[Robert]

Robert on July 21, 2019 at 2:14 pm · in reply to: Strength Training & Ultrarunning #25207

Hi Nick,

You might check this post by Jason Koop, a well-known coach of numerous top ultra marathon competitors and the author of the book “Training Essentials for Ultrarunning“.

I don’t agree in entirety with his perspective as, personally, I have found sport-specific functional strength training to have a very large influence on economy whether it is running or skiing, and even for running at the lower ultra running paces. In the more technical “sky running” events, strength training is even more important. For a flat 100 miler, Koop may be correct. But as an “Uphill Athlete”, I think the equation is different.

[Robert]

Robert on May 24, 2018 at 2:42 pm · in reply to: Fast After 50 Response #10041

Hi dan peck,

You might want to take another read of FA50 as Friel definitely does not indicate that “LSD” (or perhaps better referred to as aerobic threshold workouts) is “worthless”. In fact here is what he says in Chapter 6:

p 165

“Aerobic threshold training isn’t directly linked to reversing or slowing the ravages of aging, as aerobic capacity intervals are. This workout is exclusively about endurance performance. And since that’s what this chapter is about, we need to review it.”

p 167

“As you’ll see later on, this (the aerobic threshold workout) will become one of the staples of your training, not to slow aging but to improve performance while also improving your ability to burn body fat.”

He goes on to describe, in detail, why aerobic threshold workouts are so important and how to develop a training plan that appropriately incorporates such workouts (and the dose and density) as a function of your goal event length.

In my case where I am doing 30 min to 2 hour events in the winter as a cross country skier and 2 hour to 20 hour events in the spring/summer/early fall as a mountain trail runner/ultramarathoner, the dose and density of the aerobic threshold work does not actually change much between race seasons and is typically at about 80% of the total volume. What does change substantially between seasons is the dose and density of high intensity work (LT and VO2max sessions)- it’s very high depending on where I am in the periodized schedule leading to “A” races in the winter but significantly less and more focused on LT and vertical ascension in the spring/summer for the mountain trail runs. But the “LSD” stays at just about 80% year-round. And, of course, the strength training is consistent year-round but punctuated with three-four max strength builds in spring, summer, fall, and late fall.

I think you will find that Friel’s approach is largely consistent with TftNA for event length exceeding 4h.

[Robert]

Robert on May 16, 2018 at 2:42 pm · in reply to: Fast After 50 Response #9901

Hi danpeck,

I think you may have mis-read Friel as, although he de-emphasises aerobic threshold training in FA50, he clearly acknowledges that such training still plays a critical role in any athlete’s development. Specifically such workouts will allow for improvements in efficiency and, when properly structured, will lead to an increase in the aerobic threshold (and aerobic power (or pace)). The point he makes (based on some studies he references) is that for endurance athletes over about 50 years of age, aerobic threshold is not as negatively affected by age as is VO2max, muscular strength, and ability to recover (these are the “big three” things that he proposes an older athlete needs to concentrate on). So his approach involves working on these three aspects as priorities but he still specifies aerobic base building workouts in any training plan. This is the base from which all productive training will derive- a good base will allow higher intensity training to yield significant improvements in aerobic power; without the aerobic base the higher intensity training is much less effective (some argue that it will actually be ineffective or even detrimental). So although Friel emphasizes the “big three” it is assumed that one maintains a well developed aerobic base. Under ideal circumstances one would like to move your AeT heart rate (HR) (or pace) toward your LT HR (or pace) and progress such that your AeT HR is within about 10% of your LT HR. Also moving your LT HR to within about 10% of max HR is desirable. Attaining these parametrics typically yield a highly efficient athlete with near-optimal aerobic power and who has substantial dynamic range to respond to whatever demands might confront the athlete.

As an older athlete your VO2max is declining and the only way to slow this down is to train it. Likewise with muscular strength where, due to substantial declines of natural HGH and T production in the older athlete, it is a battle to maintain muscle mass and attendant strength. The max strength and general strength sessions outlined in TftNA are great ways to battle that loss of strength. And then there is the increased difficulty older athletes have with fully recovering after each training session. Prioritizing recovery is very important and needs to be emphasized and adhered to in order to optimize the net training effect from training sessions. This, of course, is true for any athlete but for an older athlete the time required to recover from an equivalent stimulus is longer, sometimes substantially longer depending on the individual.

As a 62 y/o mountain trail runner, mountain ultra marathon runner, and cross country skier I have found Friel’s approach and focus on the “big three” to be highly functional. Combining Friel’s old-age specific training priorities with the approach detailed in TftNA has resulted in high performance in national and international-level events at lengths ranging from 1h to over 16h. But it all starts with a solid aerobic base!

[Robert]

Robert on May 16, 2018 at 12:29 pm · in reply to: Weight Vest Recommendations #9897

I use this model:

We have one each of the 40, 60, and 80lb versions which are jocularly referred to as the JV, Varsity, and Pro vests. They are primarily used for weighted pull-ups, weighted step-ups, uphill climbing muscular endurance sessions, and double pole roller skiing (which are also muscular endurance sessions). After 5 years of thrice-weekly use they have held up very well and I can recommend this product. Also each vest uses a different individual weight (e.g. for the 40lb it is 16 2.5lb weights, the 60lb is 15 4 lb weights, etc.) so if you have all three it is straightforward to slowly increase the weight in the vest by mixing in smaller weight increments as you approach your periodic maximum capabilities.

I’ve seen this vest model used by quite a few people around here on the foothills climbs- they are probably acolytes of Viesturs’ getting ready for some guided alpine ascent.

[Robert]

Robert on April 11, 2018 at 3:23 pm · in reply to: How to change your diet while training? #9303

Forgot to put up the recommended carbo consumption/weight as a function of training hours that is outlined in the “Racing Weight” book. The guidance is very general and should serve only as a starting point from which a carbo consumption “dialing in” can be achieved. I tend to be on the low side of these recommendations for my typical 15-20h per week training load but I know others who are on the high side for similar training loads.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Robert]

Robert on April 11, 2018 at 3:13 pm · in reply to: How to change your diet while training? #9302

You might consider getting an A1C blood test to determine if you are insulin resistant (IR) or potentially pre-diabetic. If you are then a higher fat diet may allow for better results w/r/t weight and recovery since you may be battling a genetic enzymatic profile that allows for substantial carb conversion to fat rather than glycogen. Also you may not be burning as many calories as you might think you are since basal metabolic rates (BMR) vary substantially from individual to individual and as a function of fitness.

There is a book called “Racing Weight” that attempts to help one understand what racing weight is and how you might attain such a weight. The book is based on an “outcomes” approach where successful international-level athlete diets are analyzed and concatenated into guidance. This approach is similar to that of Seilier in understanding the efficacy of various training regimens for endurance sports. Given the paucity of quality research in the field of nutrition (and endurance physiology as it relates to establishing effective training protocols) such “outcomes” approaches are among the very few grounded, experience-based data that we have to give reasonable guidance. After over 40 years of endurance training for national and international-level competitive endurance sport (cross country skiing, cycling, mountain biking, mountain running, and ultra marathon running) I have found the guidance provided by the “outcomes” approach used in “Racing Weight” to be efficacious for me and virtually all of my fellow competitors over the years. There is a current “cult-like” trend toward low carbo high fat (LCHF) diets as being ideally suited to endurance and ultra endurance sport. Unfortunately the studies that are referenced by such proponents of the LCHF cult are inconclusive at best. Do your own background work but I think you will find substantial deficiencies in the research and much associated criticism of the published work.

Gaining “fat adaptation” is often highly correlated with high volumes of aerobic work (preferably without significant fueling during the sessions- as noted above) and not with diet. Of course to support high volumes of aerobic work one must have a diet which provides proper levels of fuel for the work and the recovery. Often overlooked is the rest (sleep) requirement that many have difficulty satisfying. There are many dietary paths to fuel your aerobic work and no single one will work for all, but the data show that a high proportion of elite athletes subscribe to an approximate 65/20/15 percent of daily intake proportion for Carbs/Protein/Fat (the ranges can be up to about 10% in carbo and 5% in protein and fat). What exactly will work for you? You’ll have to determine that via experimentation but start with high quality foods that are as unprocessed as is feasible for pleasurable consumption.

[Robert]

Robert on April 3, 2018 at 2:34 pm · in reply to: Should skiers train more like bodybuilders? #9081

Clearly competitive cross country skiing has become significantly more upper body and core intensive in the last two decades and there has been a relatively large change in training protocol as a result. But the strength and power building techniques utilized to optimally prepare a cross country skier for competition bear no resemblance to “body builder” approaches. Look at the strength programs of the National Teams and elite team clubs and you will not find any “body builder” techniques being employed.

I have found that Scott’s max strength workouts outlined in TftNA (along with the general strength work also outlined there) are ideally suited to efficient upper body and core power development in cross country skiing. By efficient I mean that one develops a high power to weight ratio (as you have noted as being important). But also efficient in the sense that this high power is being delivered, via technique, to speedy propulsion of one’s body down the trail- and not focussed on a non-sport specific body movement aligned with building muscle mass. Both my wife (a two time Olympian in the sport) and I have seen substantial improvements in double pole power (and therefore in V2 and V1 power as well) utilizing slightly modified TftNA max strength programs that focus on the specific body movements for cross country skiing. Although there is some hypertrophy it is not “body builder”-like at all. The low rep max strength work is highly neuromuscularly focussed, not hypertrophy focused like body building techniques. Using such a max strength program one will develop high weight specific upper body/core power and, with additional muscular endurance work, significant improvement in high power output throughout a race.

At age 62 and after three years and nine 5-8 week build progressions with Scott’s max strength program I am at about 170% of body weight for pull-ups and can double pole off the line with many of the US-level competitors and often competitively double pole entire hilly races. My appearance would not indicate anything even approaching a body-builder-type upper body. I am a 5’7″ 127 lb lightweight with a very high power to weight ratio. Having seen Marit (during summer training when she is not all bundled up), she does not look like a body builder, nor do any of the other World Cup level athletes that I have seen. Do they look strong? Yes, but not big.

I suggest that you might find that a concentrated program that includes numerous max strength build progressions to be of value in your cross country skiing training. But, depending on your age, the time horizon for improvements could be long- as it was for me as an oldster. You will see quicker response if you are under 40 and still have decent natural production of T and HGH.

Here’s a pic of US Cross County Ski Team member Erik Bjornsen (one of Scotts’ proteges) who is currently on the World Cup circuit scoring in the top 30- definitely not a body builder physique but very strong and powerful (photo credit: Faster Skier):

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Robert]

Robert on January 31, 2018 at 8:26 pm · in reply to: Training Volume in Transition Phase #7870

I agree with Scott on recording all activities that include anything above true resting. This includes active recovery, something that can be important for efficient training progression. For me active recovery includes a daily 5km, 50m ascent bike ride to the grocery, wood chopping, ski waxing and scraping, and other similar actives.

It never detracts to include records of such activities, However, if you do not record them then you cannot reliably discern if they are making any impact on your training progression- per the valid “what gets measured gets managed” argument that Scott provides above. These activities, although at a relatively low level of output, are real and do impact your ability to recover. So I promote recording all such activities along with the scheduled aerobic, intensity, and strength work. I also find that TP does a good job of incorporating the active recovery sessions into the ATL, CTL, and TSB provided that you are using reasonable numbers for the TSS of these sessions.

FirstBeat goes one step further and includes estimates of the effect of overnight sleep quality into the overall training stress by monitoring HRV and other metrics during sleep. I know a few World Cup Skiers who are using this and they have indicated that it is effective in determining stress state on a day-by-day basis thereby allowing for adjustments in trading that are aligned with actual training response. Great for professionals, but even as a dedicated amateur, I still refuse to wear a HR monitor to bed!

[Robert]

Robert on January 31, 2018 at 6:58 pm · in reply to: Mountain Running Questions #7869

Hi James,

I agree with Scott about an inexpensive, minimal jacket/windbreaker, so long as it has a DWR treatment.

This type of minimal jacket is what I use in many mountain races that do not require the waterproof, tapped seams garment. It is a windbreaker with a DWR treatment that weighs 70 gms and it works exceptionally well provided you are moving quickly. When there is a high degree of certainty that it will rain I will use a slightly more performance-oriented product that is a bit more than twice as heavy (180 gm) but provides a 10k/10k protection level and is also well ventilated.

For the Sky Racing where a 20k/20k waterproof jacket is required I will suggest the following option based on personal experience at such races (although there are many other products that will perform similarly):

1. Salomon Bonatti Pro (at only 200 gems it is a very high performance option)

As this jacket only weighs 200 gems, it is good alternative to the 180 gm 10k/10k option but it not as well ventilated, so one needs to be cognizant of this difference as ventilation will have a large influence on your comfort level. There are also companion pants for the 20k/20k garment. It is likely that the organizers are requiring waterproof pants as well, although I have not confirmed this.

Good luck!

[Robert]

Robert on November 27, 2017 at 10:57 am · in reply to: Help understanding zones… #6855

Hi Carlosdvg,

“Zones” can be very confusing as they are not “universal” and there are therefore numerous approaches and definitions out there, including those used in TftNA. As a scientist I have preferred using a system that is based on a fairly well defined physiological exertion threshold. The one I use is lactate threshold (LT) or that transition where lactate begins to exponentially accumulate. The approximate location (in bpm) of this threshold can be determined using blood lactate testing- something that has become commonplace with accurate portable measuring tools that are readily available. There are also reliable field tests that can determine LT to an accuracy that is more than sufficient for setting up your training zones.

If you set your zones up based on LT you will have an easily measured reference to monitor and adjust as necessary since LT will move around a bit based on the specifics of one’s training. Basing your zones on max HR (as is outlined in TftNA) is another valid approach albeit one that will require monitoring your max HR from time to time (max HR will not likely move around as much as LT). Determining your max HR is somewhat more painful than determining your LT (and some say doing so is more dangerous as well due to the stress put on your CV system). But I have found you will likely get to about the same individual training zones either way.

Another issue with training zones is that the numerous approaches use different “numbers” for the same zones, so there is often a disconnect in discussions about the zones as participants have different zone number definitions. For instance TftNA has the following zone definitions:

zone 1 (recovery) 55%-75% of max HR
zone 2 (No man’s land) 75%-80% max HR
zone 3 (uppermost aeorobic training) 80%-90% max HR
zone 4 (anaerobic zone) 90%-95% max HR
zone 5 (maximum effort) 95%+ max HR

Joe Friel (one the developers of Training Peaks) uses the following protocol based off of LT (this system is the default system in TP and the one I use):

zone 1 (active recovery) <85% of LT
zone 2 (aerobic threshold) 85%-91% of LT
zone 3 (tempo) 91%-95% of LT
zone 4 (sub-lactate threshold) 95-100% of LT
zone 5a (lactate threshold) 100%-102% of LT
zone 5b (aerobic capacity) 102%-106% of LT
zone 5c (anaerobic capacity) 106%+ of LT

Using my own data as an example- max HR 170, LT 155

my TftNA zones are:

zone 1 93.5-127.5 bpm
zone 2 127.5-136 bpm
zone 3 136-153 bpm
zone 4 153-161.5 bpm
zone 5 161.5+ bpm

and my Friel zones are:

zone 1 <132 bpm
zone 2 132-141
zone 3 142-148
zone 4 149-154
zone 5a 155-158
zone 5b 159-164
zone 5c 165+

You can probably see the confusion that can develop where, for instance, the TftNA zone 4 is zone 5a-b in Friel’s system and the TftNA zone 3 includes Friel’s zone 3 and some of his zone 2 and zone 4.

These two systems agree on the approximate location of the aerobic threshold (AeT) were TftNA defines it as the top of zone 2 (136 bpm for me) and Friel indicates that it is in the low end of his zone 2 (again about 136 bpm for me (although when peaking my AeT rises to around 140 bpm)). They also have similar LT values (for me 153 bpm in the TftNA system and 155 bpm in the Freil system (and as measured via blood lactate and field tests)). These LTs differ by a couple of beats but I do not find that sort of error to make a significant difference in what I do for training.

Another difference is that Friel does not reference a “no man’s land”. He does this because for some endurance event lengths part of the TftNA zone 2 is race pace and is therefore important in training plans associated with such events and he prescribes workouts in this zone for such athletes.

Since Uphill Athlete suggests that one will be well served by using TP as a training analysis tool, it is important to understand the approach that TP is taking as it concerns zones. Of course you can put in custom zones in TP that are allied with the TftNA system and thereby avoid the confusion. But if you happen to be discussing endurance training with someone who is not on the TftNA system it will be productive to have an understanding of some of the other systems that are in use. I run into this regularly with cross country skiers who use the USSA protocol (which is more like TftNA than the Friel system I use) and we plan to do intervals together. I need to understand that when they speak to, for example, doing zone 4 intervals- they are zone 5a-b for me.

Per your question on zone 1 and zone 2 and other training plans that you see online- well the other plans may be using an entirely different set of definitions for zones. My advice is pick a system and stick with it. So long as the system in use has a physiologic basis, provides physiologic explanations of the reasons for training in each zone, provides example workouts for such zones, and provides a periodization protocol (all of which are extant and provided for by TftNA) it should yield effective training progression when applied correctly.

[Robert]

Robert on September 15, 2017 at 2:33 pm · in reply to: weight #6078

Hi Scott,

Thanks again for the sage advice… drift taken.

I like the concept of speed before endurance- it makes sense. I expect it may be why I am so fast and relaxed in DP since I developed that technique over the last 3 years using very much the process you outlined. So I’ll being doing the same for V2 and striding starting now… and listening more to my wife!

Robert

[Robert]

Robert on September 14, 2017 at 2:37 pm · in reply to: weight #6073

Hi Scott,

Thanks so much for your quick and thorough response. I greatly appreciate your perspective and deep experience and feel privileged to tap into that significant base through your excellent programs at Uphill Athlete.

You have confirmed my own thoughts (and the more pointed (less generous) ones of my spouse who is a two-time Olympian in CC Skiing) about the weight question. As a scientist I tend to trust available data and the data on elite (i.e. Olympic and WC) male skiers is hard to ignore given that there literally is not a single athlete less than about 135 lbs. Given the oft-quoted 5% body fat average in elite CC skiers, that means that the skiers must have substantial muscle mass for their respective heights/weights. However, I expect that I am, from a pure strength perspective, at or near to that plateau that you mention as it concerns power to weight ratio. Adding skiing technique/efficiency to the equation (i.e. power delivered to the ground and the associated pace) is clearly important. Heikkinen is also a good example of the weight not being important, and, as has been also pointed out by my spouse, the weights of the top 5’5″ to 5’8″ World-level elite women are centered right at my current weight of about 130-133 lbs. If I could hold a pace like these women, I would not be asking any questions about weight!

Based on performance in races that include national-level elites (and World-level elite masters), I know that my DP is very efficient, and my climbing is similarly efficient. Where I see gaps open up with these elites is on very gradual downs and flats in V2 (V2 alt), very gradual ups in striding, and on downhills. I only see gaps open up on the downhills with the World-level elite masters skiers. So, as both you and my spouse have pointed out, I need to work intensively on increasing efficiency in V2 (V2 alt), striding flats, and pushing downhill speed all of which will come with a focus on the finer points of V2 and striding techniques and downhill body position along with related balance, single-leg strength, and core strength. Thankfully I have a good technique coach that skis with me every day! And thanks for offering your support for directing energies toward a concentration on technique and efficiency and not worrying about weight.

Sidenote: I want to express appreciation for your and Steve’s book (TftNA) as it is well written with some of the most exceptional graphics out there. I recommend the book (and the website) and particularly the strength training and cardiovascular sections to all CC Skiers and Mountain runners (young and old) that I interact with. Many of these athletes have subsequently experienced very positive results and many have, like me, fully integrated much of the strength training programs in the book into our individual training plans.

Best,

Robert