On further thought maybe 30/30s function more to increase your LT (AnT) and make it become closer to CS (VO2max), and not to target VO2max per se. (Granted VO2max should have a benefit from any type of training, including 30/30s, but perhaps not as much as if the intervals include work above CS or VO2max.) Perhaps then 30/30s should be classified more as an LT type of workout because you are training between CS (VO2max) and LT, and closer to LT with time–in essence the more global 8-10min 30/30 interval block functions as a long LT type interval.
russes011
Forum Replies Created
-
ParticipantParticipant
What type of intervals improve critical speed?
(As far as I can tell most folks use about 3min (max effort) for these intervals, usually in a 1:1 work:rest ratio? Is there a specific UA work-out that addresses this?)
What type of intervals improve W’?
(I presume 8-10s uphill sprints fall into this category?
What type of intervals improve LT (LT2, AnT)?
(I presume weighted hill carries fall into this category?)
Does max strength (or speed) training increase critical speed, or just W’?
I understand that all types of intervals improve all of the above–but would like to be more specific. My knowledge on the above answers is either limited or what I presume I know is a bit shakey.
Note: Not quite sure where 30/30s fall into any of the above categories–but I’m assume it does somewhere. 30s is too short to fully achieve VO2 max, at least on flat terrain, or even on some steeper terrain when starting in Z1 (I think it takes about 30-40s to hit VO2max). On steep hills, without a full recovery between intervals this very likely is possible. That said, 30s may not be a long enough rest for your W’ to be recycled, thereby degrading the efficacy of truly training W’ and/or perhaps CS–that is, with repeated intervals your body may become too spent to perform any real work above CS. I guess the answer depends on what is a more efficient way to train CS: time spent above CS, or time near, but below CS? Any input appreciated.
(Note2: I think in many circumstance CS can be defined as vVO2max or the velocity at VO2max–but I think this is an oversimplification. For the point of this discussion we can make VO2max and CS interchangeable).
Thanks
ParticipantCritical speed (CS) is one’s fastest speed (or pace) plotted against time. An example curve is attached below. As you go further out in time on the x-axis, the curve levels out–this is one’s critical speed, or in essence what your POTENTIAL ‘steady state’ is for for 30-60min.
Performance at specific distances/times longer than 30-60min can be determined by a percentage of your critical speed: for example people who win marathons run the marathon at 95% CS, while those who take 4 hours to do a marathon run it at, say 75% of CS. Similar percentages can also be applied to ultramarathon race times. In essence, CS represents one’s endurance potential, and the closer you can run near CS–for a specific race time (distance)–the higher chance you’ll win. This metric can also be applied to FKTs.
Lactate threshold, or AnT, may approximate critical speed but is usually different, or lower. This is because the definition of each is different, as well as the tests to determine them are different. The classic AnT test, for example, usually never reaches CS because most athletes, even highly trained ones, can’t maintain CS for an hour, let alone 30min. This is why tests to determine CS only take <20min, or even <5min. Lactate threshold is determined by a blood test, which appears to be routinely below CS.
W’ (or ‘anaerobic work capacity’) is the amount of additional speed you can produce (for a specific work load, eg incline) above critical speed. This is a constant value for a specific CS, for example, when operating above CS you can either run up an incline at 10m/s for 1s or 1m/s for 10s or 5m/s for 2s, and that’s it–it’s up to you how you want to spend this set amount of work capacity.
I’m curious how changing ones CS changes ones W’ and vice versa?
CS is trainable and determines your endurance potential. I see it as analogous to max strength being trainable and determining you power potential. (Or maybe they are the same thing?) And if true, does this mean that CS and max strength together determine your ME potential?–with CS being more important for longer events or goals?
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Participantrusses011 on April 4, 2021 at 8:04 pm · in reply to: Do betablockers affect physical performance? My own story #52761RE: Metformin
This drug blocks glucose production in the liver, as well as increases glucose uptake by the cells of the body. These two effects yield a lower blood glucose. Metformin can also increase your blood lactate level, irrespective of exercise stress or oxygen availability. Lactate builds up due to Metformin blocking glucose production in the liver, as well as its ability to block oxidative respiration (aerobic respiration) in the mitochondria. Lactate, which is just buffered lactic acid, is an excellent fuel source for muscles, among other organs. Lactic acidosis from Metformin, however, is uncommon and unpredictable, and is generally associated with more serious medical problems. Nevertheless, maybe some extra lactate helped you? (pure speculation here), or more likely, perhaps it simply encouraged more blood sugar to enter your cells (you became less insulin resistant)
RE: Metoprolol
HR monitoring is probably not an accurate way to determine effort, or your body’s aerobic efficiency per work load, or power output, when on a beta-blocker. It’s honestly not even a super reliable marker when one’s not on beta-blockers. In general beta-blockers will blunt your VO2max by blunting your max HR as well as your bodies other pro-performance responses to adrenaline. The other issue is that maybe the metoprolol prevented you from going in and out of afib during exercise, which is often asymptomatic, thereby increasing your stroke volume and efficiency in delivering oxygen to your muscles. Some new heart rate wrist watches, like the apple watch, can actually alert you to certain arrhythmias occurring. Some doctors are recommending them because they are cheaper than other more expensive, medical-grade, arrhythmia monitoring devices.
Anyway–they both seemed to improve your performance, so good news regardless.
ParticipantCorrect me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe he recommends taking fiber supplements. My take was that he suggests a diet rich in fruits and vegetables (including legumes). This would cover all your bases: soluble fiber, insoluble fiber, prebiotics (which as you may know is basically fiber), and vitamins, as well as the secret weapon of vegetable consumption: your have less time or room to eat other less healthy foods. If you can get the fruits and vegetables local and organic, then with only a very light washing with water you can get all that added soil and bacteria into your gut to helps things out too. Whole grains are another huge source of fiber. The healthiest and perhaps most ethical meal out there is a vegetable, a bean, and a whole grain (aka fiber, fiber, fiber).
If I had to recommend a fiber supplement–I would suggest chia seeds. They have a whopping 10g of fiber per oz (plus almost 5g of protein, and almost as much omega-3’s as salmon) and can be sprinkled on almost any meal throughout the day (salads, oatmeal, etc.). I like to keep a jar just sitting on my countertop. Added bonus: it’s super cheap.
Be a little careful with big doses of fiber, it could cause gas and bloating, as can overeating carbs (because your intestines can only absorb a set amount of carbs per hour and all the leftover gets fed to the gut bacteria and can cause GI upset too). Fruits, unfortunately, can also be complicated from a GI standpoint. Check out the FODMAPS website at Stanford Health, or elsewhere online–it can help you pinpoint whats giving you that bloated feeling, if it occurs–hint: it’s almost never gluten.
Participantrusses011 on April 3, 2021 at 4:05 am · in reply to: Z1/Z2 training on steep terrain – already ME? #52721The run vs walk thing is very interesting.
What defines running? Is it being momentarily off the ground for a moment, or is it one’s intermittent acceleration of center of gravity? Above a certain incline, in general, you stop leaving the ground while ‘running’, so classically it isn’t running, but from an acceleration point of view it still is. In essence, it’s probably something else, or a third type of gait, which can be practiced, made more efficient, and optimized.
At what point is it more efficient to switch from running to walking and vice versa? It is probably incline specific and individual (eg, it may depend on percent fast vs slow twitch fibers and limb length). To further complicate things, your PTS (preferred transition speed) for a certain incline does not actually depend too much on what’s more efficient per se: since going uphill on steep slopes is so taxing, one tends to switch from walking to running based more on local muscle fatigue, because different muscles are used with walking vs running, than efficiency per se. In essence, you walk as long as you can because its more efficient above a certain incline (you walk until your muscle feel too fatigued), then you switch to a running gait to give yourself a break, which uses different muscles (its funny that you actually run to rest in this scenario). This is because despite running being less efficient on higher grades (ie, it’s more anaerobic than walking and uses more energy) it feels easier compared to the fatigued walking you just did. Then eventually the less efficient running tires you out, or perhaps you have just recovered enough from walking, you switch back to walking.
In effect, above a certain incline both running and walking are important, both should probably be trained equally, and one isn’t strictly better or more efficient above a certain grade; they are complimentary. And, once again, PTS and percent walk vs run is individual. I don’t believe we know what percentage split means fasted times per se–and this probably doesn’t matter as much as your lactate threshold, for example.
And this is all irrespective of zone because running and/or walking can be performed in almost any zone. For example, paradoxically, jogging slowly up steep inclines can actually slow your pace and HR compared to walking briskly up them. My two cents: training to walk is almost as important as training to run for races that have significant inclines.
Participantrusses011 on April 2, 2021 at 7:00 pm · in reply to: Z1/Z2 training on steep terrain – already ME? #52713Basic aerobic work Z1/Z2 can be performed on inclines, I didn’t mean to imply that you couldn’t. I only meant to say that if you need to intermittently walk on steep inclines to stay in Z1 that would be okay.
ParticipantBrett,
Combining mountain guiding (or any other type of work that requires physical labor) with a standard UA training program can be very challenging. It requires a great deal of adaptability on a daily, weekly, and seasonal basis. To do this by yourself often requires must more insight, discipline, knowledge, and time than many busy guides have. If coaching is within financial reach, this one solution. Otherwise, adaptability in your mindset and training program is the other. Standard training programs often do not apply, even in the off-season–they need to be constantly fine-tuned based on your schedule. For alpinism goals, guiding can be a boon–it can provide you with all the aerobic zone training you could wish for. Small doses of strength and ME training may be all that you need to be a top performer. If your goal is something else, like a trail race, or ski mountaineering race, then guiding can also be a good thing, but perhaps not as much due to the the usual requirement of a heavy cycle of ME training that may not be possible with such a heavy load of guiding fatigue. The most difficult things to develop are probably downhill skiing and hard climbing (which is what many guides want to do), because both very heavy technique based sports that require plenty of time ‘practicing’. Downhill skiing can be quite fatiguing without much aerobic benefit. Hard climbing has the added issue in that fatigue, or a heavy load of aerobic work or training, often is counterproductive to truly climbing hard. (eg, studies have shown, in part, that aerobic work [and/or fatigue] compromises many types of neuromuscular endeavors, like hard climbing, which function almost solely in the creatine-ATP/neuromuscular training zone. Of note, the reverse isn’t as true, strength training often doesn’t compromise aerobic goals). Sadly, to climb really hard, you often need to cut out most of the aerobic work, at least temporarily (I’m generalizing here). This is what makes training for high end alpinism so difficult–it is often not possible to truly peak in all disciplines simultaneously.
In summary, if your goals jive with the baseline fitness guiding provides, then with adaptation you can make it work quite well, if it doesn’t then your other goals may not be as easily achievable while guiding a lot. Perhaps a simple paid consult (phone call) with UA may be helpful, just come prepared with specific questions and goals (and re-read their book beforehand), and don’t forget to write it off, or maybe your guiding service will pay for it because in the end you will probably become a better or more fit guide because of it.
Best of luck,
Steve
ParticipantThe part that doesn’t add up is having to catch your breath while still being in Z2. By definition if you’re breathing heavy you are above Z2. An exception to this would be altitude, where your respiratory rate may be low but you’re hypoxic enough to have air hunger, which is a separate phenomenon (usually feels like gasping, as opposed to rapid heavy breathing). Any history of Covid? having had it, with or without knowing it, may reduce your lungs ability to oxygenate (unsure about this).
If you’re HR remained in Z2 (how did you know?–we’re you wearing a HR monitor?, or was it by feel?), my gut impression is that your lower body anaerobic system is currently underdeveloped compared to your aerobic system. Do you mostly train aerobically? or do you perform metabolic conditioning type work-outs like HIIT, crossfit, ME work-outs etc.? Keep in mind it is possible that your aerobic (Z1/Z2) and strength (max str) systems can be well developed without your anaerobic (ME system) being well developed, which may be the case with you. (alternatively, since the ME system depends on both aerobic and max str, and your HR remained in Z2, somewhat excluding the aerobic system as the culprit, then lacking max str may also have been the real problem).
Also, maybe it was just an off day and nothing is wrong at all. Perhaps try it again before making a large change to your training program, especially if your program usually yielded good results in the past.
Best of luck,
Steve
Participantrusses011 on April 2, 2021 at 5:00 am · in reply to: Z1/Z2 training on steep terrain – already ME? #52682Peter,
From a physiological point of view the difference between Z1 and Z2 is likely arbitrary. There isn’t a test, or any other reliable method, of demarcating Z1 from Z2 (as far as I am aware). This is why some heart rate zone models just combine the two of them and call it your aerobic zone. Therefore, just choosing what feels right to you may be the best answer, whether it’s a percentage of AeT, or even just MAF (180-age), etc. Determining Z1 pace, is even more difficult, unless the environment and terrain is mostly controlled; it’s probably easiest on your treadmill since you can control the incline and temperature–so for this I would just determine pace by heart rate, then reconfirm the proper pace every few weeks. Keep in mind a variety of other factors may bump these workouts into Z2 without you knowing it, including sleep, training load, stress, hydration, diet, the list goes on. Performing Z1 workouts on a treadmill just to tick of a training program box while living in the alps sounds like a bit of a travesty. Easy outdoor jogs or walks sound like the nicest thing in world if you live in the alps. Maybe just do that, easy jogs with walks up hill–instead of just jogging slow up hills. This would allow you to go by feel, or nose-breathing, and not have to worry about the HR stuff for a workout. (Or just wear the HR monitor so it uploads to TP, but don’t look at it during the workout).
(This is obviously a much more nuanced topic, which includes the concepts, proven or otherwise, of recovery runs, are Z1 and Z2 different, how to determine AeT, can Z2 actually expand, and therefore can Z1 expand, etc.)
Just my amateur opinion, best of luck,
Steve
Participantrusses011 on March 30, 2021 at 2:16 pm · in reply to: What causes HR to drift? (N-Zone topic) #52559I have attached a graph comparing stroke volume and HR. It may reflect untrained individuals. Nevertheless, I don’t believe your average trained individual has more than a 10-20% increase in stroke volume compared to untrained individuals. Elite athletes, or children who trained heavily through their youth may be exceptions to this.
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Participantrusses011 on March 30, 2021 at 2:08 pm · in reply to: Temperature Impact on HR (maybe: N-Zone)? #52557It will probably will take 7-10 days to acclimatize to the heat. I have attached a figure that I found on the internet that coincidentally is from the same article Thomas has referenced.
When it comes to training through this acclimatization, I don’t believe there is a method that has been proven to be superior. I would continue your current training, tolerating some higher heart rates for the next 7-10 days, but perhaps decreasing the duration of your sessions until you have adjusted. Beware of sweat loss and hydration issues as well.
The article Thomas referenced is quite in depth and seems to cover most issues.
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Participantrusses011 on March 30, 2021 at 11:22 am · in reply to: General strength and volume training questions #52549Is biking or jogging to work an option? If so, this could dramatically increase your training volume without adding any time to your week. Also, splitting your core and strength training into several, smaller micro-workouts throughout the day could also eliminate this time requirement. Best of luck.
Participantrusses011 on March 30, 2021 at 11:00 am · in reply to: Temperature Impact on HR (maybe: N-Zone)? #52548I miss Munich. I lived in Maxvorstadt for 6 months back in 2004. Used to train at the Olympiapark.
Anyway, I would say that thermoregulation during exercise would directly lead to an increased cardiac output, and therefore increased HR, for the same pace performed at a warmer temperature. Being well trained exaggerates this effect, while acclimation likely reduces it. A higher cardiac output during warm weather is from vasodilatation of the vessels in your skin to dissipate heat. The higher cardiac output and heart rate, probably didn’t strain you noticeably since you are well-conditioned, but your body probably received a greater amount of training stress from the workout than usual. I think blood flow can go from about 0.5L/min to up to 8L/min during hot maximal exercise, while overall cardiac output can go from about 5L/min to ~30L/min overall during exercise at any temperature. And since cardiac output is finite, a higher percent gets shunted to your skin, which can reduce blood flow to muscles at high intensities. At lower intensities, like your run, your heart rate just goes up and is able to compensate for both skin and muscle demands.
— Steve
ParticipantThanks Sashi–I hear you.