[derekosborne22]

derekosborne22 on June 23, 2020 at 7:17 am · in reply to: Am I ruining my aerobic base for short term gains by adding in these harder sessions? #42986

Thanks for info/advice Garret. Given cycling isn’t my main activity I think I’ll avoid the expense and just wait for the gym to open and retest then. By doing that I also have a better like-for-like comparison with previous tests.

Cheers,
Derek

[derekosborne22]

derekosborne22 on June 22, 2020 at 11:38 am · in reply to: Am I ruining my aerobic base for short term gains by adding in these harder sessions? #42969

Hi Scott,

Thanks for quick reply. Going through your points in order

1) No, haven’t tested AeT since Dec last year (treadmill test) – not sure how to test on a road bike. Re AnT it’s probably around a year since tested and that’s always been on road bike. Haven’t retested since I started UA protocol.

2) MHR – Max Heart Rate. Link to article: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/why-you-should-target-your-aerobic-threshold-during-quarantine. It was on their email sent out May 9th.

3) Well …. the article doesn’t make any mention of ADS but given training history of the case study I’m guessing they had ADS, and the paragraph below cut-and-pasted from the article implies a MHR based approach rather than a measured AeT one

….. Prior to working with me, the athlete did very little work below 80% max heart rate. Most of the work he did in this range was restricted to just warming up for the “main event.” We made a large shift in this training emphasis by adding a lot more easy aerobic work (~65-80% max heart rate) and a lot less high-intensity work (~85-100% max heart rate) …..

Now it may be that the persons AeT was around 80% of MHR (mine is around 70% of MHR albeit last test was 6 months ago – it may well be higher now) in which case there is a consistency, but for me it’s inconsistent.

4) That’s fair. Actually doing AeT on a bike is difficult for me – virtually no flat terrain around me and I don’t have access to a turbo. AnT I can do. Hopefully gym will
open up soon and I can do another AeT test although it will be treadmill based unless you can point me to a bike equivalent.

Please don’t take any of the above as negative to UA. Your books have completely changed the way I train and the way I think about training, and I’m fitter now than I think I have been at any time in my 64 years, at least endurance wise anyway. But I have learned over the years that there is no one protocol that’s perfect for everyone, and right now I’m finding bringing in some 75-80% MHR is benefitting me greatly even if it’s above AeT. It could be that my AeT has gone into that area in which case all good, but right now I’m loving this fitter me.

Thanks as always for the feedback.

Stay safe,
Derek

[derekosborne22]

derekosborne22 on June 5, 2020 at 3:42 am · in reply to: Extended base build #42419

“is it safe to increase 5 to 7% every week for that time frame (except obviously every fourth week for recovery)?”

My take on above – it depends, as always, and like auvgeek I’m not a Scott and only have my own experience to call back on.

I’m in my 60’s and when I started on UA protocol was reasonably fit but from a traditional “harder is better” background. Having read their book I bought into the concept as it was what I was looking for at that time.

Given my background I started slowly at 6hrs per week and had no problem with this sort of weekly increase for first three months of 100% Z1/Z2 training – it was “easy” training and I went from 6hrs to 15hr across 12 weeks on a 3×1 periodisation. I did find however, that once I was up around the 14-15 hrs finding that sort of time was becoming a challenge so took it back slightly and increased load: e.g. I dropped one Z1/Z2 session per week and added in a muscular endurance session; I started doing a treadmill walk weighted instead of all at body weight.

Net, if you are coming in off a base of regular exercise, start slow, and genuinely keep to Z1/Z2 all of the time, then 5-7% weekly increase should not be a problem, but as auvgeek rightly says, that rate of increase can’t continue over the long term. As always, listen to you body and learn to adapt.

Hope this helps.

[derekosborne22]

derekosborne22 on April 15, 2020 at 12:51 pm · in reply to: Extended base build #40517

Hi Scott,

Thanks for quick response and validation as this is what I understood from reading your book. Given I only started building mine Sept last year then lots of room for building.

Re adding some intensity, I had missed the article referenced. Really good and useful but, as we discussed some months ago, at 64 years young it looks like by AeT is levelling out around the 120 mark and with an LT of around 152 there is a huge gap (I did LT treadmill test Dec 5th last year as per UA protocol and it came out at 152 which was slightly up on what I my previous “can sustain for an hour” of 148). Now maybe a full year of base building will raise it, but I’ve done over 200 hours Z1/Z2 (70% Z2) since Sept and suspect it’s only got a little more to go. Unfortunately can’t test right now as no access to treadmill – gyms are closed.

Net, as I can’t get to the hills, nearly all my current exercise is on my road bike. Checking back to times/HR’s on some of my common routes I reckon I’m about 15% faster in Z2 than I was pre UA training which is fantastic. I would now like to turn that into some faster times overall but that needs me to do some work in Z3 with peaks into Z4 particularly on hills (there is no flat terrain near to me). If I keep to the guidelines in your referenced article and start adding Z3 then a little Z4 whilst keeping the volume of Z1/Z2 through to say Sept, then reverting back to Z1/Z2, will I be damaging my aerobic base?

My long term goal is not competitive, rather it’s a desire to still do long multi day ski tours for years to come, and be fit enough to enjoy them. Put me on my road bike through the summer however, and there is still a little bit of a competitive streak against my younger cycling buddies :-).

Any thoughts?

Many thanks,
Derek

[derekosborne22]

derekosborne22 on January 22, 2020 at 12:30 pm · in reply to: HR increases when lapping hills #36727

Thanks Scott …. that’s comforting as I suspect the pace will often be in my Z1 zone which gives me some latitude to stay Aerobic for most of the time.

Cheers,
Derek

[derekosborne22]

derekosborne22 on January 21, 2020 at 2:11 pm · in reply to: HR increases when lapping hills #36683

Thanks Scott – comments appreciated and make sense to me. Given I have to drive around an hour to the hills and an hour back, split sessions not really a great option, but need to adapt them to reduce the Z3 – guess I just need to go slower. All other sessions totally controllable.

On the subject of multi-day trips where daily durations may be long, where should my working HR be each day of the trip – Z2, Z1 or even lower than Z1?

Cheers,
Derek

[derekosborne22]

derekosborne22 on January 20, 2020 at 3:31 pm · in reply to: HR increases when lapping hills #36616

Hi Scott,

Track by time – minutes per session summed to hours and minutes per week with a running total to date since I started program Sept 2019 – all spreadsheeted. HR via chest strap into Polar and then onto free version of Training Peaks for TSS – that’s more of general interest/learning than decision making. AeT via walking treadmill drift test – started at 110 (I’m almost 64 years young and new to this type of training) and following advice from yourself and Scott J moved up to 120 and am holding at that for this year. May see if I can move up a bit next year. AnT around the 152 mark – again tested as per UA protocol.

Started at 6 hrs a week increasing by approx 1/2 hour per week for 3 weeks, reducing by around 30% for 1 week then another 3 week cycle starting off where last ended. Last week was 18.6 hours against a 20 hr plan – would have been on plan but lost 1 day due to car issues!!! Most session gym based on inclined treadmill or stepper therefore well controlled re HR. Weekly hill session can drift above AeT but usually by only a few beats and not for long.

I have every day planed until I leave to Japan on the 10 day tour April 19th – sad I know but hey-ho its the way I am. Plan is dynamic though and continually monitored and tweaked as I learn from the experience, reading, responses to questions on UA forum, and the very excellent support from you and Scott J to direct questions.

A lot more than you asked for but hope its worthwhile. Any comments welcome.

Thanks,
Derek

[derekosborne22]

derekosborne22 on January 20, 2020 at 11:08 am · in reply to: Impact of accidental ME on Aerobic Training effect #36581

Thanks Scott – good tip re walking faster – will try it but not this week re Scott J’s advice on my other post. Good to know my option of adding a bit of weight isn’t materially impacting the aerobic benefits, but I do need to be carefully it doesn’t become too much of an ME session.

[derekosborne22]

derekosborne22 on January 20, 2020 at 11:02 am · in reply to: HR increases when lapping hills #36573

Thanks Scott & Scott – to many Scotts, and suppose I could make it three as a native “Scot” 🙂

Scott J – suspected that might be the case so glad I asked the question. I know I was moving faster than a typical ski tour pace so room to slow down, but I was surprised/disappointed at how long it stayed up in Z3. It still felt comfortable but that was probably harking back to my typical training regime prior to UA. This week was planned as a light week so light it will be. Points well made and I’ll adjust accordingly. I track it fairly closely and since Sept training to date is 25% Z1, 64% Z2 and 11% Z3 – hopefully that’s not an unreasonable profile, plus I usually have a “walk the dog” active recovery hour most days. I’m guessing to get Aerobic base good enough for that load is going to take a few years training – still plenty of life in the old legs yet 🙂

Unfortunately not skiing down – all the early snow has gone so walking up and walking down – I don’t run now due to a badly torn achilles in 2009 that never did heal properly.

Scott S – my goal is a long 10 day ski tour where days will rarely be less than 7 hours and I know 3 consecutive days in the middle will be minimum 11 hours each. Also a typical hill walking day in Scotland is between 6 and 8 hours, although rarely with 2000m vertical and until recently not with a HR monitor.

Thanks again for quick feedback – very much appreciated.

Derek

[derekosborne22]

derekosborne22 on January 20, 2020 at 5:25 am · in reply to: Impact of accidental ME on Aerobic Training effect #36546

Hi Scott,

Useful input to this question which has raised a question from me.

I’ve started to add 10-15% bw to some of my treadmill sessions as I was finding it increasing difficult to walk at a 15% gradient (max I can get from treadmill) at the pace required to get into upper Z2 HR, and indeed found it almost impossible to walk sufficiently fast to get my weekly 10×3 Z3 session without hanging on to maintain balance which I feel reduces the secondary benefits to core and balance. The added weight reduces the pace for same HR making it easier to do the Z2/Z3 sessions and maintain form. Legs are working but are no way close to a limiting factor. I’m still classifying these as aerobic and not ME – am I wrong to do this. I’m also still doing 2-3 bw Z1 sessions a week.

One other reason I’m doing this is specificity. My winter days on the hill have a pack that is minimum 10% of BW, higher if ski touring, higher still if it has glacier or climbing element and considerably higher if it multi-day self-sufficient. Am I wrong to start adding weight to some treadmill sessions to closer replicate hill days? Note that this is on the back of 4 month bw only Z2 sessions.

Thanks for your thoughts,
Derek

PS – I don’t want to introduce running due to a long term achilles problem which I’m worried will tear again if I start running.

[derekosborne22]

derekosborne22 on January 3, 2020 at 4:27 am · in reply to: Why a Higher VO2 Max Isn’t Always Better #35357

Interesting article indeed. Comes at it from a different starting point and uses different analysis and language, but comes pretty much to the same conclusion, and IMHO the UA language and protocols are much more user friendly.

[derekosborne22]

derekosborne22 on December 30, 2019 at 11:30 am · in reply to: Help with Aet Test #35173

Hi Canyon Monkey,

As Scott says, we’re all different but these do seem very high. As a point of reference I’m 63 and did (twice) the Treadmill HR Drift test and started my UA training program at a HR of 110. Yes it is low, and yes it was hard to believe it was doing anything, but I stuck to it, tested monthly and raised it in line with test results to current 120 which I’m now holding. I’m as fit now as I was in my early 20’s, maybe even fitter, and I started in fairly good shape, albeit mostly from typical Z3/Z4 training.

It’s maybe a useful point of reference.

Derek

[derekosborne22]

derekosborne22 on December 5, 2019 at 8:41 am · in reply to: Knee instability doing box step ups, foot issue #33739

Not sure whether PT is short for Personal Trainer or Physiotherapist – hope it’s the latter as in my experience Personal Trainers have very limited training in diagnosing injuries and developing recovery programs. That’s certainly the case in UK – maybe different in US.

From my experience, I’d tend to agree with Scott that this is most likely to be a hip issue; maybe knee, but suspect hip. I’ve known several people with a variety of stability issues fixed by very specific hip/glut focused exercise programs. I think the foot issue is either something completely separate or is compensation issue, but very unlikely it’s the source of the instability. A good Physio should be able to diagnose and come up with a recovery program.

Hope this helps, and hope you get it fixed – sounds very frustrating.

[derekosborne22]

derekosborne22 on December 4, 2019 at 5:45 am · in reply to: HR Drift Test still a problem. #33644

Thanks Scott,

I definitely feel I can add some intensity, particularly now I’m maintaining AeT at 120 so above is good for me. I will also do a AnT test next week – will be interesting to see result and how it compares with my spring/summer road bike HRs where I could sustain an average of 148 for around an hour of close to max effort before hitting the wall. For clarity, do I maintain Z2 sessions during the Z3 phase or should these move to Z1. When I introduce Z4 sessions, do these replace the Z3, or do I do both 1xZ3 and 1xZ4 per week, and make the rest Z1?

On a more general point, the key objective of this training is to prepare me for a tough 10 day hut-to-hut tour end April next year. Tour will be at 1500-3000m altitude for duration, with three consecutive 12 hour days. Reasonably heavy pack and we will be carrying skis at some points. My current plan going forward is summarised below so question: given this April objective, do I introduce your suggested Z3/Z4 sessions now or continue Z2 base building with some ME, and add Z3/Z4 for last 2 months prior to trip?

Dec: 5xZ2 per week, adding duration and vertical week by week with 1-2 6Hr+ hill days per week with pack approx 10% of BW. Introducing 1xME session based off advice in book/this site (Note: 3 week increasing, 1 week lighter cycle)

Jan: As above, but with 2 weeks planned downhill skiing end Jan/early Feb in Alps – mainly piste based as with family and friends, but intend to try a fit in a daily Z1/Z2 30-45 minute jog to maintain base.

Feb: On return for alps, major move up: 1xZ3 session, 2xhill sessions of 6-7+ hours each with 15% BW pack. No ME, and everything else at Z1

Mar: as per Feb, but increasing Z3 intensity and moving into Z4, and pack going to 20% BW. Hope to fit in a week at altitude (Alps) end of March which will have 3-5 skinning sessions of between 2-5hrs each, plus some easy piste skiing.

Apr: as per Mar for start then tapering down for last 10 days.

Comments much appreciated, then I’ll leave you in peace 🙂

Many thanks,
Derek

[derekosborne22]

derekosborne22 on December 3, 2019 at 6:39 am · in reply to: HR Drift Test still a problem. #33532

Hi Scott,

Thank you. Thank you on two counts:

1. For taking the time to respond so fully – it did not take you a passing two minutes and is very much appreciated.

2. For the very realistic appraisal. You’re right – I’m not as young as I once was and was getting carried away by the improvements gained so far. I was making two fundamental errors – firstly I wanted to work “harder” to continue the improvements, and secondly I was “self coaching”, trying to fit a rationale around the test results to justify moving my AeT up to 125 or maybe even 127. You very rightly stepped in as a good coach should and reset my mindset and expectations – thank you.

We are quite alike in some ways: my resting HR is 50; working at 160+ these days requires considerable effort (I haven’t been anywhere near 160 since I started UA protocol – honest). We differ as well though: I had no idea what a HR monitor was in my 30’s, never mind my max HR or AeT. Indeed in my 30’s I was so focused on career and family that exercise was an occasional distraction, and training was zero. It was the classic mid 40’s mid life crisis that kicked it all off again and I haven’t looked back. I can’t compare where I am today with the past, but must be close to the fitness I had in my late teens, early 20’s when doing big routes in the Alps.

So, I reset my AeT back to 120 this morning (I had kicked it up to 123 10 days ago), did 90 minutes on the treadmill this morning and it was nice to be back at that easier effort. I’ll replace my planned AeT tests with your suggested pace test. In the end I was too focused on the number and not the output and goal: my ability to move through the mountains is better now that it has been in a long time, maybe ever. It’s made it more enjoyable and relaxed – I now reach a summit and instead of “that was hard work” now say, where’s the next summit.

It really is more sincerely appreciated.

Thank you Scott.