

3 T capers drained¼ red onion chopped

1 can of artichoke hearts in water (15 oz. can) coarsely chopped1/2c chopped black olives

1/4c flat leaf parsley choppedcoarse black pepper to taste

2-3 T olive oil

Directions1. Simmer on med heat: tuna, bay leaf, ½ of lemon juice, peppercorns

2. Cook until barely done through

3. Let tuna cool and break it up (don’t save water from cooking)

4. Mix tuna with other ingredients

5. Crisp up baguette

6. Wrap in wax paper to hold in filling

***I usually double this recipe and use the remainder on top of spinach for a salad or for yummy leftovers. Thanks to Leni Hauer for sharing it with me!

Questions:Questions:

!!Water vs. Sport Drinks?Water vs. Sport Drinks?

Long duration endurance events require Long duration endurance events require ingestion of Sport Drinks because:ingestion of Sport Drinks because:

* Increased need for fuel (* Increased need for fuel (carbscarbs.).)

* Prevention of * Prevention of HyponatremiaHyponatremia

-- fluid/electrolyte imbalancefluid/electrolyte imbalance

-- too much watertoo much water

-- too little sodiumtoo little sodium

[8]

Board of Directors

• Kathi Best - Social Director• Kevin Best - Vice President• Kim Ellis - Treasurer• Greg Gallagher - Cat Walker• Natalie Gallagher - Newsletter Director• Ben Greenfield - Website Director• Mark Hodgson - Team Event Director• Sam Picicci - Uniform Director• Jim Powers - Membership Director• Jessi Thompson - Secretary• Roger Thompson - President• Scott Ward - Marketing Director• Kirk Wood-Gaines - Mentor

Director

We would like to extend a

generous thank you to our

truly amazing sponsors!

The Board of Directors, Sponsorsand The Calendar of Upcoming Events...

July/August CalendarTraining Opportunities:

North Spokane --

Monday - Friday @ 5:30-7 am: Masters Swim at Whitworth College $75/month

Tuesday evenings: BLTs @ 5 & 6 @ rotating places around 7-Mile. Watch the Tri Forum for details!

Saturdays @ time TBA: Probable outside bike ride meeting location & time posted weekly on the Tri-Forum.

Mon. & Wed. evenings @ 5:30: Open water swim, starts at the Liberty Lake Village Beach. Always a variety of swimming levels, so please feel welcome to join the fun!

Races/Runs:

• July 19: Tiger Triathlon @ Colville, WA

• Chelan Man Multisport Weekend @ Chelan, WA

• July 26 @ 10 a.m.: Tri Fusion Kids’ Triathlon @ Deer Lake, WA

• Aug. 2: Medical Lake Mini Tri @ Medical Lake, WA

• Aug. 3: Troika 1/2 IM @ Medical Lake, WA

• Aug. 9: Coeur d’Alene Olympic Tri @ Cd’A, ID

• Aug. 16: First Annual Hayden View Triathlon @ Hayden Lake, WA

Upcoming Events:

Clinics: Wednesday, July 23: Nutritional

Seminar at Champion Sports @ 6:30 pm!

Next Membership Meeting:August 20th, 2008 @ 6:30 p.m.: General membership meeting at location TBA.

Next Tri Fusion Kids Club Meeting: Wednesday, October 9th @ Brentwood Elementary from 6:15-7:45 p.m.