[AshRick]

AshRick on May 16, 2021 at 1:48 pm · in reply to: Pa:Hr and rTSS #54067

Key…rTSS is based on paces you enter for second threshold (AnT, or one-hour pace). It computes based on how fast you ran, not your HR. It attempts to adjust for hills, but doesn’t do a great job. It will underestimate your effort for a hilly route. Advice on here is to add 10 points for every 1000ft of vert your route had.

Say your (flat course) run was done at 80% of threshold, for one hour. Say, you ran 10:00 pace, off a threshold pace of 8:00. Your rTSS is .80^2, times one hour. Drop the decimals.

.80^2 = 0.64, or rTSS = 64. If you ran that for two hours, it’s 64×2 = 128.

That figure, 64 or 128, is a measure of total training stimulus, or fatigue. The number doesn’t mean a lot for any one workout, but is a robust measure over weeks of daily averages.

I’ve got my 6-week moving average up to 80, and am pushing to get it over 90 for a couple months prior to Leadville. That is roughly the equivalent of 10 hours a week at at least 80% of threshold.

[AshRick]

AshRick on April 20, 2021 at 12:47 pm · in reply to: Cycling Tempo rides #53279

My view…Z3 rides are not “endurance/EZ” rides. They fall into the “harder” category. (This is particularly true when translating to running.)

Yes, the outcome is that the 80/20 mix gets skewed toward 50/50. But…that is again the reinforcement of the idea that there is no shortcut. While the time-constrained athlete might need to do 50/50 to at least get some weekly stimulus, there is no substitute for volume, and volume at easier paces/efforts.

Someone with only 3 hours a week to train should go out on tempo rides, yes. Plenty of people are limited to their Saturday group rides, which are almost always a tempo average. But they will hit a ceiling that can only be overcome with volume and shift toward 80/20.

[AshRick]

AshRick on April 19, 2021 at 11:20 am · in reply to: Should the AeT test feel this HARD? #53240

Tyler…I had the exact same result after a long Z1-building cycle. Initially, it took focus to keep HR down that low. Pace was excruciatingly slow.

Six months later — I just “cruise” at that Z1 HR. Pace is now where I used to be at top of Z2.

Now — Z2 running is hard! I’m breathing just fine and feel comfortable, but local fatigue in the legs starts coming on much sooner than I expected. And, it should because I’m running faster. Z2 pace is now where I used to be right up against AnT. Half marathon pace, basically. I recently did a 10 mile Z2 run to test things out; a long AeT test, basically. I ran that 10 miles at about my half marathon PR pace from a few years ago, with a HR 15 beats below where I ran the Half (145 vs 160). Entirely within my aerobic zone, but my legs got pretty tired. Local fatigue. Which can be trained.

It sounds like you’re ready for some fast interval sessions to let the “chassis” catch up to the “engine.” Strides or hard 2-3 minute intervals.

[AshRick]

AshRick on April 19, 2021 at 10:09 am · in reply to: Using cycling to increase weekly aerobic volume when I’m a runner? #53239

From my years in multisport/triathlon, and my one year of ultra/mountain running, I think…

Cycling volume doesn’t really do much at all for flat-ground running. Been there. Tried it. Watched scores of other try it. People trying to cut running volume by riding more. Fails every time. Once you’re fit, they’re different sports and that’s that.

But…now that I have to do all this uphill work…I think cycling translates well to going uphill on foot. A very knowledgeable physiologist that’s well known in endurance sports agrees.

Running/hiking uphill uses the muscle through a range of motion as a motor pulling on levers. Running on flat ground uses the muscle as spring and a strut. Cycling is the former; not the latter.

Given that our events are on varied terrain, there’s another use for cycling. As a prep to a long run — “pre-fatigue.” I’ve done this the past two weekends. Ride about 45 minutes, with 30 of those minutes standing on the pedals uphill. Staying in Zn2.

Then come home and head out on the long run. Dang — what a difference. I feel like I’m getting in the second half benefits of a three hour run, but only putting 90 minutes of pounding on my knees. Similar effect to a hilly race where you go uphill a while, then have to flat-run.

As I build toward some long races this summer, I’m going to be using these uphill rides to get some vert into my legs without having to run back down all the time. I’ll do enough downhill specific prep to be ready, but in the regular course of training, every uphill step means a downhill step and I’d like to change that equation.

[AshRick]

AshRick on April 19, 2021 at 9:57 am · in reply to: Cycling Tempo rides #53238

Longtime cyclist here…

Cyclists can handle tempo rides better than runners. For a runner, the pounding and fatigue you endure has a high cost versus running easier, and saving hard days for going properly hard.

Cyclists call these “sweet spot” rides. Don’t do them all the time, but they can be valuable, particularly for a time-constrained athlete. If you have 90 minutes once or twice a week — a Z3/sweet spot ride can be great.

[AshRick]

AshRick on April 13, 2021 at 11:08 am · in reply to: Slow runs are making me sluggish #53095

My experience…we can get really “dialed in” to our Z1 paces doing base work. It starts making anything faster feel like a lot of work. It’s pretty common advice to throw in strides on a regular basis, and some high-Zn2 segments into runs. Just run faster now and then. Enough to feel it in your legs, but not take on a big metabolic stress.

It’s remarkable what it can do for Zn1 pace. Which is race-pace, after all.

I’m in that cycle now. Did a solid six months of endurance-pace work. Brought Zn1 pace down a bit, and then it stuck there. So…I’m doing strides mid-run a few days a week. Moving the middle third of some base runs up into higher Zn2. In a week or so I’ll do some Zn4 work.

Then back to endurance miles and see what’s changed. I’ll always do 70-80% of my miles at endurance pace. But even that is a range. My Zn1 HR range, up to bottom of Zn2, is almost a minute a mile wide. At the bottom of Zn1 (“barely running”) I’m at 10 min/mile. At bottom of Zn2 (“starting to work a little”) I’m at 9 min/mile. Those are both “endurance pace.” Or, in Daniel’s Running Formula terms, E pace.

[AshRick]

AshRick on April 12, 2021 at 5:25 pm · in reply to: Quads vs Hamstrings #53067

As it turns out, I trained *exactly* as much going uphill as downhill. 😉

Uphill I did mostly at low end of Zn2; powerhiking as hard as the terrain would allow at that target HR. Typical outing would be 10-15 miles with 2500-4000 ft of vert. One day I pushed really hard on a 4,000 foot climb, right up against AnT, in an attempt to get a Strava age group CR. I managed to get it…and literally a minute later a guy came running into the mountaintop parking lot, and broke my record! He was chasing me the whole time.

On the canyon day, I didn’t really walk at all. We were either running (downs and flats) or hiking hard enough to be in Zn1. Stayed out of Zn2 — maybe an hour total at low end of Zn2. Very similar to my training efforts.

I think it was simply the distance. 11,000 feet of downhill is a lot different than 4,000 (my usual long training day). I also would tend to do that big downhill after climbing up. So…climb up, run down. Get in the car. I never really had to do the long downhill and then keep going another couple hours.

That’s something I’m going to add for this next cycle. Ride my bike to the top of that hill, run down, then come back up. Ride home.

[AshRick]

AshRick on March 17, 2021 at 6:20 pm · in reply to: Metabolic efficiency test results: Improving poor fat utilisation #52142

Steve — got it. Doing some further reading…max fat oxidation (MFO) occurs just below crossover. And MFO is somewhere around <65% of VO2max in a trained athlete.

So, if we imagine for a minute that I am “trained” – and further assume that my VO2max pace is 6:00/mile (a reasonable estimate) — then 65% of that pace is ~9:15/mile.

Which about jibes with my recent AeT test.

I guess I keep thinking of lactate threshold, which is more like 70-85% of VO2max. The crossover point is below that, as is AeT.

[AshRick]

AshRick on March 16, 2021 at 3:01 pm · in reply to: Metabolic efficiency test results: Improving poor fat utilisation #52090

The note that AeT is “by definition” the 50/50 fat/CHO crossover point has come up a couple times on the forum recently. But…is that actually true? I would think for an endurance-trained athlete, that crossover point can be well below AeT pace.

It’s an important thing. Can someone point to an objective answer to this?

[AshRick]

AshRick on March 16, 2021 at 10:14 am · in reply to: MET Podcast #52082

Sometimes lost in the quest for better fat-burning is the improvement in glucose-burning that develops. The initial fast anaerobic “burn” of the glucose molecule doesn’t produce a lot of energy — 2 ATP. But the byproduct — pyruvate — can shuttle into the mitochondria and loop into the Krebs cycle. Where it then becomes basically rocket fuel — 30+ more ATPs.

So, long aerobic running hours don’t just increase fat burning capabilities. Those miles also build up the shuttling mechanism to clear pyruvate out of the cell and into the mitochondria. That is a powerful energy source. An order of magnitude more energy from each CHO molecule.

Bottom line…we get better at both fat and CHO metabolism.

[AshRick]

AshRick on March 15, 2021 at 9:05 am · in reply to: Updated AeT test #52039

Steve’s question about MAF got me thinking. Yesterday I had a 2-hour Z1 run scheduled. Moderate terrain — about 900ft of vert. I decided to see how low I could keep HR while still running, not shuffling.

Turns out … I do have a 125HR pace. I just needed to start slow. HR lifted to 133-34 on the small hills. Avg HR for the full two-hour run: 126.

I wouldn’t have thought that possible, but there it is. It’s really good to know I have that gear. Will come in handy at Leadville.

Oh, BTW…I got into Leadville!

[AshRick]

AshRick on March 15, 2021 at 9:01 am · in reply to: The N-Zone #52038

Train to burn more fat, sure. But on race day…you’re short of carbs, not fat. No matter how much better your fat metabolism pathways, you need carbs on race day.

[AshRick]

AshRick on March 12, 2021 at 3:11 pm · in reply to: Updated AeT test #51967

MAF is 180 minus age, plus adjust up for a couple years of training with no injury/illness…?

I’m 61 this year, so 125 or so? I can kinda run at that HR, but it’s truly shuffling.

My HR at the low end of the effort level (Z1) is about 135; I’ve done some 3.5 – 4 hour days in that range.

Key development — when I did the first AeT test and realized that my Z1 should be that low, I couldn’t hardly believe it and could barely run that slow. I was skeptical that I could ever have a running HR that low.

Now 135 HR is a good steady pace, and picking up to 145 is “working.” Still aerobic, but definitely working. Could not do an ultra that hard.

So, by slowing down and doing the miles, I got faster at all HR levels.

I mostly run flats now around 135. Go on long uphills at 145 or so (hiking or running).

15 years ago I did entire Ironman bike and run at 145-148 (10+ hours). That would kill me now!

[AshRick]

AshRick on March 11, 2021 at 2:45 pm · in reply to: Cannot yet run in Z1/Z2 for training period duration #51936

As a longtime multisport athlete and (former) coach — it’s been my experience that no amount of cycling prepares someone for *any* amount of running. When a cyclist (or swimmer or rower…) starts running, they are starting as if they just started exercising. You’ve got to put in 4-6 weeks ignoring HR zones and just learn to run. Run a minute; walk a minute. Repeat. Do some faster strides — 20 seconds at a time. Strides are particularly valuable for the new or returning runner.

You’re switching from using muscle as a motor moving a lever — to using muscle as a strut and a spring. It’s more different than people realize.

My view: Don’t even bother with the test until you can run an hour at a comfortable pace. Because in the meantime, all the HR spikes are going to distract you.

[AshRick]

AshRick on March 11, 2021 at 2:35 pm · in reply to: vertical speed records #51935

Given that the WR for vertical kilometer is about 30 minutes — achieving that is going to be pretty tough.

No disrespect to Messner, but it’s doubtful he accomplished that. And certainly not on a snowy slope hauling gear.