Run with Eric [Search results for Energy] 

The front page of The Daily Telegraph today has a story that leads: £224 EXTRA ON POWER BILLS FOR CUSTOMERS WHO DON'T PAY ONLINE. Shocking? Hardly. Clutching at straws? Almost certainly. But in clutching at these straws, the national press has instead grasped the wrong end of the stick - again.

Let's forget for a minute how minor a story this actually is to make the front page - apart from anything else, it's PR from price comparison site uSwitch - because it does perfectly fit the average Telegraph reader's suspicious view towards technology (and besides, the accompanying downpage story is GIRLS ARE BORN WITH FEAR OF SPIDERS, SAY SCIENTISTS).

No, let's instead look at the fact that it's a load of bollocks.

The claim is that customers who pay their energy bills in the traditional methods - cash, cheque, blood, children - have to part with more money than those who pay online. This is certainly true. But the story attacks energy providers for roasting that old chestnut 'the digital divide', claiming in its opening sentence:

Nearly 14 million households are being penalised for not setting up an online account to pay their energy bills.

Their bills have been cut. Yes, cut. But online bills have been cut by more, to reward customers for choosing to save paper (because that's obviously the reason they set up an online account). I'm no green freak but I know that cutting down on paper use is A Very Good Thing, and online bills should be encouraged for that very reason.

This is not a tax on people who don't use the internet, as the naysayers (nay)say. To use the same analogy, it's a tax rebate for those who do use it.

Audrey Gallagher, energy expert at Government-funded watchdog Consumer Focus, said, "All too often it's vulnerable customers, such as older people, who lose out", but once again, they're not. 'Older, vulnerable' people are not paying anything more than they used to; they're simply not saving as much as 'younger, invulnerable' online customers.

What kind of dog-in-a-manger society is this, that we can't allow other people to save money if we're not saving it as well? Why don't we firebomb building societies with a better interest rate than our own while we're at it?

A couple years ago, someone handed me a copy of the The Paleo Diet for Athletes, by Dr. Loren Cordain & Joe Friel. In the book's pages, the authors claimed that eating a diet closer to what our Paleolithic ancestors ate has amazing benefits. A diet that eliminates grains, dairy products and legumes and replaces them with an increased intake of animal proteins and healthy fats, along with plenty of vegetables and fruit results in improved body composition, more energy, superior athletic performance, reduced illness and reduction in the risk factors for the modern long-term illnesses like heart disease and diabetes.

Ever the cynic, after reading the book, I set it aside as another fad diet (Adkins, Zone, Hollywood, South Beach) that promised incredible results, yet failed to deliver. But several times over the last several months, I had conversations with friends and fellow athletes who embarked on this way of eating and reported results quite similar to what Dr. Cordain and Mr. Friel claimed. I began to do some research, discovering that Paleo and similar eating philosophies (Primal, PaNu) seems to have nearly universally positive results for those willing to embrace the change. Maybe there was something to this after all.

On March 1, I began my own Paleo journey, adhering to the following principles.

What I stopped eating (or ate a LOT less of)

Month 1:

• No grains (including breads and other baked goods, pasta, cereal, granola, oats, quinoa and rice)
• Minimal dairy (occassionally using some butter for cooking and a small amounts of cheeses like feta or in salads). No milk, no yogurt, no cream. Of course, no ice cream. Ouch.
• No legumes (including all beans, peanuts and soy products).
• Starchy carbohydrates: potatoes
• Refined sugar products: soft drinks (including things like packaged iced teas... ever read the nutrition label of an Arizona Iced Tea?), candy.

• Still no grains, except for the occasional cheat meal.
• Minimal dairy, but now have added full fat organic whole milk as an indulgence (maybe a glass a week) and whole cream in my coffee.
• Dramatically reduced legumes: I try to avoid peanuts, soy... will have some black beans on occasion.
• Starchy carbs (sweet potatoes, parsnips) only immediately before or after hard exercise sessions. I am still avoiding potatoes.

• Fundamentally, Paleo or Primal eating is about "real" food. Unprocessed, as close to the source as you can get. If it's a packaged food, the fewer ingredients the better. But ideally, this style of eating minimizes consumption of foods that come in boxes, cans or jars.
• Meat: beef, chicken, fish, pork. A quick aside about meat. It is pretty well-documented that there is wide variation in quality when it somes to the meat available at the grocery store. Most "factory" cows and chickens are fed a non-optimal diet of grains and soy. When possible, we purchase pasture-raised, organic or wild meat. In the case of beef, we acquired a 1/2 steer from a local supplier, so all our beef at home is grass-fed. We buy the best chicken available at the local groceries, but due to cost and availability this isn't always pastured or organic. Same goes with the fish; wild when possible, but sometimes we eat farm-raised.
• Eggs: Organic or pasture-raised when possible... but again, sometimes we are limited by what is on hand at the local Wal-mart or Kroger.
• Vegetables: broccoli, asparagus, various squashes, onions, mixed greens, leafy greens (kale, spinach, swiss chard), bell peppers... the list goes on. You get the idea, lots of veggies.
• Fruit: berries, mandarin oranges, apples, bananas.
• Nuts and seeds: almonds (and almond butter, milk), pecans, macadamia.

• Breakfast: scrambled eggs and fruit (apples, bananas) and on the weekend, bacon.
• Lunch: Big salad with greens, colorful veggies and chicken, tuna, beef and turkey. Basic oil and vinegar dressing or homemade vinaigrette.
• Dinner: Steak, chicken, fish, some cooked veggies and a green salad.
• Snacks: a handful of nuts, some trail mix, celery or apples with almond butter, baby carrots, sliced red bell peppers with some hummus. Will have a protein shake (with almond milk and some fruit) after a big workout.

• Daily calories: 1876
• I was somewhat surprised by how low this was. For reference, my Basal Metabolic Rate (daily calories burned at rest) is 1986.
• Carbs (g): 139 29.64% of total
• Here, Mark Sisson of MarksDailyApple.com talks about an ideal range of 50-100g per day for weight loss and 100-150g for maintenance, plus roughly 100g for each hour of training.
• Fat (g): 94.5 45.3% of total
• Nothing remarkable here... certainly more than the 44-78g range recommended by the Mayo Clinic, but not surprising considering all the nuts, avocado, healthy oils, and of course, a good amount of animal fat.
• Protein (g): 117.3 25.01% of total
• Way more than the FDA's 56g Recommended Daily Allowance (RDI), but quite close to the.7-1.0g per lb of lean body weight guideline recommended by many fitness trainers for those looking to increase lean muscle mass.
• Fiber (g): 24.69
• Depending on where you look, most experts recommend a fiber intake between 20-35g per day. I ended up well within this range... despite no grains. Amazing to think vegetables have fiber. Whooda thunk?

On April 1st, I upped the intensity of my training somewhat added in some longer cycling sessions, while continuing my strength training as well. Total volume came in just under 65 minutes avg per day (72% cycling/rowing/running, 28% strength training)

Weight change.
March 1: 209.6.
April 1: 193.6
May 1: 189.0

Very dramatic weight loss the first two weeks (about 12 lbs), since then it has slowed to about 1 lb per week.

Performance and strength gains are evident. A few data points:

One set standard pushup max:
March 1: 43, May 2: 78
TRX Low Row/Atomic Pushups (aka 40/40 challenge):
March 1: 18 pushups/26 low rows; April 29: 40 pushups/41 low rows

There was some initial impact on my endurance the first two weeks... my energy level crashed after about 20 minutes into any extended cardio workout. But this subsided and my energy levels and endurance improved and exceeded previous levels after this transition period. In fact, I set a new indoor rowing half marathon personal best on March 27 and my strength on my bike is improving every day.

Overall impressions on changing to this way of eating:

I'm not going to lie. The first couple of weeks, I was craving bread, rice and pasta... it was such a cornerstone of my meals that it seemed strange to have a meal without some starchy carb in it. But, now I am used to it and am perfectly satisfied with a plate full of veggies with some protein, whether its in the form of a big salad, or some cooked veggies and a nice portion of roasted chicken or steak.

Benefits:

• Improved body composition: I am losing body fat consistently, and thanks to a consistent exercise routine, building lean body mass and improving strength. What else can I ask for?
• Energy levels: More consistent throughout the day. No post-meal "food comas". No energy crash in the afternoon.
• Sleep: Generally improved, once I'm out, I am out until about 8-9 hours later.
• More consistant hunger patterns: I am rarely "starving". I eat three times per day... moderately sized meals, but I rarely find myself super hungry like before.

• Eating while out or traveling: paleo/low carb options can be hard to come by while eating out or on the road, particularly for breakfast. I am getting used to special ordering.
• Food preparation time: So many of the quick foods available are grain based, so it can be inconvenient to cook every meal. Grabbing a pizza on the way home from the kid's softball practice is no longer in the cards. Or if we do, I have to make my own meal while they eat pizza. Which begs the question, are my kids eating paleo? Yes and no, but that's the subject of another post.
• Cost: Protein is expensive. Carbs are cheap. Enough said.

One (or rather two) of the most interesting and appealing things about blogging is its immediacy and its brevity. Why wait a day for a full-scale investigation into a story by a national newspaper when you can read a journalist's opinions on it straightaway, and in just five minutes?

Then I come in and cock it all up by blogging regularly once a week and at great length. I suppose one way of looking at it is that I'm stripping down the boundaries, man, and I'm not restricting myself to a blog's... restrictions. But alternatively, it might just be that I trust my readers to have good attention spans and a good enough memory to return later if they're short on time.

Why am I saying this now? Because, writing a piece on American politics as I speak – well, not literally, since I'm obviously writing this as I speak and as it happens I'm not actually speaking at all – I can tell you that it is going to be epic. There's just too much to say. Sorry.

So if you're looking for a quick opinion on the American presidential election, here it is: I am expecting and dreading a Republican victory. But if you want a bit more than that, read on. And if you don't have long to read this, as you are perfectly entitled to be, what with this being a blog and everything, you can always take a look at the other stories and bookmark the first one for later.

Hell, who am I to give you advice? This blog is for you, not me. I hope you enjoy it. Until next Sunday then.

McCain in the fast lane but no home straight yet
God Save The Queen
Medicine flatlining in the comedy stakes
Alex Ferguson is a tosser
Admin: a word to the wise

No blood on the carpet, but then it wasn't that dirty a fight. The first televised debate between John McCain and Barack Obama has been and gone and there was no clear winner. It was a surprisingly clean affair, with Obama's assertiveness, using the words "when I'm President", seeming a bit incongruous in a debate between two candidates striving to seek legitimacy rather than state a case for election.

Whether this will last remains to be seen. But equally fascinating were the shenanigans on McCain's side beforehand. The Republican candidate tried to postpone the debate to allow a greater concentration on the current financial crisis. He did not succeed.

It may look like weakness, but trying to delay the debate was actually a very shrewd move by McCain. Not only did it give the appearance of a candidate in touch with the common man worried where his money's going; it neutralised the blow the financial crisis has had on his campaign by showing that he acknowledged the problem and wanted to resolve it straightaway. Obama, on the other hand, was in danger of appearing a power-hungry outsider not interested in the people he wants to lead.

But he pulled it back with aggression and good old common sense. You want to help the economy, John? Don't we all? But people want to know – now – what you're planning to do and I don't see why that should happen behind closed doors. Doing two things at once is an integral part of leading the country and hey, if you're not ready to do that, I'm happy to step in.

The bail-out is interesting. It looks like a bit of a rabbit out of a hat, but it was always on the cards. Matt, the cartoonist in The Telegraph, drew a fantastic cartoon, reproduced here with thanks, that sums it up quite well.

And the debate itself? Well... it's complicated – which is why analysts are choosing to strip it down by saying that McCain won on the all-important foreign policy front, but it was essentially a draw. I'm not sure about that. Obama made the better points but McCain made the better appearance and sadly, that's what's going to count. I would say that although neither candidate emerged a clear winner, McCain probably just edged ahead in the stakes.

He drove home the experience card. I mean, he rammed it home. Everything new that Obama suggested was brought back to his alleged inexperience, and although that is his stock response, McCain was able to highlight

his own experience to bring up good decisions he made on foreign policy (apparently there are some) earlier in his career. At one point he reacted to Obama's plan to negotiate with foreign threats by saying, "So let me get this right: we sit down with Ahmadinejad and he says, 'We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth' and we say, 'No, you're not'? Oh please." That was damaging. Even though McCain was parodying Obama's supposed naïveté to an extreme, it made the Democratic senator a laughing stock in the hall and suggested he's... well... just too nice to tackle terrorism.

McCain automatically has the problem of having to admit to mistakes the Republicans have made in office, but he's somehow working it to his advantage. "We Republicans came to power to change government, and government changed us." Humility, however false. If Obama points out errors made in the Bush administration – such as landing the country in $700 billion of debt – then unless McCain is personally involved he can reply, "Yes, we've made mistakes, but I can change that", or even "I regret that mistake but I've learnt from it", bringing him back to the advantage of his experience. He also wins the award for stating the obvious: "We cannot allow a second Holocaust – let's make that very clear." Thanks for that, John.

And most powerfully, he can rally the troops. He used the debate over the financial crisis to say he has a fundamental belief in the American worker, whom he claims is better than any other in the world, to pull America out of this hole through sheer hard work. Who cares that an individual's hard work can't pull a country out of a $700 billion debt? McCain realises how much sweat I put into my job. He's on our side, unlike that black commie. I'm great! We're great! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Combine this with Obama's perceived class-related elitism and you have a problem: how can he win the blue-collar worker away from 'working man' McCain? Yes, this is bollocks, but that's their respective reputations in working-class America.

Obama's wry humour on politics can not only undermine him beside McCain's serious 'I care about American people' approach, but also appear patronising. Saying things like, "We had a 20th century mindset that basically said, 'Well, you know, [Musharraf] may be a dictator, but he's our dictator'" can come across as belittling the American public, suggesting they can't understand global politics without it being dumbed down, and however true that may be, that's not an image you want. It's a shame, because Obama has a head for a great turn of phrase, but his superb rhetoric may well act against him, not for him.

He also stuttered a bit in the debate, which I wasn't expecting, and has the unfortunate verbal tic of saying "y'know" a lot. However quickly he says it and however hard he swallows it, that "y'know" makes him appear less confident and less certain about his views. McCain's catchphrase seems to be "I'll tell ya", which is a lot more grabbing. Amazingly, his is often the real oratory.

The fact is that McCain 'won' the debate, at least on foreign policy, because he connects with more Americans. If one candidate responds to a question about Russia by talking about energy resources, and the other says he looked into Putin's eyes and saw three letters: a K, a G and a B, guess which will have workers talking by the water cooler about him. Yes, it's cheesy, yes, it's glib, but it's popular and it's going to win him the election.

I'm sorry. Excuse my pessimism. But mark my words: come Christmas, John McCain is probably going to be President of the United States of America.

We're in trouble.

Not another poll saying the Tories are ahead of us. I'm not holding a bloody election. I'm Prime Minister, not Cameron. We need to do something. What do people care about? Quick, Bryant, hand me that Daily Mail. Ah, the monarchy, eh? Very well – let's do something about it. That'll show 'em who's boss.

After a constitutional review by MP Chris Bryant, the Government is planning to rejig the way succession of the throne runs in this country. The law stating that Catholics cannot be King or Queen, and indeed that anyone inheriting the throne must make before parliament a declaration rejecting Catholicism, is to be thrown out, and so too is the requirement that the crown is automatically passed to a male heir. This means that Prince William's firstborn would be monarch upon his death even she was female.

It's a sound suggestion that obviously makes a lot of sense – there's no reason why even monarchy, the least democratic concept in the country, should be party to sexism and Catholic-bashing. I'm sure it's news that thrills Catholics and women alike, not to mention Catholic women. Finally, that insurmountable barrier is gone. They too can be Queen.

Hang on one crazy little minute though – don't you still have to be part of the royal family to do that? Isn't there some sort of requirement for someone to be born to a monarch to become one? Isn't this basically a minor amendment to an undemocratic system, perpetuating an antiquated outdated practice through supposed modernisation, and probably designed to get people behind the Labour Government again even though it affects them in absolutely no way?

I do love how people are celebrating this 'widening out' of succession, as if anyone can be King or Queen of the country now. It doesn't quite work like that. And it's a bit stupid to claim the current rules prohibiting women and Catholics from taking the throne 'clashes with the Human Rights Act'. The whole bloody idea of monarchy clashes with the Human Rights Act. Stop trying to polish a tiara-shaped turd.

Still, it's just making it fairer to those who are in line to the throne, and that runs deeper than you might think. The current law banning Catholics from the throne also applies to sons and daughters of Catholics, and those who marry them (honestly, this makes Catholics sound like mutants or something). Earlier this year Princess Anne's son Peter Phillips married Autumn Kelly, who was baptised a Catholic. He would have lost his place as 11th in line for the throne (blimey, that was a close one) but Kelly recanted her Catholicism.

Things have changed a little since the days of Thomas More. Put a crown and a sceptre in front of a wavering Catholic and they might just do a quick St. Peter impression – Jesus who?

Are you CTD? An FLK? NFN? How about GROLIES? Let's hope not. But rest assured you won't be for long – these abbreviations are falling out of fashion.

In medical circles these terms used to be thrown around like confetti, but apparently, no longer. Since you ask, they are acronyms used to describe patients, and just to warn you, most of them aren't that positive. CTD means 'Circling The Drain' (as in, dying quite rapidly), FLK means 'Funny-Looking Kid', NFN stands for 'Normal For Norfolk' (nice) and the innovative GROLIES denotes the description 'Guardian Reader Of Low Intelligence in Ethnic Skirt'.

Clearly these are brilliant, and should never fall out of fashion. My favourite was once DTS, used to describe obese patients. It means 'Danger To Shipping'. Now, though, I have fallen in love with the medical phrase TEETH, an abbreviated form of 'Tried Everything Else; Try Homeopathy'. One more secret of the medical world blown apart there.

But these acronyms aren't being used much any more, and who can be surprised? We live in a compensation culture: if you can sue somebody, you sue somebody. Twice. Surgeons are in constant fear of losing thousands if they don't get an operation exactly, perfectly right; why are they going to take risks with their job, reputation and wallet by calling a patient 'GPO' (Good for Parts Only)? What if the patient finds out? The doctor's immediately trying to settle out of court.

I don't know. Modern life is just ruining medical comedy. To quote Thornton Reed in Garth Marenghi's Darkplace: "The main reason I went into [medicine] was for the laughs – that and the pussy, and the pussy dried up a long time ago if you get my drift."

Sorry. Please don't sue me.

I've never liked Alex Ferguson.

When I was a naive young Spurs fan (i.e. from toddlerhood up until a few months ago, when I tore up my figurative season ticket through protest at how the club treated Dimitar Berbatov) I became increasingly frustrated with Manchester United grabbing last-minute equalisers/winners against us in the eighth minute of questionable injury time, and for this I blamed Ferguson's obvious manipulation

of referees and referees' assistants. Add to this his supreme arrogance, his absurd excuses and above all his incessant whining about referees being biased against his team – even though United have clearly had more luck with decisions than any other club in the world, ever – and you get a man that I would immediately consign to Room 101 without a second thought for his family, his friends if he has any, or the mistreatment of a grand Orwellian concept by BBC television.

But in recent months and years my intense hatred towards this waste of human tissue has been quelled slightly by another manager of equal detestitude (yes, I made that up). Arsene Wenger. Never before has such a whining hypocritical coward walked this Earth, and frankly I find it hilarious whenever Arsenal lose just because their manager is an arse.

But Ferguson's comments after their 2-0 win over Bolton have brought it all flooding back. Manchester United got a dodgy penalty after a fantastic tackle by Jlloyd JSamuel of JBolton was adjudged to be indecent. United took the chance and took the lead after an hour of being held at 0-0. Bolton boss Gary Megson called the decision "absolute nonsense" and "an absolute howler" (someone give the man a thesaurus). Ferguson responded, "I was surprised because it looked as though their lad got a foot on the ball," then, "But Rob Styles turned us down four or five times last year so maybe it is payback time. But he still owes us another four."

SHUT THE HELL UP. There is not some great conspiracy against your team, Fergs; on the contrary, referees have spent the last 15 years losing themselves in your colon. If it's beginning to even up now (I'm told decisions have finally been going against United) then that's justice, and to be honest, not enough of it. Rob Styles has not been giving bad decisions against Manchester United, and if he has it's pathetic bringing it up now. Let. It. Go.

I've never liked Alex Ferguson.

Sorry, just a brief bit of shopkeeping. I have recently undertaken a new university course and for my studies I will need to keep a blog. It won't be in the same vein as Huw Davies' Week Spot, and it won't be updated only on Sundays. It will be on this site, or perhaps another site connected by an internal link, but I will endeavour to keep it separate from this review of the week's events. So if, in the next few weeks, you see a new section to this blog, don't be scared - it's all part of the plan.

Thanks.

People don't talk about it much, but you've been there. A injury puts you on the sideline for a few days, maybe longer. Those days turn into a week or two. Maybe three. And the discipline that you apply to your workout regimen also applies to your nutrition. But, when the workout regimen goes south so does the diet and the time off from injury not only results in lost fitness, but a few (more than a few?) extra pounds that makes the road to recovery that much longer.

Last week on a run, I pulled up lame with a strained calf muscle. I felt it starting to hurt about 3 miles into the session and at exactly 3.86 miles (gotta love my Garmin), a sharp pain and I was limping back to car. Fortunately it was only a mile walk back to the car.

I'm not going to lie and say that I'm not frustrated. I am hugely frustrated. This is my third significant, activity-limiting injury, in the last 12 months. Getting old(er) sucks. Last spring, it was achilles tendonitis that had me abandon running for 8 months. In November, I strained a back muscle during an overly vigorous sprint effort on the Concept2. And now this.

For the twenty minute walk back to the car and most of the remaining day, I pondered what to do and how I could preserve the fitness gains I've made over the winter. Running is out for at least a couple weeks. Cycling too. Maybe rowing after a few days since there it's not weight-bearing. Ramp up my strength work. But how do I avoid the dreaded injury-related weight gain.

The Paleo diet had intrigued me for some time. Put simply, it focuses on lean meat, fruits, veggies, nuts and seeds. No dairy. No grains. Granted, I am still learning what is "allowed" and what isn't, so I'm sure I'm eating some things that aren't strictly on the program. And I refuse to cook myself totally separate meals, so there will be some compromises as I prepare meals that both my family and I can eat.

So, on March 1, I decided to give it a try. It is the perfect time as it is never good to drastically change eating habits during a heavy training cycle and my current activity level is low due to the injury. I'm not going to journal every day, but thought I would share the first few days to provide a sense of how it's going.

Tuesday, March 1, Day 1 - Weight 209.6

Breakfast - coffee w/sugar (drinking it black is something I need to work up to), scrambled eggs, sliced apples
Lunch - fruit smoothie (almond milk, strawberries, melon, banana, soy protein powder)
Snack - handful of almonds
Dinner - sauteed chicken thighs (in olive oil), steamed broccoli, green salad with homemade vinaigrette dressing. The rest of the family had brown rice which I skipped.
Snack - 2 oranges

No exercise today. Feel pretty normal, actually. A little hungry at night, but not too bad.

Wednesday, March 2, Day 2 - Weight 204.8 (seriously)

Breakfast - Coffee w/sugar, apples with peanut butter (peanuts are not strictly Paleo, but I haven't had a chance to buy almond butter).
Snack - fruit smoothie (almond milk, strawberries, melon, banana, soy protein powder)
Lunch - mixed green and spinach salad with sliced deli turkey, ham and homemade vinaigrette dressing
Snack - Muscle Milk protein drink
Dinner - Sauteed chicken breast (in olive oil), green peas, pinto beans (opps, not Paleo). Kids had rice as well.

Did an morning 10K (40:49) on the rowing machine. Felt more tired than usual, but that could be due to the fact that I haven't done an aerobic exercise in a week. Evening strength workout. Pushups, core plus 30 min of 30:30 circuits on TRX. Energy a little low today, but surprisingly no hunger pangs.

Another update in a few days.

If you're married and trying to pursue this crazy sport of triathlon, you better have a supportive spouse. And that hold doubly true if you have kids.

Some things that I've learned, through trial and error mostly. A lesser woman would have changed the locks on me, but fortunately for me, my wife, Kelly, cuts me way more slack than I deserve.

Here we go:

1. Spectating at a race is nearly as tiring as actually competing in it. I've been on the other side of the ropes, as it were, on a number of occasions. As an athlete, your mind is occupied with your race, trying to get yourself prepared for a good performance. As a spectator, 50% of your mental energy is spent trying to send good vibes to your loved one, 25% is spent thinking how much you'd rather be in bed and the rest on where you can get some friggin' coffee. A coffee stand near the transition area would clean up!! Ok, so once you get the race area, you stand around, chat with other supporters a bit. And wait. And wait. And wait. And trying to figure out the exact moment when your athlete is going to flash by. How long did she think the swim would take? She started at 6:47 and 30 seconds, a 20 minute swim means she should go by at roughly 7:07 and oh crap, there she goes! Damn it, I didn't have the camera ready!

2. Spectating at a race while simultaneously watching two young kids is HARDER than racing. Seriously. The kids and I watched Kelly compete at the Danskin race at Disneyland recently. Between getting the kids packed up in a stroller while they are still completely asleep, making sure they have food and drink for the day, managing to get them both to go to the bathroom in a porta potty at the same time without disaster (can't leave one alone outside, ya know), prevent them from running out in front of speeding cyclists on the bike course, and calming them down after one of them drops a sippy cup in a lagoon. I was DYING for Kelly to finish just so I could get some help!! And that was a 2 hour race. How she does it for a 5+ hour event like a half-ironman, I honestly have no idea.

3. On a related note, no matter how exhausted you are when you cross the finish line, you better be ready to take over with the kids when you're done. Like I mentioned before, your finish line is your spouse's finish line as well. She (or he) is Finished taking care of the kids. Time to take off the race number and strap on the baby carrier. No complaining about how tired you are... get it?

4. Say goodbye to race expos. Yes, they are full of cool stuff to buy. We all have to procure those last minute items that every triathlete needs like Gu flasks, Co2 cartridges and Lacelocks. Do yourself a favor. Buy that stuff in advance. Get your race number and get out of there. Your spouse and your kids have no desire to be there... and are spending a whole day watching you tomorrow. Don't make 'em waste their day watching you pick out a new race number belt.

4. Race day is all about you, the athlete. And justifiably so, you've trained hard for your event, so come race morning, you deserve the ability to focus, prepare and enjoy your race experience. But, see #3 above. Once you're done, you're done. Save the talk about your next event for a few days down the road... the last thing your spouse wants to hear is more talk about your next heavy training block and another race.

5. So, do something fun for the family the day after, the week after, even the month after your big event. If you do Oceanside 70.3, take the kids to Legoland on Monday (Your legs will appreciate the walking). After Vineman, hit up the wineries and drink some old grape juice. After IM Hawaii, relax on the beach for a few days afterwards and let your spouse indulge in a spa day while you hang with the kids. Let the training and triathlon talk disappear for a while.

There is more to life than triathlon after all. Right?