Training Log: Uphill hiking vs step-ups

This could have been appended onto the TFTNA mega-thread, but figured I'd start fresh.

Sometimes I get out and do uphill conditioning hikes outside; other times I do step-ups onto a box at my house. I keep a careful training log, and have always been a little flummoxed at how to account for these two similar activities with respect to duration of effort and elevation gained in terms of "effort" / "workload".

The issue is that with stepping down off the box, the "elevation gained per unit time" is always slower than actual outdoor hiking. By a fair bit. Not quite half, but nearly that. The reason is obvious - every other movement of the foot is stepping down.

Workout A: Gain 2000' in 1.5 miles on a local trail, turn around, go 1.5 miles back down. Takes about 40-45 min uphill at a "hard zone 3" effort (kinda drilling it), and about 25 min coming down with pack loaded and boots (less time if I carried up trail runners, dump the water jugs, toss boots in the pack,and run down).

Workout B: Gain 2000' in step-ups on my box. At "hard zone 3" effort, I'm doing about 25 step ups / minute. The workout takes about 80 minutes of movement if continuous, though I occasionally give myself a short break partway where I walk around on flat ground to keep moving for maybe 3-5 minutes.

So both workouts have same elevation gain, but are different in terms of exertion profile - the second is a little longer timewise, and feels harder since I was "going uphill" the whole time.

For those of you that do both step-ups on a box and outdoor hikes, how do you make sense of comparing efforts?

I don't do this but I would treat them as independent activities and simply progress them as such, instead of trying to come up with some wacky equivalency factor.

if hiking gets your HR to zone 3 for 45 min then work on the box at a rate that gets you to zone 3 for 45min and add some sort of cool-down.

since elevation on the box isnt real i don't think it makes sense to equate the two workouts by "elevation gained." every other aerobic sport computes cross training workouts by equating heart rate and duration.

it sounds like you aren't doing the box step-ups with water weight either, which would confound any equivalency even further.

You're training for a mountaineering objective?
My 2 cents:
Box step ups or stair masters are a great use of time to hit certain leg muscle groups. However, you are stepping onto a flat surface and as you said, only stepping up.

If you are training for mountaineering, or a serious approach, I'd do workout 2 several times. It may be slight, but if think stepping on the uphill angle works the calf differently, along with actually pushing your weight forward for a series of strides, rather than up and down on step ups.

Hiking downhill will definitely hit your quad differently than just steps up as well.

To answer your question, I'd treat them differently. I'd measure #2 with time, weight carried, number of trips.

Add weight to your step ups. I do 3 sets of 50 for each leg with 100lbs on a barbell. Then I do lunges with a 45lb kettel bell for a break in between step up sets. I don't see the two as interchangeable...uphill hiking with a weighted pack will almost always be a better sport-specific (general mountaineering) workout unless you're training for a long steep boulder field....then the step ups win.

Sorry forgot to clarify - I'm doing both of these loaded with a pack, loosely following the progression schema recommended in TFNTA (so around 35 lbs right now). The point is muscular endurance.

WyomingSummit's loading recommendations seem unsustainable for my fitness level for the desired duration; sound more like what Mountain Athlete recommends.

I guess my OP was unclear. Ideally, my muscular endurance - oriented workout is executed outside. But due to schedule limitations, sometimes step-ups on a box are the next-closest sport-specific thing I can do. My question about comparison is to get a handle on how to intelligently calibrate the step-up workout to fit into my progression / plan (which is "relative" to doing uphill hiking with a pack).

One way is to just go based on duration / intensity. The genesis of my question is that, following this, I usually come up with a lot less elevation gain for an equivalent duration / intensity level. I don't have a fancy formula, but am wondering if it's a sensible comparison to say "45 minutes of zone 3 uphill hiking with X load on my back" is equivalent to "45 minutes of zone 3 step-ups with X load on my back" when I know the elevation gains of these two activities are very different.

And yes I know I'm overthinking it.

Back in 93 a group of us went to Ecuador climbing. One guy trained exclusively on a stepper. He got very fit and strong hiking up - the problem came hiking down (something a stepper never deals with). He got horrible shin splints and knee pain from the downhill impacts - we practically had to carry him off the mountain. So in my mind specific training that mimics as closely as possible the actual event is critical. Of course other training in addition can be good but be sure to do enough of the "real thing" to cover the bases. 3 years later we all went to Nepal climbing and that same guy trained by actually hiking with a pack up and down hills - no problems that trip.

jaredj wrote:Sorry forgot to clarify - I'm doing both of these loaded with a pack, loosely following the progression schema recommended in TFNTA (so around 35 lbs right now). The point is muscular endurance. WyomingSummit's loading recommendations seem unsustainable for my fitness level for the desired duration; sound more like what Mountain Athlete recommends. I guess my OP was unclear. Ideally, my muscular endurance - oriented workout is executed outside. But due to schedule limitations, sometimes step-ups on a box are the next-closest sport-specific thing I can do. My question about comparison is to get a handle on how to intelligently calibrate the step-up workout to fit into my progression / plan (which is "relative" to doing uphill hiking with a pack). One way is to just go based on duration / intensity. The genesis of my question is that, following this, I usually come up with a lot less elevation gain for an equivalent duration / intensity level. I don't have a fancy formula, but am wondering if it's a sensible comparison to say "45 minutes of zone 3 uphill hiking with X load on my back" is equivalent to "45 minutes of zone 3 step-ups with X load on my back" when I know the elevation gains of these two activities are very different. And yes I know I'm overthinking it.

My loading example isn't for everyone. My workout partner uses 60lbs and does sets of 30. I Tailored my program based on where I was lacking. Moderate intensity for long duration I'm very strong....the short intense sections were blowing me out so I designed the step ups to address it. It's just a small segment of my program. I try to design my indoor programs to mimic a day out. So I'll do an hour on an incline mill at 5mph and 8% incline, followed by 20mins on the stair master at moderate intensity, and then do the step ups. It kind of mimics an approach, beginning of an ascent, then training your body to have something left for an emergency or fast summit push. I also try to mix it up to keep my body guessing. I think you don't need to try to get your step program to mimic your trail program....variation is OK. My treadmill has decline as well, which when wearing a pack can help with the downhill. Lunges help with that too.

jaredj wrote:Sorry forgot to clarify - I'm doing both of these loaded with a pack, loosely following the progression schema recommended in TFNTA (so around 35 lbs right now). The point is muscular endurance. WyomingSummit's loading recommendations seem unsustainable for my fitness level for the desired duration; sound more like what Mountain Athlete recommends. I guess my OP was unclear. Ideally, my muscular endurance - oriented workout is executed outside. But due to schedule limitations, sometimes step-ups on a box are the next-closest sport-specific thing I can do. My question about comparison is to get a handle on how to intelligently calibrate the step-up workout to fit into my progression / plan (which is "relative" to doing uphill hiking with a pack). One way is to just go based on duration / intensity. The genesis of my question is that, following this, I usually come up with a lot less elevation gain for an equivalent duration / intensity level. I don't have a fancy formula, but am wondering if it's a sensible comparison to say "45 minutes of zone 3 uphill hiking with X load on my back" is equivalent to "45 minutes of zone 3 step-ups with X load on my back" when I know the elevation gains of these two activities are very different. And yes I know I'm overthinking it.

In my experience, box step up is always harder than well used trails (unless it's boulder hopping). The motion is different on your legs between the two. So I wouldn't compare them directly. You should record tham differently.