JP, it sounds like you are doing your homework! I’m glad that you are looking to a wide range of information sources and seeing some professionals. Hopefully you can put together your own concept of what mobility looks like for your needs for sport and health.
I agree that there’s an attraction in having high mobility. I feel like there’s a bias with some practitioners that want to promote mobility to achieve something like an overhead squat, snatch, or deep squats. I also feel like endurance athletes can sometimes have the hardest times with these. I personally would love to have improved mobility to do a perfect clean and jerk or an overhead squat. But there are awesome alternatives with KBs and unilateral lifts that give huge benefit and don’t push athletes to the end ROM where they’re more likely to get hurt. And unilateral lifts are nearly always more sports specific.
My understanding with the FMS (not necessarily the SFMA) is that the screen exists to bring asymmetries and compensatory movement to the surface, not to identify a precise issue. This helps orient the process to help an athlete along the way to better movement.
It’s interesting to hear that Starrett’s course said something along the lines of some cases of durability coming from tightness – while I think that there’s some truth to that when you compare it to someone on the hypermobile end of the spectrum, I think it’s important not to hide behind tightness as a way to be durable. The wear and tear that comes with a life well-lived can sometimes lead to restrictions that contraindicate certain lifts, and as long as someone can do a majority of movements without major compensation, that might be plenty to live a healthy life and achieve most fitness goals.
Very interesting that the DPT identified greater shoulder tightness than hip tightness. Maybe that’s a great place to direct attention for now? It’s come up in more than one case that reduced shoulder mobility can be a greater factor affecting squat (even back squat) form than reduced hip mobility. I’m sure that has ramifications for sports and day to day living.
It sounds like you’ve identified a notable asymmetry with your hips, and you’ve been doing your homework (and body work). I wouldn’t neglect checking your day to day repetitive patterns and especially ergonomics. There are a lot of case studies of people identifying their workspace created issues (e.g. corner desks, reaching too far with the mouse hand, lighting issues, leaning to one side). Multiplied by hours per week, and extrapolated to months and years, it can be a lot of time exacerbating a problem.
If you are still looking to delve deeper into resolving the asymmetries, have you explored MAT? There’s a lot of people who’ve had success with MAT, especially with those who’ve experienced physical trauma. MAT is another body work technique. I did several sessions and it reduced some asymmetries as a result. Might be worth a look.
Nate Emerson
Forum Replies Created
-
ParticipantParticipantNate Emerson on May 5, 2022 at 8:34 pm · in reply to: Post Exped recovery and maintenance Training #66666
Matt, for maintenance, 3 sessions/wk are totally fine. Especially if those are more fun and motivating.
For long term health and fitness, frequency might be a more important quality – doing more sessions, even if they are shorter, is probably more likely to promote long term adaptations. Also, 1hr should be a very manageable load, which is an advantage if you are trying to have a consistent year-round program, leaving you plenty of bandwidth for everything else in your personal or training life.ParticipantKeith, mobility can be a tricky topic: because everyone is put together a little differently, each athlete will need pick and choose what they need to work on more. We did have a general mobility session in our first BMTG program, focusing on hips, shoulders, thoracic spine, and hamstrings (single leg on a door frame).
For general strength training and specific steep hill climbing, try to have adequate mobility at the ankles, hips, thoracic spine, and shoulders. Also make sure that you are addressing hamstring flexibility.
Because of larger step ups, step downs and squats, ankle mobility is really important. Foam-rolling / SMR of the calf and potentially the achilles will be a good start. Half-kneeling mobilizations are great. You can add in heavy bands to improve glide in the ankle. Don’t preoccupy your time with dozens of mobility drills, just try a few. If you notice a big difference from one side to the other, spend your energy on the side that needs catch-up.
“Hip openers” is used generically, but many concepts are great. UA Yoga is great for this in the evening. For more active versions, you can use frog patterns, dynamic planks, lunge patterns, and “worlds greatest stretch” variations. For controlling this mobility, Cham Mtn Fit can’t be beat.
The term “shoulder openers” is also widely used, but many versions are great. Restricted shoulders can really affect gait, and poor mobility can even be the cause of poor squat mechanics. Scott put out this video a while back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFjx74PzghA. If you find some restriction in any of those patterns, often times some SMR can help. The Roll Model is a really helpful tool to scan and identify areas to focus on with SMR. There are also some ways to improve mobility with traction, but try the other routes first.
UA Yoga has a great thoracic spine mobilization in Module 2. Side-laying, bent knees.For a simple routine to follow-along, here’s one in-house video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixm3Bj239eU
To try to retain improved mobility, you’ll want to perform a pattern or patterns that will load that joint. Alternatively, if you do some mobility in the late evening, you’ll be following up with a night of rest where hopefully you aren’t doing anything to undo your work (slouching in a chair, hunching over a computer, etc.). Using UA Yoga in this manner is great.
ParticipantNate Emerson on April 30, 2022 at 10:07 am · in reply to: TSS fudge factor when using machines #66410Another great question.
Planned TSS is helpful for building out your schedule and forecasting training loads and recovery.
What you are seeing with the difference between planned and completed is expected.
If you want to make this cleaner in your planning, I suggest modifying your planned TSS if you think that you’ll be having major elevation change and weighted carries.
If a workout’s planned TSS is based off workout builder or other metrics (yes- AnT and IF), it won’t take into account major elevation gain/loss and especially weighted carries. I find that IF is more relevant for running and cycling workouts – there is more change to TSS from external factors with mountaineering training, so modifying TSS makes more sense than modifying IF. And planned TSS doesn’t take into account delayed recovery. So in cases like a very difficult ME workout, I might estimate my planned TSS based off of previously hard efforts. This is trial and error and it helps to have a longer TrainingPeaks history if you are doing this.Hope that helps!
ParticipantNate Emerson on April 30, 2022 at 9:57 am · in reply to: Post Exped recovery and maintenance Training #66409Matt,
Addressing the quantity for aerobic base: It’s pretty tricky to quantify what can be lost/regained/maintained.
There’s a more rapid decay of the metabolic factors in a long recovery period, but there are some positive notes- while you will lose your peak fitness, it requires far less volume to maintain a significant percentage of this fitness. Also, if you have a long training history on the aerobic side, you probably have more permanent adaptations that allow to regain peak fitness faster than an individual who doesn’t have a long endurance training history. The answer varies individual to individual, but doing 50% of your peak volume would be great to maintain a base. A conservative strategy to keep the base if you are also adding intensity would be to try to do 80% of your volume below your AeT.The general advice for most athletes after a major event or climb is to do what makes you happy in the weeks afterward. Make sure that you are addressing the parts of life that may have been strained by training (work, family, friends). It’s great to be active, but specificity does not matter for most athletes. Modulating your training by shifting to another focus is healthy from the psychological side, and likely helps on the physiological side (can’t really tease those apart completely). Most athletes have probably pushed close to or done an overreach during the training cycle, and a big climb adds a lot of stress on top of that (immediate post-event bloodwork resembles that of major trauma for ultrarunners, and I speculate the same is true for expedition mountaineers on tough climbs). It’s important to do what you like to do. If you like to move some heavy weight in the gym, set up a nice gradual return to that and make that your focus.
Coaches across the board often advocate for a delayed return to training, to make sure that athletes have the focus and desire before returning to training. For some athletes the desire and focus are ever present, but for most, a true off-season of cross-training or even reduced activity is completely appropriate.ParticipantNate Emerson on April 30, 2022 at 9:38 am · in reply to: TSS fudge factor when using machines #66407Krish, that’s correct. Good example for mountaineers.
ParticipantNate Emerson on April 25, 2022 at 12:28 pm · in reply to: Using Intermediate and Advanced Plan Based on Goal Event #66122Hi Keith,
For a given plan, the CTL will vary from one individual to the next. Many reasons could play a factor: hrTSS in a particular intensity zone will vary depending on the proximity of AeT to AnT; hrTSS is a proxy but not a direct assessment of fitness; the TSS fudge factors might need to be optimized for many athletes; some athletes need to do more capacity-building workouts in Zone 1 vs Zone 2 (or vice versa); athletes vary widely in movement efficiency and overall movement economy.
Currently, there is large range in the forecasted CTL in the 2.0 plans. In the advanced plan, some individuals are looking to peak over 90 or even 100. Other athletes that are fairly compliant might peak in the 70’s. The intermediate plan is showing a range that looks like 60’s to 80’s for the generally compliant athletes. By compliant, I mean athletes that are completing nearly all scheduled workouts.
Rather than focus on the numbers, a more prudent approach would be to identify what training plan fits with your training history and your capacity to train (make sure to look at peak build weeks as well as consider the specific workouts). Being very compliant with any of these programs will put your CTL in a solid range for many objectives. Missing one workout per week will dramatically affect your CTL. For the athletes with challenging schedules, modifying workout volumes to cover the missed volume can help, but remember that frequency and consistency with workouts does matter with aerobic adaptations.
Also consider the other stressors in your life: if you have a high workload at your job and/or have a lot of family/life stress, a high CTL may not have the same effect. An overworked and under-rested athlete’s 90CTL may be a lot different from the next athlete’s 90CTL who is healthy and well-rested. The first athlete might not have an accurate TSB going into their goal climb, and might be setting up for an injury or poor performance.
Regarding the transition of plans: Our Mountaineering Training Group (MTG) plans have been developed with a target climb taking place roughly spring to summer (e.g, Everest, Denali, Rainier, US western high points). MTG 1.0, included transition and base training. 2.0, the current iteration, has plans emphasizing specific training. Our next round (3.0) plans are still being developed, but the themes will likely include transition, base, and “in-season”. With these themes, compliance might be a little easier, since general training is usually easier to implement than specific training – this is another point to consider in selecting a plan.
Disclaimer: While we cite some CTL ranges that have indicated success on various peaks, please keep in mind some athletes with high CTL’s have performed poorly on their climb while some athletes with low CTL’s have succeeded. These performances are at the ends of the distribution for sure. Please remember CTL is not a guarantee of performance. It’s a *personalized* measure of fitness best used to examine previous training and to structure future training.
ParticipantNate Emerson on April 25, 2022 at 11:16 am · in reply to: What does a “Peak” look like in TrainingPeaks? #66119Hi Keith, Great question!
“Ideal” metrics will rely on a lot of previous training history with notes to compare to the metrics. You can refer to your notes from your previous training plan to understand how you felt at each point (during your last couple of build cycles, during the consolidation week, during your taper, and during your climb or event), and compare it to the Performance Management Chart (PMC). Armed with that info, you’ll know how to fine tune the length and intensity of your build cycles and consolidations and have a better understanding of your ideal.TrainingPeaks has some great articles showing examples of PMC’s during this period, although there are some notable differences with mountaineering athletes.
The appearance of tapering and peaking using TrainingPeaks metrics and the PMC will depend on: 1) the load during your final training weeks, and 2) the composition of the taper.
The simplest way to view these periods is to concentrate on your CTL and TSB.
CTL:
CTL is a rolling 42-day average of your daily TSS (emphasizing the more recent training). Given the example of 90 CTL: If you are training at capacity but are staying healthy, it will be somewhat range-bound around 90 – probably showing a rounding and topping pattern near the end of the specific period.
CTL should initiate a slight decline as you move towards your taper week(s). It will continue to decline during the taper. That’s expected and desired if you are trying for peak performance.TSB:
Carefully establishing your peak CTL is a prerequisite during the majority of your training program. But tapering for peak performance and monitoring your recovery is critical in the final weeks. This focus on reduction in your training volume in your final weeks will have a pronounced effect on your TSB. TSB is yesterday’s fitness (CTL) minus yesterday’s fatigue (ATL). ATL is based on the previous 7 days. So you can think of TSB as how adapted you are to the training load (this is more related to CTL) and how ready you are for a subsequent build or a performance (this is more related to ATL).
During a prolonged training program, TSB should generally be a negative number during build weeks. This is often -15 to -40 (or sometimes greater) during our mountaineering programs, but is VERY individualized. During consolidation weeks, TSB will climb back towards a positive number. For expedition climbers, it’s worthwhile to consider that your immune system might be subpar if you have a very low TSB.
The final build weeks for our mountaineering training will have some big back to back long days, so you’ll see large spikes upward with ATL and corresponding large spikes downward with TSB. For many of our athletes, these spikes will usually be greater than a typical cyclist or multisport athlete using TrainingPeaks, so don’t be alarmed. However, if you’re following the plans, you will see CTL stay somewhat range-bound over the specific period.Changes during the Taper:
As you begin your taper where workout durations get progressively shorter, you’ll see a decrease in the spikes in TSB (and ATL). TSB will start to climb higher and higher. For athletes with shorter climbs (1-7 days), it may be beneficial to coax that TSB into the +15-25 or even +30 range. On longer expeditions, you have to consider travel and acclimatization (higher or lower, but positive TSB depending on length of travel and travel to high altitudes). It’s ok for TSB to be quite high -potentially indicating that your body might better handle the stress of travel and acclimatization, and that you have a healthier immune system. Many athletes could have optimal performance with a TSB of 0-25, and others (the slightly injured or overtrained) could see a TSB closer to 50. This is one of the most individualized metrics, so please don’t assume there is a one size fits all recommendation. For someone doing an expedition (instead of a half day climb, for example), erring on the side of a higher TSB might be ok.With your first few experiences monitoring TSB, it’s probably best to follow the taper concepts (discussed in the books, website, and phone calls), monitor your health and recovery, and simply *observe* the TSB metric. If large-scale tapering is still new to you, remember that it’s very hard to lose much fitness in a short window with limited activity, but it’s easy to overdo your training and show up for your climb sick or too tired to perform. This assumes that you’ve been very compliant with your training and it was an appropriately challenging training load.
I think of a positive TSB as extra “gas in the tank” – extra reserve for hard days and extended performance. With a deeply negative TSB, I might be able to do a very hard workout, but I certainly won’t be able to perform much beyond that – certainly not for an extended period of high performance.
ParticipantNate Emerson on April 25, 2022 at 9:36 am · in reply to: TSS fudge factor when using machines #66115Clarification on the fudge factors:
1) Elevation gain & loss:
With outdoor training as the default setting, it’s been implied that the athlete is also descending. So adding 10TSS assumes 1000ft of elevation gain AND 1000ft of elevation loss.
For program composition, you could assume slightly more metabolic training stress comes from the ascent (assuming walking/hiking for both ascent and descent), and slightly more muscular stress comes from the higher eccentric loading on the descent.
2) For weighted carries:
Add 10TSS for every 10%BW increment for 1000ft gain & loss, or 5TSS for for every 10%BW increment for 1000ft gain in isolation (i.e. indoor workout with no descent)
3) Muscular Endurance TSS (which can apply differently indoors and outdoors):
For hard ME workouts, additional TSS can be added if the workout leaves you extra sore for more than a day. This is very subjective, but over time you may recognize the impact of these workouts and what your personal TSS fudge factor might be. As coaches, when we recognize that an athlete is quite sore well after one of these workouts (e.g. 36hrs, 48hrs, or even later), we’ll often add more TSS to these workouts retroactively.
4) Different athletes respond quite differently to these stresses (e.g. some athletes easily tolerate descending with weight, while others can be sore for days). It’s most important to use TSS modifications consistently for yourself, and recognize when (or if) you need to modify your personal TSS fudge factors. For example, I’ve always done a majority of my training outdoors, and find that my indoor/outdoor performance is very similar at many HR intensities (often this is grade dependent), so I only have a few select TSS mods between indoors/outdoors. It’s important to recognize your movement economy and efficiency to understand whether you need to scale TSS fudge factors.For more discussion on all of these bullets, see this thread in the general forum:
ParticipantI wanted to add three key points to this topic:
1. An athletes history (training volume, specificity, injuries, etc) is probably much more relevant in crafting programming than a movement screen. A movement screen might be indicated by this history, or maybe if an athlete has little history with a particular aspect of training.
2. There isn’t a lot of conclusive evidence relating movement screens and reduction in injury (or improvements in performance). There are athletes with poor movement in the gym or in their sport, but sometimes those athletes are durable and perform well (e.g. Lebron’s squats compared to his career minutes played). Conversely, there are athletes that perform very well on movement screens and get hurt all the time. Improved movement quality can be shown to reduce stress on joints/tissues, but it’s often up for debate whether poor movement quality in a screen (or even in the field) is actually correlated with reductions in performance or increase in injury.
3. If you feel like you are at risk because of a mobility issue, it’s probably better to consult with an experienced physical therapist. A PT can consider structural issues related to movement that a coach or personal trainer might miss. You don’t want to be working too hard on mobility if your body has an issue preventing you from further progress.ParticipantHi JP,
Great questions. I’m glad that you are bringing this up. We’re glad that you’ve liked the
Portal WU and the UA Yoga.
Each coach uses their own methodology for screening. With the sports and activities we tend to focus on, we’re most concerned with the movement quality with locomotion (e.g. running, hiking, ski striding, skating). For endurance oriented sports, the general ROM tends to be smaller. With the typical workout schedules in our coached programs, I think it’s common for nearly all endurance athletes to improve in their movement quality over time. There is an element of self-organization that seems to occur when athletes hold themselves to a basic standard of good movement in high volume, low intensity exercise. For time-crunched fitness industry individuals, or athletes in traditional team/individual sports it’s probably advised to have a more thorough screening.
Flexibility for flexibility’s sake isn’t necessarily going to protect you from injury or improve performance. Improving ROM might be helpful, but it definitely depends where and why you want to improve it. So understanding how you are put together is most helpful. For example, an elite sprinter needs generous posterior chain flexibility, while an elite distance runner will usually have comparably lower posterior chain flexibility. Running economy for distance runners (to marathon/HM distance) is probably different than ultra running. Mountaineering is likely different. Mobility at the ankle seems really important for safe and effective cramponing.
I’d recommend the FMS. I’ve done several hundred screens for both occupational safety and personal training, but I’m not regularly using it. The FMS is an awesome tool, and the guys behind it have really great perspective on the relative importance of various factors of mobility, stability, proprioception, balance, etc. It’s the integration of these factors that matters. But the FMS requires a lot of training to be useful – it can be easy to misinterpret the results, or even easier to misunderstand how to address the results. There are some individuals that can get a relatively high score in the screen, but be potentially at the most risk for injury (hypermobile athletes).
Kelly Starrett’s approach seems quite healthy. I’ve recommended one of his peer’s methods – Jill Miller’s Roll Model – to many athletes. I think a few other coaches have recommended the Roll Model as well, if only to develop an individual’s awareness of their own body and how to assist with recovery.
Before jumping in with any program, I would just consider what populations these programs work with, and see if their emphasis lines up with yours. The FMS team has focused on traditional team and individual sports programs. Kelly Starrett was an early adopter with CrossFit, so we can assume some bias towards olympic lift mobility (while fun, many individuals do not need or benefit from trying to get the appropriate mobility for these lifts). But I haven’t gone through much of the Ready State. I can’t speak to MovNat.
Is a focus on improving mobility even necessary? Have you had a lot of injuries? I submit that an athlete going through the ChamFit program may actually be have enough self-organizing physiological factors to be actively improving in many of the qualities that these other programs might focus on. A mountaineer or ultrarunner will definitely have a totally different emphasis on all of these qualities, as compared to a defensive end, point guard, competitive swimmer, or olympic lifter.
If warranted, each individual may need a different approach to improve mobility. Prior to strength training or high intensity workouts, I might have an athlete target a few specific movement patterns as part of their Movement Prep or Dynamic Warm Up. If we include some targeted mobility work, I often try to follow up with a loaded movement to utilize/engage the modified ROM. Many of the coaches prescribe mobility and recovery on rest days or in the evenings, at the very least to maintain/restore ROM – hence the development of the UA Yoga program.
One example of an integrated approach: With ski touring or alpine skiing athletes, we want adequate ankle mobility paired with adequate foot strength (see Janda foot exercises). For less active individuals, both these areas commonly need some work. If an athlete is near or at the end ROM in dorsiflexion in a buckled boot, and/or has a weak foot, it’s common to have alignment issues observable during boot fitting and/or in high performance downhill skiing. A weak arch will exacerbate this issue. Improving ROM at the ankle – combined with short foot exercises and calf raises – can clean up many alignment issues in high performance downhill skiing, as long as there are no structural issues with the arch or ankle. Many elite WC alpine skiers don’t need (or want) significant alignment correction or supportive footbeds because of their healthy ankle ROM and foot strength. This is an example of stability in the foot musculature and connective tissues, paired with healthy dorsiflexion in the ankle. How we get there is based on the individual.
Hope that helps!ParticipantGreat goal! But hard to answer the question directly. Mark’s got the key points covered, but I’ll add a little – especially if others are considering similar goals:
Rainier’s glacier hazard can’t be replicated in Colorado. You’ll need to make sure that you and your team are prepared for that, along with the other possible hazards. While there are lots of success stories of newer climbers doing these routes (I’ve seen this on the DC and Emmons), many of those climbers often don’t realize how poorly they managed the hazards on the mountain. This “wicked” learning environment usually only provides feedback with poor or even devastating outcomes, so those with less experience simply don’t have the time in the field to actually know what they are doing right or wrong (unconscious incompetence). Hopefully you’re lining up with an experienced group and/or have some educational experiences planned.
If you are traveling with experienced climbers – climbers who’ve been through a formal mountain apprenticeship and/or education, and current with crevasse rescue and glaciated mountain travel – then you might have that technical side covered with your team. To be a contributing team member, it’s a wise idea to do a glaciated mountaineering course and try to do a few easier climbs prior to your big goal.
Alternatively, doing Rainier with a guide, a Baker skills seminar or even an Emmons skills seminar can speed up that learning process and give you practical experience. Success ratios are pretty high for guided groups, but vary quite a bit correlating with experience with non-guided groups.Being in Denver should be awesome for your specific training. With a little driving, you’ll have some great opportunities to train in the mountains at elevation. Follow Mark’s advice on checking your progress on the specific workouts.
There’s a lot of questionable behavior on the Colorado high peaks, and as a new resident it’s good to be thorough with your homework and avoid relying on hearsay. Many of the online forums for Colorado mountains have questionable information on hazards (avalanche, early season snowpack, rock quality, etc.) and how to manage those hazards. The mountaineering groups and clubs are great to get started, but keep in mind that they regularly consult with certified guides for definitive information and best practices.ParticipantThanks for sharing Justin. It’s great to hear the backstory and motivations, and it’s very inspiring to know what you’ve accomplished with your commitment. I hope that this helps others in a similar position know that they can take ownership over their life’s course.
ParticipantDon, You can definitely substitute skinning. You raise an important point about comparing HR zones.
Because skinning requires different technique than hiking, it has the potential to have different HR zones. But I think it can be quite similar to steeper uphill hiking. The problem generally lies in the first few skinning sessions every winter: often there is a huge jump in AeT Pace (vertical pace) over the first few sessions as we reacquaint ourselves with the technique. Assuming that you are using similar grades between your uphilling routes, vertical pace is often a better measure than horizontal pace.
I suggest that you use your current HR zones from uphill hiking, but be patient during the first few sessions. Many athletes report very high HR’s in the first few sessions, but then see HR trend lower and lower at a given pace. I’m not sure of the consensus, but it seems like many athletes have similar vertical AeT Pace between skinning and hiking, assuming the use of reasonably light gear on prepared tracks or groomers.
Each athlete is different, so you could certainly do an AeT Threshold Test once you’ve done a few sessions and see stability between pace:HR.ParticipantNate Emerson on January 4, 2022 at 7:51 am · in reply to: Not meeting hrTSS on hiking with BW #61527Kazu, If you are referring to seeing a difference between planned TSS and your hrTSS, please make sure to add in additional TSS for the pack weight and vertical gain loss, as outlined in this article:
Understanding and Using the TrainingPeaks Metrics CTL and TSS
Looking at your last hilly workout, you can add a significant amount of TSS to your hrTSS value. With future workouts, the more vertical gain, the more TSS you’ll be adding.
The important part is focusing on steep terrain with the targeted intensity and duration, not the exact hrTSS.If you are referring to the continuity of hill climbs, it’s ok for some of the longer days to include multiple loops/laps or hill repeats to get the vertical gain. I’d prefer that mountaineering athletes repeat a steeper section several times rather than do a longer, less steep loop hike. A lot of our athletes have had a lot of success on big peaks with many of their workouts comprised of lapping their fire stairs in their high rise or doing these sessions as repeats on smaller steep hills.
If you are really running into a problem accessing steep hills, you can certainly do some sessions on a stair machine