[russes011]

russes011 on May 19, 2021 at 5:02 pm · in reply to: Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) and Training #54147

Thank you for these interesting posts–exploring the utility of CGM seems fascinating. I will check out the Peter Attia website.

I would like to point out that the most likely driver of a glucose spike during higher intensity work may be mostly due to one’s natural uptick in both adrenaline and cortisol during these moments–both of these hormones increase blood glucose. My point is that it may be more hormonal than a correlation to fat adaption per se, but the body is so complex both are probably interrelated, and perhaps the hormones are just intermediaries between the inevitable ‘failure’ of fat adaption and it’s resultant blood glucose spike, that may occur with quite intense workloads. Who knows, a blood sugar spike during exercise may become a surrogate for AeT someday.

Also of note, I believe although higher intensity work spikes blood glucose during the event, on average it lowers ones adrenaline and cortisol (and therefore blood glucose) for the rest of the day, on average–making exercise one of the best ways to control glucose in people with type II diabetes–it can often reverse it. Also, poor sleep increases cortisol, which would increase blood sugar and perhaps explain how sleep (and stress) may make food related glucose spikes variable.

I also love David’s observation that fasting after dinner leads to much lower blood glucose overnight, and therefore likely insulin levels, and therefore likely more weight loss (or no weight gain). As mentioned in TFTNA no snacks after dinner is quite a potent way to stay fit from a dietary perspective.

Once again, thanks for the interesting posts–looking forward to others posting with their experiences.

— Steve

[russes011]

russes011 on May 19, 2021 at 3:52 pm · in reply to: Long time base training with few if any changes #54145

Glad to try and help.

Another way to look at your AeT tests is to average them: HR 132 is a 4% drift telling you your AeT is somewhere greater than 132. I would keep doing them since they can fold them right into your work-outs anyway.

Also a note on higher intensity training. Bear with me if you know this already. Perform 10-20% of your workouts at higher intensities, not total time–ie don’t perform 10-20% of you running actually in zone 3, for example. Train terrain specific with all your running if possible and focus on 10K race pace (AnT) for your higher intensity workouts–this would be one way to do it.

Best of luck.

— Steve

[russes011]

russes011 on May 19, 2021 at 2:33 pm · in reply to: Long time base training with few if any changes #54142

JD,

You may be having trouble pinpointing your AeT, but otherwise I think you have been doing things mostly ‘right’–so don’t give up hope here. As you may know, as an ultra distance runner the most important type of training is relatively high volume, low intensity runs–consistently over months/years. This appears to be what you have been doing. Granted, adding a judicious amount of hills, ME, and 10K race pace (AnT) work is also important at some point, especially about 1-2 months out from a race, but since one’s body often adapts to this type of higher intensity work quite quickly, I think it has been ok for it to have waited. (Others recommend some earlier application of things like hill sprints and ME work, which I respect, but I won’t digress about this).

I would suggest the following:

1. perform a few AeT drift tests indoors on a treadmill keeping the pace constant after warming up and achieving a presumed AeT HR (try 140). In contrast, if you want to perform an AnT test, perform this outside on flat terrain, preferably even racing a flat, local 10K and use this as your AnT test. Maybe post with your results of the treadmill AeT test at 140?

2. Since you are about 2 months out from a possibly hilly, trail ultra, and have only been performing slow, presumably mostly flat runs, I would regardless of your AeT/AnT percent spread, just start a cycle of hill, ME, and/or AnT work-outs–say about 10-20% of your training time. I wouldn’t let your trouble determining your AeT stop you from racing in a race you may become ready for, since you have been doing so much Z1/2 base miles.

3. Don’t quote me on this, but I think your training over the past months may have been at too easy a pace. Most of your time should be at what should feel more moderate than easy, IMO. This is often, if not always, below your AeT. Keep in mind the feeling of moderate should be what your heart (ie HR) and lungs are doing and not your legs per se. Folks often go too easy because they feel like their legs can’t go all day at a certain speed, while it’s more the heart and lungs we are looking at in regards to AeT. (granted beginners, which you are not, are often more limited by their legs, even at short distances). I’m guessing here but I bet your AeT, which can vary a bit based on internal and external conditions, is about 10-15 points above your MAF at this point–perhaps in the 135-145 range.

As you may know, in the end, your body adapts to what you do with it. If you have only been running super slow over long, flat distances this is what you are good at right now. Other speeds, terrain, and sports, you are probably de-conditioned. But as I mentioned above, building up an aerobic machine to move all day long at a slow pace takes much more time to build, as well as more time to de-condition, while other things like speed and hills can come and go relatively more quickly. My point here is you have already done the more time-consuming work and are likely in a good jumping forward spot to polish it off.

Best of luck. Hope some of my recs are helpful.

— Steve

[russes011]

russes011 on May 11, 2021 at 6:54 am · in reply to: vertical speed records #53873

In the context of Scott’s comment, I wonder if 1km/hr below AeT is a reasonable goal? Indoors it’s probably not too hard, outdoors may of course be much harder. I feel like this may be a nice metric, albeit terrain/technique specific.

[russes011]

russes011 on May 10, 2021 at 7:27 am · in reply to: Downhill Strength Exercises? #53838

I have had success with the Tap-Jump-Tap box drill (15sec on–45sec/off), as well a lunge off a box where you jump side to side on the same leg for awhile over a small object. Pistol squat progressions also seem very useful, both for climbing and skiing. Single-leg stuff seems best IMO.

Otherwise, the UA Box step-down is really great, as are leg blasters (aka quadzilla complexes), although with the latter I find it important to monitor form to prevent injury–its easy to get sloppy when tired. I have also evolved to just use weighted, jumping lunges instead of leg blasters because I think thats where the money is.

Single leg balance exercises like single-leg Romanian deadlifts are great. As are those one-legged pelvic lifts that train your hamstrings (also can be weighted). And of course the good old deadlift for posterior chain deficiencies.

One could also do negatives (eccentrics) on a lot of these exercises, or at least do the eccentric portions slow, which should provide a better descent-focussed work-out.

Hope this helps a bit.

[russes011]

russes011 on May 2, 2021 at 3:00 pm · in reply to: Anemia? Low RBC, Normal Ferritin #53613

Hi Melanie,

Recurrent fatigue is a tough one to figure out. As Thomas mentions, it can be associated with a variety of different conditions, some pathologic, most not. For example, it could very likely be unrelated to your mild anemia–perhaps this anemia has even distracted some medical professionals in the past from exploring other more subtle causes.

I believe the episodic nature of the fatigue you describe may be the key to figuring it out over time. This sounds like a pain in the butt, but keeping a journal of your diet, fatigue, sleep, stress, thoughts, and training levels may allow you to associate certain training volumes, intensities, foods, stressors, seasons, etc. with when these episodes of fatigue occur. Then you could hone down on possible associations and explore them with the appropriate professional (like a dietitian if you think it may be diet related, or a coach if it’s training related). And when one lead doesn’t pan out, try a different one. You may have already done all of the above, or some of it in part.

It appears that you have monitored all your blood tests and there doesn’t seem to be any significant deficits. As Thomas alluded to there can be mild, non-pathological changes to some blood tests with heavy training, including thyroid function. I’m not sure if you’re in America, but if you are, the medical system is unfortunately not really set up for such a holistic, activity-related evaluation that you may be looking for. There are probably some healthcare professionals that do this, but they may be hard to find.

I understand I haven’t given much concrete advice, but I do wish you well in figuring out what can be quite a perplexing issue. At least it seems it hasn’t prevented you from being very active during your life thus far. And thank you for your military service. I always wanted to be military pilot when I was young but got rejected, in part, because I had a color deficiency in red.

— Steve

[russes011]

russes011 on May 2, 2021 at 5:45 am · in reply to: Muscle endurance and AeT #53599

Scott:

You appear quite certain that using a percentage of maxHR to help determine training zones is never useful or relevant–point taken. I will of course defer to you on this topic and continue my reading to convince myself of the same.

— Steve

[russes011]

russes011 on May 2, 2021 at 5:35 am · in reply to: What causes HR to drift? (N-Zone topic) #53598

Thank you for your post Scott. Your answer is quite simple, but in the end, the simplest answers are usually the ones that are most likely true.

[russes011]

russes011 on May 2, 2021 at 5:25 am · in reply to: Repeaters vs Max-hangs #53596

Thanks for the the follow-up post Scott.

Both you and Dave highlight the point that once one’s training and/or climbing is good enough to warrant ‘non-climbing’ training like hangboard routines, and eventually power-type training, it’s probably best to get the input of a coach to help guide the athlete based on specific goals and access to actual climbing, etc.

[russes011]

russes011 on May 2, 2021 at 5:21 am · in reply to: How long before you noticed progress on your aerobic base/AeT? #53595

Scott:

My recommendation is mostly based on the current “American Heart Association Recommendations for Physical Activity in Adults and Kids”. Although not very specific for athletes per se, the recommendations are evidence based, and IMO can be a good few month intro to exercise prior to starting more systematic training, especially when one cannot reliably run/jog on flat terrain in Z2. My recommendations are also based on my reading of a few popular books regarding endurance and strength training, including Run Faster, The Science of Running, and the UA books; as well as the Exercise Physiology reference book by Powers and Howley.

Lorin:

Please understand that my earlier post is just my opinion, and I would defer to the moderators, or your coach, if you have one, regarding specific and individualized recommendations.

[russes011]

russes011 on May 2, 2021 at 4:58 am · in reply to: Planning a break/reduction in Training #53593

Always good to re-read stuff–it’s amazing how much different a book can be interpreted based on one’s current mindset or experience in life. Said differently–and I’m referring to myself here–is that when I read a scientific book without much of a foundation in the field I tend to not extract as much information, or the key information, as I could have otherwise. (As a separate example, most of us only read the fiction classic back in high school or college, when they can be much more meaningful to read after a few decades of life experience.)

PS – I have the Kindle versions of the UA books and they don’t have page numbers!–at least on my laptop app–;)

[russes011]

russes011 on May 2, 2021 at 4:33 am · in reply to: Aerobic Base #53592

Thank you for the response Scott, what you say concurs with Lindsay and Reed and makes sense to me. I’ll also check out that book–thanks for the recommendation.

[russes011]

russes011 on April 28, 2021 at 9:30 am · in reply to: Lactate tests : help me !!! #53464

I get the impression you are having some difficulty in determining your AeT HR.

I would consider it a range, more than a specific number, which can change based on motivation, temps, hydration, distances, sleep, diet, etc.

What ‘AeT’ really is, is the max cardiovascular (CV) effort you ‘think you can’ maintain for a very long time, say 8hrs to 24hrs, without it ever stopping you from continuing. (As an aside, most folks can’t just run, for example, for 24hrs, but if below AeT, it isn’t their CV system stopping them). I say ‘think you can’ instead of ‘you can’ because we don’t really know that effort is, and actually trying it for hours and hours is fraught with confounders, etc.

As a runner I would just pick a value for AeT (based on LT1, AeT drift, VT1, percent AnT/maxHR, MAF, or an average of them) and just run at this HR and see how it feels. Does it feel like you could, from a heart and lungs perspective, do this all day? Then adjust this HR from run to run until you find what you feel is optimal (understanding it may be different on different days). Another quick confirmation would be to simply look at your HR after 20+ minutes of jogging at this pace, then cover your monitor up, continue to run at this same effort and pace for say an hour, then check you HR towards the end–if its 6-7 beats higher then you have failed the AeT drift test and should try a lower HR next time (once again, understanding, that this may change a bit daily). A rising HR is thought to indicate that your energy use per unit time is increasing, which may indicate that with even more time you would have to stop from a CV point of view–ie, you are above AeT.

If you’re specifically concerned about you AeT/AnT ratio, it seems like you are within 10%, based on your LT1 and 30min AnT test. But I bet your AnT is higher than 165-170–more like 175–for a fit, seasoned 46 year old. Even if it was, your AeT/AnT ratio wold still be around 10%. The AnT is subjective too, because you are running it at a pace “you think” you can run for an hour (or 30min), which may not be actually what you can run for that amount of time. Since both AeT and AnT are both somewhat subjective, and more like ranges than values, the AeT/AnT ratio should also be considered more an estimate than a hard number to achieve, per se (IMO).

I’m 47; have a MAF of 133, an AeT drift test of 148-153 (it can vary), VT1 (nose) AeT test of 158, and 75% maxHR AeT of 143. My max HR is 191, and AnT is 175. I mostly do long slow distance type stuff like alpinism and hiking, and based on perceived CV effort I believe my AeT is between 133-148 depending on the activity and environment. I’m happy with it anywhere in that range, and it gives me flexibility when on trails, going uphill, and being able to jog and not shuffle on flatter terrain. HR monitor helps me simply slow down on uphills and speed up on flats/downhills, but to be honest with you, over time (as I assume you are aware) you don’t even need that feedback. Since I train a lot between 133-148, this has basically become my AeT pace by default. It could be pushed higher, but I don’t see the need.

[russes011]

russes011 on April 28, 2021 at 8:42 am · in reply to: Lactate tests : help me !!! #53462

The two definitions used for LT1 is a lactate of 2 or a jump of 1 between measurements. Since your lactate is above 2 at resting and at all intensity levels, we will go with the latter definition. (As an aside, lactate levels of 3.9-6.5 at rest and no lactate levels of below 2 with a HR down to 100, makes me not feel super confident in the reliability of your results–either from a measurement or calibration error) Test #1 give you an AeT between 149-157, while test #2 give you one in the 158-164 range. Taking the midpoint of these two ranges and taking their average gives you an LT1 HR of 157.

LT1 can be extrapolated (with some range of error) to determine your AeT–so I’d guess your AeT is about 157 or about 152-162.

As mentioned in another recent post, I’m not convinced that LT1 is any more accurate than other methods of determining your AeT, which tends to be a range anyway. Nevertheless, lactate testing can be accurate, however, in determining your LT1, which you could follow over time instead of AeT, but this is often not practical.

[russes011]

russes011 on April 28, 2021 at 8:24 am · in reply to: Aerobic Threshold Determination #53461

LT1 has a somewhat murky definition of a lactate of 2 based on studies, of relatively low statistical power, in athletes (ie these are not population studies). LT1 can then be softly associated with AeT HR or pace, but they are not equivalent. So based on this number your AeT HR would be somewhere in the 130-145 range (as Reed suggested, using a HR of 140 is a reasonable estimate because your lactate was 2.0 at 139). However, it may have reached 2.0 anywhere in the 130s. For arguments sake, let’s say your LT1 is 140, then this may be used as an estimate of your AeT. But your actual AeT, which is likely a range anyway, and probably a larger range due to confounding factors affecting HR, may be somewhere between 135-145–I’m guessing.

If this is a once-off lactate test, I would use the value of 140 as just one estimate of your AeT. You could then just average it with the other ones you obtained from other AeT testing methods, like the AeT test, the AeT drift test, MAF, and/or percent AnT/maxHR, etc. I am not convinced that an AeT HR extrapolated from LT1 on a single lactate test is any more accurate than any of the other ways to determine AeT. With time and repeated testing a reliable estimate for AeT can be obtained.

Regarding Ant: I thing it is indeterminate based on your test results–there aren’t enough data points to reliably note a change, or deflection point, in the slope of the lactate vs HR/Pace curve, which determines LT2 (ie, AnT).

It’s curious that they gave you (or the computer they used gave you) an AeT of 120 at a lactate of 1.3, when your average person not exercising can have a lactate that high (a normal resting lactate is considered 0.5-1.0; but stressors and inflammation could easily make it creep higher up to 1.5 (many labs consider 0.5-1.5 to be ‘normal’). (Sometimes these algorithms use your age, resting HR, HR variability, and/or %HR range (max HR-resting HR) without you knowing, to determine AeT, which is not what we are looking for in a lactate test.)