Jump Ahead To:
TogglePhysiology and Metabolism
Rather than rewrite a whole section on the physiology of endurance, if you are unfamiliar with this topic, please review the Physiology here. Or this subject is handled in depth in the Physiology chapter 2 of Training for the Uphill Athlete.
Here is a summary of metabolism as it relates to endurance:
- Your speed is a function of your working muscles’ ATP recycling rate.
- ATP can be recycled by the aerobic and the anaerobic metabolic pathways.
- Your endurance, the duration of that speed, is a function of which metabolic pathway (aerobic or anaerobic) does most of the recycling.
- Both systems are essential and contribute to the total ATP demand at different
percentages depending on the exercise intensity. - Aerobic ATP production is used for low-intensity exercise, whose duration is virtually unlimited due to its use of fat for fuel and the vast fat stored in even the leanest athlete.
- The anaerobic pathway should* be used mainly for high-intensity exercise.
- Anaerobic ATP production is limited in duration by the relatively small stores of glycogen.
- Anaerobic ATP production is limited in intensity by the accumulation of the metabolic by-product lactate.
*the should is what this article is going to discuss.
The greater the capacity of the aerobic metabolic system to recycle ATP, the less you will need to rely on the anaerobic system with its inherent downsides. Increased aerobic capacity should be the goal of all endurance athletes interested in improving their performance. Unfortunately, many athletes, even some who consider themselves very fit, suffer from an underdeveloped aerobic system. It is so common that Phil Maffetone coined the term Aerobic Deficiency Syndrome and first described it to me during a chance meeting in 1985.
How can you tell if you have ADS? Here are some tests you can perform to decide for yourself.
- Do your breathing rate and depth increase a lot with the slightest uphill?
- When out for more than an hour of continuous exercise, do you need to eat a gel per hour, or do you bonk?
- Are you unable to carry on a conversation in complete sentences or breathe through your nose during most of your endurance training?
- Are you one of those exercisers that feels you need to end each workout exhausted?
- Have you been swept up in one of the fitness fads like Cross Fit, Orange Theory, P90x, Boot Camp, or similar high-intensity exercise programs?
If any of these apply to you, there is a very good chance you are aerobically deficient. The implications of aerobic deficiency on performance are twofold. First, the glycogen fuel tank is tiny compared to the fat fuel tank. So you risk running out of fuel before your event is finished. Second, lactate accumulation beyond a certain level (Anaerobic Threshold, Maximum Lactate Steady State, and Lactate Threshold are common names) will limit the speed you can sustain for more than a few minutes before being forced to slow.
How this Affects Your Endurance
If you want to run, ski, or climb faster for longer, you must address aerobic deficiency before you get overly concerned with high-intensity training. But that is the opposite of how most people approach aerobic exercise. There is only one way to increase that aerobic ATP recycling rate. That is, with a high volume of activity below the capacity of the aerobic system to produce ATP without much involvement of the anaerobic system. It is nearly impossible to reduce the involvement of the anaerobic system to zero. But with proper training you minimize it for all intensities. We call this aerobic base training. Famed Soviet sports scientist Yuri Verkhoshansky coined the very descriptive term “Anti Glycolytic” training since it minimizes the use of glycogen for fuel.
Increasing speed while minimizing glycogen use is the basis for all the training methods used by the most successful endurance athletes. The inexperienced endurance athlete often misses that adding much (and in severe ADS cases, ANY) high-intensity training will reduce that all-important aerobic capacity and slow the needed improvement.
For those worst afflicted with ADS, the pace and perceived exertion will be so slow/easy that it is hard for them to accept that this could have a training effect. These folks think they need to “feel” like they are training. What they have done with the almost exclusive use of higher-intensity training is detrain their aerobic system to such a low state that it can support only a slow jogging pace. Some need aerobic base training the most and sometimes push back against it the most.
ADS sufferers are slow at aerobic efforts because their aerobic system is so poorly trained that it can only supply enough ATP to support very slow jogging or sometimes just walking. But it need not be like that. The marathon is an event that is competed at one’s maximum aerobic capacity. A world-class male marathoner can sustain a sub-5min/mile pace for 26 miles while in the same metabolic state as a 4-hour marathoner. The point is that aerobic does not mean slow. It is only slow if your aerobic capacity is low.
It Ain’t Rocket Surgery
The good news is that this quality is one of the easiest physical properties to improve in the endurance realm. All it takes is patience and consistency. Patience because it takes time. Training harder will not shorten this process. It will slow the process. Consistency because the aerobic system needs frequent stimuli to get the message that a change is necessary and make the appropriate adaptations. If you train too infrequently, the aerobic system reverts to its untrained state. The body is amazingly adept at eliminating unneeded transformations that cost it something to maintain. How frequent is enough? That depends on your fitness and goals. For someone just starting on this ADS journey, it might be 2x a week. That world-class marathoner I mentioned above will need daily and often twice-daily training sessions to maintain and build the aerobic system’s capacity.
Specificity plays a role in this training. For general fitness, any aerobic activity will help. Swimming, rowing, and cycling are great exercises for general aerobic fitness. However, if you are engaging in a foot-borne activity like mountain climbing or running, you should also try to do most of your aerobic base training in a foot-borne modality.
Doing it Right
To pinpoint the maximum capacity of your aerobic system, usually called the aerobic threshold. To quantify the degree of your aerobic deficiency, there are some more involved tests you can conduct, from going to a lab and spending hundreds of dollars for a gas exchange test to the heart rate drift test that I explain in another article about aerobic assessment. But for now, let’s assume you have answered yes to several of the above bulleted test questions.
A very effective low-tech methods of ensuring you are not training at too high an intensity is breathing through your nose or carrying on a conversation while exercising. If you can do those things, you are, almost without a doubt, under your aerobic threshold and getting the maximum training effect for your aerobic metabolic system. This is the fastest way to remedy ADS. We have used this method successfully with thousands of athletes over several decades. It works! But you must be patient.
Rules of Thumb
The aerobic needle will move very slowly if you do less than 3 hours of aerobic base training per week. Do not expect a noticeable improvement in your aerobic pace in less than six months. If you consistently get in 5-6 hours a week of aerobic base training, you will probably notice an increase in aerobic pace in 3-4 months. Things pick up when you hit 8 hours a week, and we have seen people cure ADS in 2-3 months.
Gaging Improvement
What do we mean by “cure ADS”? How do you know when you have improved your aerobic capacity? Initially, both your heart rate AND pace will improve at the same time. Eventually doing the course of aerobic base training your aerobic threshold heart rate will cease to climb in lock step with your pace. However, with continued aerobic base training (below the aerobic threshold) your pace will continue to increase. We have seen athletes improve their aerobic threshold running pace continuously for 10 years. That is how the elite marathoners mentioned above keep getting faster and faster.
Since you are interested in improving your performance rather than just your heart rate, the pace you can move (running, hiking up hill, etc) is something you can track with an aerobic threshold test or even casually observe when you training on the same trail frequently. Are you moving faster than a month ago while maintaining the same heart rate?
At some point on your journey to cure your ADS you no longer be moving slowly. Z2 will no longer feel easy. In fact Z2 can become very demanding to the neuromuscular system. Referring back to the marathon example; running sub 5 minute miles takes a lot of muscle power. Those elite athletes may be in the same metabolic state as someone running a 7 minute mile pace but they are producing significantly more power. The same could be said for improving your aerobic threshold pace from 13 minute miles to 10 minute miles. To run faster you have to produce more muscle power. That speed takes nervous system energy and is much more fatiguing than when you started this ADS journey because your aerobic metabolic system is now able to supply a great deal more energy.
We’ve discovered through testing athletes and from decades of observations that when the spread between the aerobic and anaerobic thresholds is 10% or less measured either by heart rate or pace the athlete has “cured”any aerobic deficiency and has reached good balance between the aerobic and anaerobic metabolic systems.
When you reach this level of fitness and your pace at aerobic threshold is fast enough to be quite fatiguing you must make adjustments in your training to account for the increased neurological muscular stress imposed by the faster pace. Zone 2 running, skiing and even hiking will become taxing enough that you will need to reduce that Zone 2 training volume significantly to avoid over training. You’ll replace it with Zone 1 training. At this same time you can begin to introduce more Zone 3 and even some Zone 4 training into your overall plan.
[…] drift means your energy requirements exceed your aerobic capacity. As you know from this article https://evokeendurance.com/aerobic-deficiency-syndrome-ads/ when your energy demands exceed your aerobic capacity, your anaerobic system must make up the […]
This is exactly where I am as a relatively untrained individual- I’ve been working just to get a base where I can jog (slow) for 30 minutes and still find my HR in the 170-180s! I feel stuck in that I want to at least be able to jog and get better at that, but worry that it’s all wasted effort at such a high heart rate and I would be better off just walking.
Lindsey:
Happy New Year. Thanks for writing in with your question. Let me start with a qusetion back to you: Are you using a heart rate monitor chest strap or are you relying on a wrist measurement from the watch itself. Wrist monitors almost always run high. If that is the case you might consider getting a chest starp moniotor that talks to your watch. If this is not the case read on.
Maximum heart rate and heart rate response to exercise varies greatly between individuals. So, don’t let those high numbers spook you. Instead use another metric to determine whether you are in a mostly aerobic metabolic state. Providing an appropriate stimulus to that aerobic system is the intention of this lower intensity training after all. Without looking at your heart rate monitor try breathing through your nose while out for one of these 30 monute jogs. When you reach the limit of nose breathing and hold it for several minutes glance at the watch.
Ventilation (rate and depth of breathing) is a very good indicator of your meabolic state.
Let me know @scott@evokeendurance.com how this goes.
Scott
[…] of about 170, I still had some work to do to get my Aerobic Threshold within 10% of AnT i.e. fix my Aerobic Deficiency. So my goal was to keep my heart rate below 150 for all the aerobic […]
Hi Scott, Randy here again. I have read this article (twice!) as well as the one at https://evokeendurance.com/endurance-its-evolution-psychology-meaning-physiology-and-how-to-improve-yours/. Given my latest VO2max test said my VO2max is 41.2 @ 160bpm, my Aerobic Threshold (AeT) is 98bpm, and my Anaerobic Threshold (AT) is 109bpm, I figured for sure, after reading https://evokeendurance.com/setting-your-hear-rate-zones/, I suffer from Aerobic Deficiency Syndrome (ADS).
But, I cannot relate to any of the symptoms described under the section “How can you tell if you have ADS? Here are some tests you can perform to decide for yourself.” In fact, I can easily breath through my nose and carry on a conversation, or recite the alphabet, for well over an hour with a heart rate above 109bpm. I would say somewhere around 115-120bpm is where nose breathing becomes challenging and/or carrying on a lengthily conversation.
Note: I am 62 and up until March of this year could barely if ever breath through my nose due to a very bad deviated septum and other blocking agents. Which got resolved so breathing through my nose feels completely foreign to me! 😀
Anyway, given the above numbers, I am guessing I need to train below 98bpm for the bulk of my training even though it feels terribly slow. And, here’s my question, if the place that performed my VO2max test got my numbers wrong, and if my AeT is actually higher than 98bpm, will this super slow training still help increase my AeT, etcetera OR should I discount the test results and pay for new results? Or, possibly better, should I forego lab testing altogether (save some $$$) and just follow your instructions for figuring out my training zones?
Thanks in advance for whatever advice you give Scott. 🙂
Randy:
See my comments about your zones in the other post. But I think you do not need to spend more money and your zones are probably wrong.
Scott
Thanks again Scott!
Hi,
This will likely be a long-winded question because I feel there is a lot context needed. I have an absolutely comically huge difference between my aerobic an anaerobic thresholds. This summer I was doing what I thought was zone 2 training, but really wasn’t. Most of my runs were around 8:30min/mi and 165bpm, and I was pushing 60 mpw. After a small injury in the end of July set me back, I decided to reconsider my training and I found out about HR drift tests to find my LT1. When I first tested I saw that my actual LT1 was around 139bpm and 11:15 per mile. I was in disbelief – I have raced 8ks in 30 minutes, or 6 minutes per mile, and my anaerobic threshold was roughly 6:20 pace at the time. I also have a few sub 5 miles under my belt, and my max HR is around 205. I retested a few times trying different HRs and paces, treadmill and on flat loops, and got the same result. I realized it was right, and I started doing actual Zone 2 pace work first week of august, while still doing my weekly tempo sessions and building back my mileage to 50mpw-ish. I saw huge improvement in the first month – my Zone 2 intensity threshold increased up to 160-163ish bpm, and the pace that I could run at the top of zone 2 had increased from 11:15 to 9:20min/mi. I retested frequently and wore a HR monitor on all my runs.
Beginning of September I hit a terrible string of injuries and bad luck that set me back. I sprained my ankle dodging a car that ran a red light, then got the flu, then tore my quad, and then got COVID, and then got the flu again – all in a single month. Since then I have been slowly rebuilding my mileage back to where it was. My zone 2 threshold has returned to normal, and my anaerobic threshold is approaching normal – however, the pace at the top of my zone 2 has not yet returned to 9:20 per mile. I have plateaued around 9:45 per mile after the first month back. Keep in mind, I am now two months post injury/illness and I have made less progress than in the single first month of my zone 2 training, which also came off injury.
So, I guess my questions are as follows:
1. How is it possible my Zone 2 could have been so far behind my anaerobic threshold when I first started training real Zone 2? I am confident it actually was and it wasn’t a bad test result because running under that threshold, I saw major improvement. I mean, 11 minutes per mile compared to 6:20 for the two thresholds is absurd. For context, I am 20, 5’8″, and roughly 140lbs. I have been casually running for five years and seriously training for three.
2. How come even when I saw massive zone 2 improvement (as in, my threshold for intensity increased up to 160bpm from 139bpm), my pace at 160bpm is now worse than when it was prior to starting training? This seems really counter-intuitive to me.
3. This is somewhat unrelated, but when I started zone 2 my first ventilatory threshold, or where I could nasal breathe was about 5-10bpm above my aerobic threshold. Now it is 10-15bpm below my aerobic threshold (so basically in the same spot). Is this important at all?
4. Obviously my intensity threshold for the top of zone 2 has increased, but it seems like the pace at that intensity has really stagnated these last two months, especially post COVID – do you suspect I might be doing something wrong, or should I just keep at it and expect to see change in due time?
I understand this was a lot of information and a lot of questions that you might not know the answer to, but I’d appreciate all the help I can get.
Thanks,
Cole
Cole:
Your amazement at the spread between AeT and AnT is very common among those with ADS. The spread itself is also not uncommon even if this is shocking. We see it all the time. You can have a low AeT and still turn in good race results. Read the real world story on page 47 of Training for the Uphill Athlete. You just won’t reach your potential with a low AeT.
#2- I would not be surprised if COVID is making it hard for you to return to your previous AeT pace. We have now coached dozens off athletes post COVID and see their return to pre-illness performance always being way longer a normal flu. It can be months long. Do not push the efforts during this time or it will just delay recovery. I’m not doc but I have heard from doctor friends that this is quite common.
#3 See #2. It is likely COVID related
#4See #2 and #3 I doubt you are doing anything wrong.
Scott
Hi Scott,
I’ve been wondering about training in lower zone 3 and improving base fitness.
I haven’t done the more elaborate tests and so my estimate for AeT are a bit rough. Is it actually detrimental to my base fitness to train in zone 3 or are the main concerns added recovery time and less optimal training? I’m more focused on improving my fitness for hikes and approaches than getting the absolute max out of my training.
Thanks!
Thanks for the tips. I just got hurt today, but before I got hurt I was finally seeing some serious zone 2 progress. I basically kept at it anyway even though I hadn’t seen your response.
Thomas:
Athletes with a very high aerobic capacity (as measured by AeT HR or pace) will be able to handle and benefit from more Z3 training. If you are aerobically deficient (which it seems you aren’t sure of) you will only slow the process of improving that base aerobic capacity and elevating your AeT. Why? Well there is a whole chapter in the TFTUA book on that and this post as well as this one https://evokeendurance.com/endurance-its-evolution-psychology-meaning-physiology-and-how-to-improve-yours/.
It is simple physiology. In Z3 you are training the glycolytic or anaerobic capacity of those faster twitch fibers at the expense of giving the maximum training stimulus to the oxidative/aerobic pathway of the ST fibers. This is why the elite endurance athletes do 80-90% of their training below their aerobic threshold. And these athletes already have a very high aerobic threshold.
Scott
Hi Scott,
Can you say any more about this: “The inexperienced endurance athlete often misses that adding much (and in severe ADS cases, ANY) high-intensity training will reduce that all-important aerobic capacity and slow the needed improvement.”
I’m older, just getting started with structured training, with no real history of training (but many years of hard physical outdoor labor), and have been working up slowly over the last 6 months to where I’m putting in 5-6 hours a week of aerobic base building work. With my plan over the next 3 months, I expect that volume to increase to closer to 8 hours/week.
As determined by the AeT and AnT HR tests you prescribe, I know I have a huge spread between the top of Z2 (128) and the top of Z3 (185). My Z2 running pace on the flats is currently (dismally) approx. 17 minutes/mile. I’m very motivated to do whatever is needed to close this gap, for as long as it takes, and to close it as efficiently/safely as possible. I do not have a big goal race or adventure on the immediate horizon, and therefore want to focus on curing my ADS, first.
On Tuesdays I’ve been doing the ME gym workout (keeping it limited for now to 4 sets of 10 reps as a “maintenance” routine), along with some additional exercises such as weighted calf raises, assisted pullups, pushups, and RDL’s. On Fridays I’ve been doing some upper body strength and core in the gym, too. (During rest weeks I skip the gym and do a Cham Fit workout instead.)
So what do you think, is this too much strength training for a person with severe ADS? In other words, is it going to significantly limit my AeT progress? I fear that going without any strength training, I might atrophy/risk injury.
Thank you for any feedback!
Lauren:
What is meant by “any high intensity” is sustained high intensity aerobic work like going to the track and running 400 m repeats or doing one hour run where 45 minutes of that run is up in zone three. On ME session/week won’t have any negative affect on your. if you are in a base training phase, like it sounds you are, I would recommend a more traditional general strength program for maintaining or buildings, strength and preventing atrophy.
Scott
Hi Scott,
I’m doing the 24 week mountain training plan almost to the letter and next week I’m not sure if I’m excited or not but it’s time for the muscular endurance training block.
2 questions:
1) when I run in zone 2 and hike in zone 2 with my pack in the mountains , the paces off course are way different, but is the quality of zone 2 training the same? Would the hiking help the running and vice versa?
2) For my rainier climb with RMI , the pack weight will be around 40 pounds. To keep it simple for (me) training, should I just do the same cascade hikes I always do but just increase my hiking load to 60 pounds to get the burning sensation and wanting to quit feeling?
Jason:
You’ll be excited when you see the gains you make with the muscular endurance training. As for your questions:
1) there will be some transfer of training effect between running and hiking with a pack, but the activities are different. The overall accumulation of zone 2 volume in footboard activities will increase your aerobic capacity in general.
2) I think you’re gonna need to find very steep terrain in order to get the mild burning sensation in your legs. Normal hiking trails by that I mean 10% grade or so or just not steep enough to elicit that kind of training effect. You want to simulate the demand on your leg muscles of climbing Rainier as close as you can during these workouts. the gradient on Mount Rainier will be much steeper than typical hiking trails. if you are in the Seattle area Mailbox Peak or Mount Si by the old trail both are great places for doing this muscular endurance work. Otherwise you need to be looking for something that’s at least 25-30% grade. if you don’t have that kind of terrain available, I would strongly recommend the use of a stair machine to get the maximum benefit of your muscular endurance training.
Hi Scott,
TftUA is my new Bible. I cannot thank you enough for writing this book. It has absolutely changed my training, and thus my life. I’ve re-read it twice thoroughly, and some sections re-read multiple times. It’s just the best. Thank you, thank you.
I’m trying to calculate percent spread per page 91 of TftUA, and I’m really bad at math.
The only equations online I can find for percent spread are financial ones, and I don’t know if my calculations are correct.
These are my current heart rate zones, using a Garmin chest strap calibrated with my Garmin Fenix 6 Pro Solar:
Z1 117-130 bpm
Z2 130-142
Z3 142-155
Z4 155-168
Z5 168-182
So my AeT is 142, and my LT is 155
Percent spread = absolute value of V1-V2 / [(V1+V2)/2] * 100
155-142 / [(155+142)/2] * 100 = 8.75% spread
Is this correct?!
Can I conclude that I do not have ADS, and I should focus training on Zone 1 with some Zone 3/4 sprinkled in?
Many thanks.
Sharon:
It is much simpler than you are making it. Checkout and follow along with the example I give in the grey box on page 91. AnT= 150. AeT = 128. 150/128= 1.17. The AnT HR in this case is 17% higher than the AeT HR, While this is not the arithmetically correct way to find the percentage difference it is accurate enough for our purposes and so much quicker. Remember we are dealing with a human organism here. Trying to mail down the spread to secod decimal place accuracy is a waste of time and completely unnecessary.
In your case, the numbers would be 155/142=9%.
So your conclusion is correct. You do not have ADS and you should add in some Z3&4.
Thanks for writing in.
Scott
Hi Scott! Really appreciate you being so responsive on here.
I did a gas exchange test about 5 months ago which revealed I have ADS – my AeT and AnT came back as 127 and 160, respectively. Not particularly surprising — I’ve done Rainier a few times (once in a single push) and would certainly not describe my experience as aerobically easy.
My climbing partner and I are training for a Denali expedition which is a bit over a year away. We are currently on week 17 of the 24 week mountaineering training plan to target this season. About 10 weeks in I did an HR drift test and got back an AeT of 135 and AnT of 170 (the AnT increase seems a bit odd but I assume it’s because the GET and HR drift test aren’t quite an apples to apples comparison). Attempting Denali with 127 AeT (or even 135) seems foolish; I would like to reach 160 solidly before next May. On this note, I have a few questions:
(1) Now that I’ve been on it for a bit, I wonder if it would have been smart to tweak the 24 week mountaineering training plan to have a heavier base training period for someone with ADS as bad as mine. I have three Rainier trips planned over the next few months and, while I expect them to be easier than the ones in the past, even an AeT of 145 (if I can get there by then) seems lower than I would like.
(2) My partner and I have been following the plan pretty closely with the exception that we’ll usually do a longer and harder push on one of the weekend days, such as a ski tour. I consider these equally important to fitness training simply for the purposes of practical experience. Often, due to time constraints of snow conditions, I am pushing into zone 3 for some of the time. We did Mt. Saint Helens a few weeks ago in a bit under five hours, and my HR was probably 140-160 for around two of those hours. Still three-ish hours of zone 2, but I’m wondering if doing that sort of extended zone 3 work will have a detrimental effect at this point in training. (The same question applies to the ME workouts but I assume those are not as bad since they are only 45 minutes.) Or I guess put another way: if a certain amount of zone 3 training is hard to avoid, is there a ratio of zone 3 / zone 2 time at which point AeT is negatively impacted?
(3) On the other side of the spectrum, at what point does zone 1 training become ineffective? I am in front of a computer for 8 hours a day for work. I have a desk treadmill and I bet if I modify it to have incline and wear weight in a pack, I could get my HR up to around 115 while still walking at a pace slow enough to be able to get work done. However, this is pretty close to the lower end of zone 1. Would this likely end up being a waste of time for the purposes of AeT training?
Thanks for all the in-depth info you offer on this platform and through your other publications. My partner and I plan to schedule a phone consultation once we are done with the 24 week plan for the purposes of optimizing our next year of training.
Ben:
Sorry for the slow response. here are few comments.
The HR drfit test is not used to determine AnT so your 170 AnT may not be accurate. Please read this articel for a full description of these tests https://evokeendurance.com/our-latest-thinking-on-aerobic-assessment-for-the-mountain-athlete/.
I would never use a GET to determine AnT. See that article above. To be sure you are doing an apples to apples comparison stick with one type of test. The tests we use (in that article) are free and can be done anytime you see an improvement in performance.
So, I would start with those tests to find AeT and AnT to set your zones.
#1- Yes you can add more aerobic volume in the plan. I’m pretty sure we have notes to that effect in the plan. as long as you have the time and energy and are recovering well there is no harm in adding more aerobic volume.
#2- While ski touring with heavy gear has an aerobic training effect it alos has a heavy ME component to it as well. Especialy if you are pushing HR in Z3 for 2 hours. It you are recovering well and that is not impacting your aerobic base volume that is not the end of the world but I would focus on easier aerobic volume in the early part of the program. You have till next spring to train. Spend this next year fiorst building that aerobic base as high as possible. Then next winter/sring up the touring volume when you have the base to support it better.
#3- Z1 training will have a positive effect on health but at low enough HRs the aerobic stress on your body is not enough to stimulate more aerobic adaptations. How low can you go and still get some benefit? If your AeT is really 135, I’d say that 115 is right on the margin of adding to the aerobic bank account. But it is far better than sitting all day. Keep doing it.
Scott
Thanks Scott! Regarding the AnT test – my apologies, I misspoke. I meant to say that I used the HR drift test to measure AeT and the protocol described on week 5 of the 24 week plan to test AnT, and that’s the one which came back as 170. The GET was primarily a VO2 max test (with a result of 53) but it also reported VT1 and VT2 (127 and 160, respectively).
I seem to be recovering fine and my aerobic base volume hasn’t been impacted so it’s good to hear that I’m not shooting myself in the foot with the extra Z3. But yes – once ski touring season is over as spring comes to a close I plan to transition back to as much pure Z1/Z2 training as I can fit in until my AeT has made it into better territory.
Ben:
Because the stages of a VO2 max test tend to be short the ramp rate is high and they zoom right through the aerobic realm to get you to max before you fatigue and are unable to reach your true max. The upshot is that you may not have gotten a true AeT value from the GET. Stick with the drift test so you can retest whenever you want.
Good luck,
Scott
I found this article very insightful. I have ADS and am looking to improve my condition and prepare for more intense climbs. My background includes mostly weight lifting, rock climbing, and running, but my heart rate gets high very fast. Could you recommend a specific training plan tailored to these needs?
Thank you,
Jan
Jan:
The cure for ADS is simply to accumulate as high a volume of sub-aerobic threshold (Zone 2) work as you can tolerate from both a time and recovery energy/standpoint. So you don’t really need a plan. The biggest stimulus to increasing your aerobic capacity is VOLUMN. More is better up to the point you are not recovering well. Squeezing in a 30 min run at lunch or before work is a good way to begin to add volume. Unlike high intensity training or strength training, the intensity of the Zone 2 training should allow you to recovery day to day. That is one way to tell if you are at the right intensity/volume level for yourself: Can you do again today what you did yesterday? And then do it again and again and again.
This Zone 2 work will probably feel ridiculously easy for most people with ADS. Just be patient, consistent and get the volume up. Depending on volume and genetics you should begin to see the aerobic needle start to move in a few weeks. You will notice that you are running a little faster for the same HR.
Patience is key in this process. Trying to rush it with too much intensity during these sessions will only delay the process.
Scott
Hi Scott,
Thank you so much for all of the information you’ve shared here on your site. I have a copy of Training for the Uphill Athlete on the way and am looking into diving in more.
My question is whether you have any guidance on what is considered severe ADS. Based on both the qualitative assessments you list here and my VT2/VT1 ratio from a recent VO2max test, I’m definitely in the ADS zone.
I’m motivated to do the work to get out of it and I’m wondering whether I should cut out all Zone 3 work in the meantime.
Thanks,
Greg
Greg:
Thanks for the kind words. We do try to get this info out there for everyone with no paywalls or “memberships.” Anything more than a 10% spread between AeT and AnT measured either by HR or pace indicates that you still have gains to make just focusing on aerobic base training. We often see folks with 30-40% spread. While we don’t categorize ADS severity I think is fair to say that would qualify as severe. I do recommend you drop Z3 for a couple of months to add more Z2 volume. Your top end will suffer and if you have a race or important event coming up you need to keep Z3 in the mix. More Z2 volume is the fastest way to fix ADS.
Scott
Thanks for the quick reply, Scott. I’m willing to take a temporary hit on the top end to get my aerobic house in order, so Zone 2 it is for me over the next couple of months at least.
I read in one of your comments that VO2max tests aren’t the best indicators of aerobic threshold, so I’ll prioritize getting an HR drift test accordingly to your protocol in soon to ensure I’m really in staying in Zone 2.
Thanks,
Greg
Hi Scott,
Actually, after reflecting on your comments, I have a follow-up question. I live at sea level and have a backpacking trip at 7000 feet coming up in two months. I suspect that’ll be a zone 3 endeavor, given my current fitness level. I’m currently at 28% VT2/VT1. Do you think I’d be better off preparing for the trip by going all in on Zone 2 now, or keeping some Zone 3 in the mix until after the trip?
Thanks,
Greg
Greg:
I recommend adding weighted pack carries into your program 1x/week. Read the article on Muscular Endurance on our site. Regardless of your aerobic base, you do need to add some more endurance-focused training. These can be long weighted hikes in gentle terrain, but the ME work will pay off. The altitude is going to factor in strongly and starting the trip going very easily is going to work out best for you. Going out of the gate hot in Z3 from day one is probably going to make that trip a suffer-fest. You need to allow your body at least a few days to acclimate to this new altitude before pushing yourself.
Scott
Thank you very much, Scott. This is doubly helpful as I’d been wondering how to incorporate a pack into training. I’ll go find that ME article now.
Thanks again for your help and for sharing of your insights with all of us!
Greg
To make my replies more timely I have disabled comments on all the articles and ask you to please submit your questions on the forum. That way I only have to look in one place. ADS questions can be asked on the Aerobic Assessment section of the forum. Thanks for your understanding.
Scott
Hi Scott,
I have completed a lactate test and these are the results: –
BPM LACTATE
70 1.8
90 0.6
100 1
110 1.1
120 1.4
130 2
140 3
150 3.7
160 10
180 17
I am 38 years old and have spent a lot of the last year training at 120ish bpm. However, looking at this test, my lactate starts to rise @90bpm from 0.6 > 1.1, which I would assume is where the threshold lies? If so, this is like a snail’s paced walk if I hit a hill!
I have confirmed that after a jog at 120bpm for 1 hour, I am accumulating lactate. It feels weird as I can comfortably nasal breathe, and feel like I can go for hours at this pace…..
Does this seem correct? Will I need to just bite the bullet and walk slowly to push aerobic base upwards? 153ish for AT is OKish, and the fact I can generate 17mmol/L lactate at max HR is decent too. Just worried about my base!
Cheers,
Phill
Phill:
Sorry it took me a while to reply. For some reason your comment was not showing up even though you posted 10 days ago. Anyway here goes.
Your training at 120 has made you very good at using fat in those lower intensities. The small LA accumulation in those low HRs is nothing to be concerned about. In fact this is a great test. It shows that you have conserved enough glycogen so that by the end of the test you were able to produce very high lactates. Most endurance athletes will be hard pressed to hit 9mMol/L let alone 17.
My suggestion is to start doing more of your aerobic base training in the 125 to 130 range This will lower that 130 LA level in a few weeks and then you can start training in the 135 range. This issue how you just keep nudging the AeT up from below.
I hope this helps,
Scott