New Alpinism
|
The Zone 1 bulk cardio is meant to improve your bodies ability to produce ATP aerobically through the krebs cycle and increasing mitochondrial density. It is that simple. Run your heart rate much high than that and your body with will start using glycogen stores which produce a higher levels of lactate. More lactate will result in lower blood Ph which will lead to muscle failure and a slowed recovery. |
|
GR Johnson wrote:The Zone 1 bulk cardio is meant to improve your bodies ability to produce ATP aerobically through the krebs cycle and increasing mitochondrial density. It is that simple. Run your heart rate much high than that and your body with will start using glycogen stores which produce a higher levels of lactate. More lactate will result in lower blood Ph which will lead to muscle failure and a slowed recovery. Bulk low heart rate training is boring and time consuming, but extremely effective in all endurance sports.I buy all that, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the effects of a pure zone 1 workout would be inactivated by following that workout with a pure zone 4 workout. An alternate possibility is that both pathways could be activated in parallel, just as when you eat a meal containing carbs, protein, and fat, three different digestive pathways are activated. To me ths is something that could only be demonstrated experimentally, not via thought experiment, and I was curious to know if anyone had hard data on it. Luckily for me, by the way, I actually enjoy the Zone 1 training quite a bit...kind of meditative for me as opposed to boring. |
|
Reference to mixing Zone 1 and Zone 3 same day: that would be a mistake. A better idea is to schedule your strength/weightlifting day with zone 3. Wait a couple of days between zone 3 and Zone 1. |
|
I've read the book and implementing much of it, especially the Killer Core and General Strength programs. It is a very good book, and the sidebars are interesting reading. Regarding the focus on Zone 1 base, periodization, and slowing building up time and intensity, the book follows a well-charted path. Anyone who has trained for long distance running, cycling, or triathlon should be familiar with the concepts. But buy the book. |
|
Hey Johm, the weekly training log is on his personal website ( d284f45nftegze.cloudfront.n…), but the quarterly volume log isn't. |
|
beytzim said: "I began the book's workouts a couple of weeks ago in training for Liberty Ridge. Assuming a max elevation gain of 4000' and pack weight of less than 45lbs, I've calculated the workouts below: (my home hill is 1100' high and takes about 40 minutes to ascend and 20 minutes to descend. |
|
thanks all for the great insight on this book. Being more of a skier and looking to do more ski mountaineering....How do you all feel the concepts in the book can translate to a more skiing centric goals? |
|
Eric Bonin wrote:thanks all for the great insight on this book. Being more of a skier and looking to do more ski mountaineering....How do you all feel the concepts in the book can translate to a more skiing centric goals?The physiology of endurance and strength training, and therefore most of their advice, is the same. The key thing is to identify the appropriate exercises and modes for ski mountaineering in particular. I think you would be in a good position to take the Basic Mountaineering periodization program and just do as much of your aerobic volume on skis as reasonable. I should add that the advice on nutrition, altitude and acclimatization, and mental fitness would not change. |
|
Todd, as per the book, you count the elevation gain per day. I am training specifically for a specific climb as per the book. Ascent times vary on type of terrain, gradient, and pack weight. I put up my program for programming advice and to show a real world example of following the book's methodology to the letter. |
|
Optimistic wrote: I've actually been on a calorie-restricted diet for about 6 weeks. As I mentioned above, it had been going really well for several weeks and then hit a plateau, which suggested to me that I had gotten into a "fasted" state where the metabolism slows down quite a bit in order to squeeze every possible calorie out of the available intake. HIIT is felt to be a way to counter this fasted response and raise the metabolism. Prior to the HIIT/Zone 1 combo, the exercise was basically all Zone 3 (bike and treadmill) alternating with Recovery/Zone 1-ish (bouldering at the gym). Related or not, when the HIIT started, the weight loss plateau ended, with no change in caloric intake. Just sayin'.Errr...am I missing something or could it just be that HIIT burns calories, leading to a bigger calorie deficit, leading to more weightloss? In my experience, it's always come down to calories in vs. calories out. You cut calories or increase exercise, lose weight for a bit then plateau, repeat the above until you hit the desired weight. I tend to have difficulty cutting calories below a certain point (feels like starving) so I prefer a blend of cardio / calorie restriction. I've tried both HIIT and zone 1 cardio and haven't noticed any difference except that HIIT seems harder to recover from. Then again I used to be a competitive distance runner so I think I'm probably just more accustomed to long, slow runs rather than sprints. YMMV |
|
Ryan Watts wrote: Errr...am I missing something or could it just be that HIIT burns calories, leading to a bigger calorie deficit, leading to more weightloss? In my experience, it's always come down to calories in vs. calories out.Yep, you are missing something! The current thought, at least among some quarters of the exercise physiology world, is that HIIT (things equal in intensity to an all out sprint for 30-60 seconds, can be biking, calisthenics, swimming, etc) induce a stress response which lasts for some period of time beyond the actual workout. As a result, when compared to "standard" cardio regimens, something like 5x1min of sprints had a similar impact on fitness to standard regimens lasting an hour or more. In other words, HIIT is much more effective per unit time for weight loss, improvement of blood pressure, aerobic capacity and so on... This article about it is from the popular press (seems more targeted to fitness models than to climbers!), but the research articles he cites at the bottom are from serious academic journals (eg Circulation) builtlean.com/2010/06/04/hi… However, more to the point of this discussion, House and Johnston write on p.301 that "Mixing in more high-intensity exercises such as strength training with your endurance will ramp up your metabolism, resulting in more calories burned." Combining those two sources, that's how I decided to put in some Zone 4 instead of Zone 2. As I said before, the observations of the number on my own scale suggest that it was an effective change. I sure do plan on getting rid of it as soon as I've hit my weight target, though: sprints are effing painful! The other point to consider is that in contrast to your "exercise is exercise" equation (which is exactly what I also thought until I read this book), essentially the central point of this whole book is that different training stresses yield different training effects. This is why Twight goes on at such length in his TINSTAAFL article about how, while he was working very hard at CrossFit in the gym, he was applying the wrong stress, and so not getting the results he wanted. So in that light, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that two different exercises, each requiring equal amounts of energy (calories) to complete, might have different effects on the metabolism over the long term. |
|
I agree that HIIT workouts are a potent tool for improving fitness and metabolism. The key is actually doing them hard enough. You should absolutely think you are going to die. If you don't have mental doubts about your ability to complete the exercises halfway through the training session, you probably aren't going hard enough. |
|
I have recently begun my trainsition week after finishing moving to denver from chicago. The Zone 1 stuff is a new level for me as well, even after spending many years running distance competitively. I have been wearing a heart rate monitor as well as using the nose breathing limit to maintain proper training zone. However, I have begun to notice that the longer my run goes on The heart rate corresponding to when I need to breathe through my mouth and slow down to be able to breathe through my nose again goes up. At the start of my runs itll be around the high 140s, but by the end I can breathe thru my nose with the same effort as earlier with a HR around 165. Anyone else seen this, did I miss something in the book, or is my big schnozz allowing me to cheat? |
|
Sean S. wrote:I have recently begun my trainsition week after finishing moving to denver from chicago. The Zone 1 stuff is a new level for me as well, even after spending many years running distance competitively. I have been wearing a heart rate monitor as well as using the nose breathing limit to maintain proper training zone. However, I have begun to notice that the longer my run goes on The heart rate corresponding to when I need to breathe through my mouth and slow down to be able to breathe through my nose again goes up. At the start of my runs itll be around the high 140s, but by the end I can breathe thru my nose with the same effort as earlier with a HR around 165. Anyone else seen this, did I miss something in the book, or is my big schnozz allowing me to cheat?Mine seems to stay the same throughout the workout, with the nose-breathing boundary at around 73% of maxHR. My sinuses are always a little stuffy, though... |
|
How are you folks accounting for strength and climbing volumes? Only the time under exertion, or the rest time as well? I come from a strength training background, so I think of volume in terms of pounds lifted, not as a function of time. I see strength and climbing time, if including rests, quickly eating into the volume necessary for aerobic training. Thoughts? |
|
Sean S. wrote:I have recently begun my trainsition week after finishing moving to denver from chicago. The Zone 1 stuff is a new level for me as well, even after spending many years running distance competitively. I have been wearing a heart rate monitor as well as using the nose breathing limit to maintain proper training zone. However, I have begun to notice that the longer my run goes on The heart rate corresponding to when I need to breathe through my mouth and slow down to be able to breathe through my nose again goes up. At the start of my runs itll be around the high 140s, but by the end I can breathe thru my nose with the same effort as earlier with a HR around 165. Anyone else seen this, did I miss something in the book, or is my big schnozz allowing me to cheat?Sounds like heart rate drift myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak… |
|
kboofis wrote: Sounds like heart rate drift myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak…That's really interesting, I'd never heard of that... And the respiratory rate I guess stays the same because the tachycardia is not a response to hypoxia, but to hyperthermia or hypovolemia? |
|
kboofis wrote: Sounds like heart rate drift myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak…Holy crap that answers so much, I dont know why I kept talking to doctors about weird effects when ibwas still racing when apparently I just needed to post on MP... and im dead serious with that, that answers a lot, thanks! |
|
Sean S. wrote: Holy crap that answers so much, I dont know why I kept talking to doctors about weird effects when ibwas still racing when apparently I just needed to post on MP... and im dead serious with that, that answers a lot, thanks! Hah yeah, the power of internet strangers! Anyone experience their Zone 1 increasing since they've began training? Mine is so slow when I go for a run it's a little disheartening |
|
Zone 1 pace? Mine is up from 12 to about 9 minutes/mile in rolling city terrain after three weeks of running 2-4 hours a week. I am pretty deconditioned though, if you're already kind of fit you won't see gains like that. |