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.

Using your 186 max # an example would be:

HRmax 65% = 121
HRR 65% assuming a resting HR of 60 = 142

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 = 142

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.

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.

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.

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'm not a doctor, but did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

I think I didn't frame that initial question well: I'm not looking for recommendations on initial training volume.

I want to know if you guys have noticed aerobic threshold improvement, and what the volume/frequency of work you've needed to get there was/is.

I've had pretty dramatic results over the course of the last year, but I started with a very poor aerobic base to begin with. I've gained about 3min/mile at my aerobic threshold. What's even more striking is that when I started running regularly last winter and focusing on aerobic threshold, I was running roughly a 12 minute mile unloaded, and now I'm running 9 minute miles with a 5-10 lb pack (for my commute). Over the course of that time, I've been putting in 4-8 hours of running per week, mostly in the 4-6 hour range.

I know my gains won't continue to be so dramatic, but in another year if I can get down to 7 minute miles with a pack, I'm going to be way stoked. And the inevitable uphill glacier slogs are going to feel way easier.

And I can still send. I can actually send a little harder because I've dropped a little bit of weight.

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).

Does anyone have a general idea as to how long it takes to increase rate of ascent?

rate of ascent vs hike start elevation

James C.--

I like your technical approach to the subject.
I’m interested how you got data at various starting elevations, and whether it is from treadmills or outdoor hikiing.
In general, I’ve been able to get to 3000 ft/hr in the gym (inclined treadmill), but only 1000-1500 ft gain per hour when I’m hiking CO fourteeners. Locally (northern AZ, 7200 foot elevation as a starting point), 2400 foot gain in one hour is my maximum.

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?

Separately for the Specific period, they say on the first week to spend one day getting 100% of the total vertical of the goal climb, which would mean 6000' - so do they mean 3000' vert on the up + 3000' vert on the down = 6000' or do they mean 6000' vert on the way up and whatever (likely the same) on the descent? I notice for the specific alpine objective instead of saying 100% vertical they say vertical gain which I'm assuming means 6000' total gain, not 3000' gain and 3000' loss. I gotta say attempting that much elevation on hiking trails with a pack is murder on the knees and makes my Specific period jump in total volume by almost twice that than in the Base Period - which makes me think I'm missing something if in the Specific period I'm actually supposed to be decreasing total volume. And not sure how much I want to tear them up when my objective is a snow climb and I expect easier on the joints.

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.

First off, most of the program calls for two-a-days labeled AM and PM. My job allows me an hour and a half lunch to work out and I'd prefer this to waking up early to workout. Does anyone foresee a problem with having the two workouts closer together? Should I move the second workout to a later time?

Secondly, I’m recovering from a fall and can’t do all the core exercises right now (not that I’d be able to do the L-sit or feet to hands if I was healthy), Should I wait until I can do the entire routine without pain before starting or jump in and do what I can? As it’s obvious to me that I need to work on my core strength I’m thinking do what I can with a bunch of Zone 1 cardio, but not count that into my timeline as my goal isn’t until next year. Thoughts?

And finally, I’ve done a bunch of Zone 1 & Zone 2 workouts over the last year or so. Should I drop down to the recommended 50% or continue at closer to 80-90% of what I’m doing now? Over the last 6+ months I’ve averaged 60min on a stair stepper 2-3 time a week, climbed at the gym twice a week, and tried to get out on real rock every weekend I can find a partner, but little to no strength training.

Thanks in advances and for all the previous info!

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.

I struggle with the L sit as well. Substituted following; use dumbells as bars for hands, place stop watch (iphone) in front of me and lift one leg for 10 seconds then alternate other leg for 10 seconds for 10 reps. Increase/decrease time or reps to adjust to your ability. Hope in another month to be able to do L sit normally as core strengthens. Other core alternatives; yoga, pilates, bicycles, plank walks, ab wheel....good luck !