Change Your Latitude - 57* North Open Water Challenge

sorry for the confusion. hopefully this will make it more clear. i tend to write in a dry tone, but this is meant as a friendly email :) Swimmer A is well cold-acclimated and swims without a wetsuit. Swimmer B is not cold-acclimated and swims with a wetsuit. Which is more prone to a cold-related medical emergency? On average I think B is more prone for a 57F swim (57F would be mild for a cold-acclimated skin swimmer, yet would be extreme for a non-acclimated pool swimmer). A regulation that requires wetsuits would dissuade well-acclimated skin swimmers from applying, thereby increasing the number of non-acclimated wetsuit swimmers, thereby increasing the event's risk of confronting cold-related medical emergencies. To reduce the risk of cold-related medical emergencies, one must somehow assure that all swimmers are swimming within X-percent of their thermal ability regardless of whether they swim skin or wetsuit. Perhaps this means simply asking swimmers not to apply if the swim is outside their thermal comfort zone for their chosen attire (use training swims to push/test thermal envelopes). If I remember correctly, peer reviewed papers that studied the thermal benefits of wetsuits on humans considered X millimeters of neoprene to be equal in terms of heat transfer to 3X millimeters of fat. According to those numbers, a 1/4" layer of body fat is equal to a 2 mm layer of neoprene. That is not a very impressive perspective on the thermal effectiveness of wetsuits. Wearing a wetsuit of course has advantages. For certain swimmers, wetsuits reduce anxiety, which is a huge risk factor when things go south. As a PFD, a wetsuit is hard to beat for OW, though I have seen triathletes who still sink even in a full body wetsuit. Some wetsuits reduce the effort required to swim (not all, for example a 5 mm scuba wetsuit). By reducing the effort, the swimmer might possibly have more energy reserves for dealing with non-cold related emergencies. And of course there is the potential for a placebo effect if the swimmer thinks the wetsuit is more effective than it actually is - that is, the benefit of a positive attitude even if it is artificially propped up. Wetsuits make the swimmer much less visible, but this can be overcome by wearing a brightly colored garment on top, such as a long sleeve synthetic compression shirt, or such as a dive skin. How all this balances out is hard to say. Tough call in my opinion. Two regulations that I think would make any OW event safer are 1) disallow sign ups on event-day and 2) a no-questions-asked policy of full refund if the swimmer shows up but decides not to swim for any reason, however a no show = no refund. again, i tend to write in a dry tone, but this is meant as a friendly email :) hope this helps. cold is cool! (motto of the acclimated)

sorry for the confusion. hopefully this will make it more clear. i tend to write in a dry tone, but this is meant as a friendly email :) Swimmer A is well cold-acclimated and swims without a wetsuit. Swimmer B is not cold-acclimated and swims with a wetsuit. Which is more prone to a cold-related medical emergency? On average I think B is more prone for a 57F swim (57F would be mild for a cold-acclimated skin swimmer, yet would be extreme for a non-acclimated pool swimmer). A regulation that requires wetsuits would dissuade well-acclimated skin swimmers from applying, thereby increasing the number of non-acclimated wetsuit swimmers, thereby increasing the event's risk of confronting cold-related medical emergencies. To reduce the risk of cold-related medical emergencies, one must somehow assure that all swimmers are swimming within X-percent of their thermal ability regardless of whether they swim skin or wetsuit. Perhaps this means simply asking swimmers not to apply if the swim is outside their thermal comfort zone for their chosen attire (use training swims to push/test thermal envelopes). If I remember correctly, peer reviewed papers that studied the thermal benefits of wetsuits on humans considered X millimeters of neoprene to be equal in terms of heat transfer to 3X millimeters of fat. According to those numbers, a 1/4" layer of body fat is equal to a 2 mm layer of neoprene. That is not a very impressive perspective on the thermal effectiveness of wetsuits. Wearing a wetsuit of course has advantages. For certain swimmers, wetsuits reduce anxiety, which is a huge risk factor when things go south. As a PFD, a wetsuit is hard to beat for OW, though I have seen triathletes who still sink even in a full body wetsuit. Some wetsuits reduce the effort required to swim (not all, for example a 5 mm scuba wetsuit). By reducing the effort, the swimmer might possibly have more energy reserves for dealing with non-cold related emergencies. And of course there is the potential for a placebo effect if the swimmer thinks the wetsuit is more effective than it actually is - that is, the benefit of a positive attitude even if it is artificially propped up. Wetsuits make the swimmer much less visible, but this can be overcome by wearing a brightly colored garment on top, such as a long sleeve synthetic compression shirt, or such as a dive skin. How all this balances out is hard to say. Tough call in my opinion. Two regulations that I think would make any OW event safer are 1) disallow sign ups on event-day and 2) a no-questions-asked policy of full refund if the swimmer shows up but decides not to swim for any reason, however a no show = no refund. again, i tend to write in a dry tone, but this is meant as a friendly email :) hope this helps. cold is cool! (motto of the acclimated)