New Alpinism
|
Thank you for the input. I did my max heart rate test yesterday and came up with 186 running vs 185 from 2010 so have set my zone 1 at 115 max. Will stress more legwork during 2x week weight sessions as I think this feedback is right on....wrestler's legs. I too find that I can keep up with most anyone hiking on the flats but when the grade increases; I seem to lose all power while they stride away. Have set up 2x week 1.5 hour hikes uphill and 1x week hiking up Mt. Baldy. Look forward to seeing what my results are in a month. |
|
I'm still not positive on the HR zone calculations intended in TFTNA. Need to check with Steve or Scott to see what they meant. It seems like many endurance athletes (and power/endur rowers) do not use straight HRmax % but use HRR % which seems like it would be more accurate. |
|
Mark Ra wrote:I'm still not positive on the HR zone calculations intended in TFTNA. Need to check with Steve or Scott to see what they meant. It seems like many endurance athletes (and power/endur rowers) do not use straight HRmax % but use HRR % which seems like it would be more accurate. Using your 186 max # an example would be: HRmax 65% = 121 HRR 65% assuming a resting HR of 60 = 142Scott Johnston has repeated many times that for most people, using conversation pace rather than using heart rate monitor as the primary gauge for intensity. From this very simplified explanation I hope it is clear the interconnectedness of the metabolic process that are fueling your locomotion at a cellular level. Once you see this connection all that remains is to understand what to look for in terms of ventilation markers and voila you have your own, real time metric that you will always have access to, no HRM needed, no fancy lab equipment. You just have to become sensitive to your own ventilation. The rate of CO2 production is directly related to intensity. Physiologists name two ventilatory thresholds: The lower one I have (and is most commonly) called the Aerobic Threshold (AeT) and a second higher one often called the Anaerobic Threshold (AnT). With a gas exchange test on a treadmill these can be readily determined. Those of us without access to the lab can use our own ventilation to make very close determination of these same to points. As far as I know the driver for both is CO2. But blood pH which is directly tied to lactate production is also closely related to CO2 content. So, these are all connected. The nose breathing point I reference in the book corresponds very closely to the AeT which is described by exercise physiologists as the point where blood lactate levels rise by 1mMol/L above resting levels or when they reach 2mMol/L. I have conducted many dozens of tests on dozens of athletes over the course of years and have yet to see the nose breathing point differ by more than +/- 3-4% from the AeT point determined by lactate measurements. So, I am very confident in prescribing this method for folks to use to determine their own AeT. |
|
divnamite wrote: Scott Johnston has repeated many times that for most people, using conversation pace rather than using heart rate monitor as the primary gauge for intensity. From this very simplified explanation I hope it is clear the interconnectedness of the metabolic process that are fueling your locomotion at a cellular level. Once you see this connection all that remains is to understand what to look for in terms of ventilation markers and voila you have your own, real time metric that you will always have access to, no HRM needed, no fancy lab equipment. You just have to become sensitive to your own ventilation. The rate of CO2 production is directly related to intensity. Physiologists name two ventilatory thresholds: The lower one I have (and is most commonly) called the Aerobic Threshold (AeT) and a second higher one often called the Anaerobic Threshold (AnT). With a gas exchange test on a treadmill these can be readily determined. Those of us without access to the lab can use our own ventilation to make very close determination of these same to points. As far as I know the driver for both is CO2. But blood pH which is directly tied to lactate production is also closely related to CO2 content. So, these are all connected. The nose breathing point I reference in the book corresponds very closely to the AeT which is described by exercise physiologists as the point where blood lactate levels rise by 1mMol/L above resting levels or when they reach 2mMol/L. I have conducted many dozens of tests on dozens of athletes over the course of years and have yet to see the nose breathing point differ by more than +/- 3-4% from the AeT point determined by lactate measurements. So, I am very confident in prescribing this method for folks to use to determine their own AeT.Solid info. Thanks. |
|
On the subject of Aerobic Threshold adaptations, the one thing I don't remember seeing in TFTNA is time guidelines for how much volume you need per week to see adaptations. |
|
The book mentions at high altitude, breathing becomes rapid and shallow. Would it be worthwhile to practice rapid, shallow breathing at low altitude? I've been trying it but I usually end up gasping every minute or so to get at least one full breath. |
|
Nick K wrote:On the subject of Aerobic Threshold adaptations, the one thing I don't remember seeing in TFTNA is time guidelines for how much volume you need per week to see adaptations. In running circles it seems that the ideal for adaptation is sessions that last 60-90 minutes, totaling 6-7 hours/week minimum, combined with a high fat diet. That's a summary of info gleaned from Maffetone, Noakes, and some articles in Ultrarunning mag. I'm curious to know how people are adapting right now, and what their aerobic training volume is. I'm running 4-6 hours/week, but mostly in 30-45 minute sessions (I run to work 4 days a week, and walk the fifth), but I'm definitely noticing improvement in the speed I can maintain while breathing comfortably.Initial volume recommendations are supposed to be based on your previous training volume, or the recommendations based on lifestyle categories (e.g. acheivable). For specific weekly volumes, the only specifics I recall for Zone 1 training is that less frequent, and more lengthy training sessions (preferrably 1 hour or more) are preferrable to more frequent shorter sessions: if you have 6 hours to run, then running in two, 3 hour training sessions is preferrable (i.e. has greater training effect) than three, 2 hour sessions or six, 1 hour sessions. |
|
JamesC wrote:The book mentions at high altitude, breathing becomes rapid and shallow. Would it be worthwhile to practice rapid, shallow breathing at low altitude? I've been trying it but I usually end up gasping every minute or so to get at least one full breath.No, this is a physiological compensation that you can't control. |
|
FosterK wrote: No, this is a physiological compensation that you can't control.+1 Really interesting lecture by pulmonologist and mountaineer Dr. West on youtube. He discusses hypoxic ventilatory response around 13:00. He was actually able to measure this in numerous climbers prior to Everest summit attempts, and showed that it was a pretty good indicator of successful summits. youtube.com/watch?v=QRN124i… |
|
FosterK wrote: Initial volume recommendations are supposed to be based on your previous training volume, or the recommendations based on lifestyle categories (e.g. acheivable). For specific weekly volumes, the only specifics I recall for Zone 1 training is that less frequent, and more lengthy training sessions (preferrably 1 hour or more) are preferrable to more frequent shorter sessions: if you have 6 hours to run, then running in two, 3 hour training sessions is preferrable (i.e. has greater training effect) than three, 2 hour sessions or six, 1 hour sessions.Last bit is not 100% true. While it's more beneficial to run 2 hours in one session than run 1 hour in two session (two a day for example, due to time constraint). AFAIK, no coaches suggest reducing frequency to do long run is better. Most coaches agree that long break (3-4 days) between training session is detrimental to the training effect. It basically negates the benefit of supercompensation, and possibly increase the risk of injury. In fact, for most people, it's better to run more frequently. Almost all base building programs suggest 4-5 times a week of running (or jogging depending on your fitness level). While no one knows for sure where the sweet spot is, the general consensus is that 30 min is the absolute minimum and the ideal duration is 60 to 90 minutes. (Some people suggested that longer than 120 minutes of running is bad for most people in base building because it significantly impact body's ability to recover and basic bodily function, such as the ability to fight off diseases, etc). I'm sure if you are a cyclist, those time frame would be different.
|
|
I think I didn't frame that initial question well: I'm not looking for recommendations on initial training volume. |
|
I've been focusing on increasing my rate of ascent and wanted a better look at how it varies with starting elevation, so I charted it up. Thought it might be interesting to others to see the trend. The attached image shows how quickly I ascend in ft/hr, versus starting elevation, for my past 15 dayhikes. This doesn't control for different pack weights, footwear, trail conditions etc., but there's still a decent correlation I think (R^2 = 0.53). My rate of ascent drops by about 50 ft/hr for every 1,000 ft increase in elevation. I'm also a very long way from the 3,000 ft/hr climb rate at low elevations mentioned in the book (I estimate it'll take me at least two more years of consistent hiking, running, to get that fast). |
|
James C.-- |
|
JamesC wrote:. I'm also a very long way from the 3,000 ft/hr climb rate at low elevations mentioned in the book (I estimate it'll take me at least two more years of consistent hiking, running, to get that fast). Does anyone have a general idea as to how long it takes to increase rate of ascent?I think the gradient and trail have something to do with this. If a trail gains 800' per mile or less it is going to be hard to hit the 3k / hr without running some of the portions (for me it is, anyway). Very few people I climb with can do much more than 2.5k / hr vertical even when drilling it. I think of doing 3k / hr vertical like running a 40-minute 10k road running race, or riding a 20k cycling time trial in 30 minutes. One needs to be in solid, sport - specific shape to make it happen. And also lean. |
|
When getting the elevation in the Specific Training period, does the book mean total elevation gain, or elevation gain and elevation loss? For example I know in the Weighted Hill Carries section they mean gain. I also had a question there, do they mean elevation gain for the whole week? Or elevation gain in that specific workout? So for example, if the maximum elevation gain I expect on my goal climb is 6000'. For the weighted hill workouts, I might start with 2000' for weeks 1-2. Is that 2000' of gain total for each week or for each work out (if I did two weighted hill workouts in week 1 then the total would be 4000)'. Which is correct, 2000' per work out or per week? |
|
Hey there, so I hit a minor speed bump in the progression phase. My foot tends to go numb after two miles, all the other symptoms run along with compartment syndrome. To be clear it's chronic not acute, so either I can do stretching or get the surgery. The stretching route means that I lay back off of running which agitates it the most. Once I go back to the doctor and physical therapist I'll know for sure which route will be best. My question is to modify my program instead of running I can swim. How does swimming sound for my zone 1-2 workouts? |
|
Sean M wrote:How does swimming sound for my zone 1-2 workouts?Short answer: no. It's in the book. Can you hike instead of running? Hiking has less impact than running. |
|
There are alternatives to running to get Zone 1 workouts. Swimming isn't the best because it lacks much of the specificity desirable for alpine training. Uphill hiking would be much more aligned with your training goals. The question is whether you'll have similar issues as with running. If you can't comfortably cover more than a couple of miles outdoors you might try indoor alternatives such as step-ups, either weighted (emph. strength) or not (emph. endurance), a step mill, or a steeply inclined treadmill. The first two of these allow you to step down with a flat foot, which you might find more comfortable over longer duration workouts. Cycling is something else to consider, but be sure to wear a heart monitor. It's easy to go Zone 2-3, which isn't what you're aiming for. It will require a little experimentation to figure out duration and intensity to get the workout you want. |
|
I just picked up a copy of the book and am looking to start the routine but have a couple questions. |
|
If the workouts are more than 2 hours apart; that should still serve you well. Stair steppers are not as helpful (realistic) as hiking steep trails or even stadium stairs. |