[maiermw]

maiermw on September 30, 2022 at 9:18 pm · in reply to: How to train for Mt Kenya / Batian via Nelion? #71210

I claim no expertise in adjusting plans, but I think I’ve seen similar questions to this answered here before. The overall question is what plan(s) to use when you have an objective that is big (requires good fitness) and is technical, but not very technical. The thought process runs something like this:
How does the technical difficulty compare to what you can do “off the couch?” If you can climb 5.10 off the couch, your objective is 5.5, so you really wouldn’t need to train climbing, just mountaineering fitness. If you are also hiring a guide then rest of the technical issues are taken care of. Just do the 16 week plan to the best of your ability and have fun.

If 5.5 off the couch is not so easy, or you are doing this unguided with a partner, then getting in the technical time in the train up is important. You might want to do the Alpine Climbing plans instead. Or you might want to stack an 8 week rock climbing plan on top of the 16 week plan (I’ve seen that mentioned here before). Or you might want to adjust the plan so you have a period of intensive climbing in a relevant environment (the “graduation road trip” in the “Training for the New Alpinism” book). If you were close to the mountains you might adjust the plan so instead of doing a 4 hour run you are doing an all day climb with your partner that includes at least 4 hours in zone 1-2, preferably on scrambly rock terrain. If that isn’t possible, because you are in the wrong place or no way you can devote that much time, maybe that’s a signal the planned approach to the objective isn’t the best. People who do big routes that are also technically challenging (challenging for them, whatever the grade) and do them self-supported put a lot of time into preparation, no two ways about it.

[maiermw]

maiermw on January 18, 2022 at 4:42 pm · in reply to: Trainability of AeT, AnT, etc. #62317

Thank you Scott and Seth. Very interesting answers. My takeaway is that you both believe that pace at AeT, and how long you can hold it, is ultimately the most important metric. And it can be improved for “large” amounts for pretty much everybody. Saying “everybody” with a population as diverse as humans would be a bad idea, but you view is that it is a very trainable attribute, and the one to ultimately focus on. So, if my pace at AeT gets better things are going well, and how well lab results approximate an idea is kind of interesting but is not getting to the core issue. The most important metric, pace at AeT and how long I can hold it, may get better even if the lab results are only an approximation of an ideal. Is that gisting it okay?

[maiermw]

maiermw on August 19, 2020 at 10:02 pm · in reply to: Getting “Tired but not fitter” #44405

Thanks to all for some answers. Let me build on the answer’s, especially Scott’s, with an example. Suppose my AnT is 160 and my AeT is 140. By the UphillAthlete standards that would be a little bit Aerobic Deficient, as I understand it. Compare two workouts. First, two hours on the trails at an HR around 130. Second, a slow hike with my Boy Scouts for six hours at 90-100. I think if I put both into Training Peaks that the second would have a higher TSS, and it might well leave me more tired. But you’re saying that the first would have a better training effect, at least as far as impact on raising AeT and making for a more sustainable AeT or AeT+ plus pace?

Makes sense to me, but it does indicate that the Training Peaks score is only a loose guide to fitness achieved. Hours in Zone 1-2 might be a better metric?