[SteelT]

A few questions/clarifications from Sunday’s book club discussion:

During the discussion on intensity and recovery, the comment was made that a rough gauge of intensity is that any workout you do you should be able to repeat day after day and recover from it. Can some clarification be made on how you apply progressive overload in context of this gauge?

Additionally, we have the 10% rule to provide general guidance on volume and this seems to contradict the aforementioned recovery gauge. E.g., in my current fitness state I could probably manage 5 miles a day every day of the week. By doing this however, mileage would be up 200-300% from last year and wouldn’t be a wise approach. How does the interplay between recovery feeling and volume work and does one take precedence in planning?

Building off the previous two questions, what’s the limiting factor in terms of Metabolic/Central Nervous System for week-to-week versus year-to-year. Does the 10% rule and other long term volume planning limitations arise from the same fatigue mechanisms or other factors?

REDS and energy deficiency; for weight loss, you have to be in a caloric deficit that’s going to involve negative symptoms. Where is the balance between under fueling to the point of harming recovery versus a manageable deficit and how does one read that balance on their own?

OTS vs under fueling vs deficit fueling; they seem to have many overlapping symptoms. Is there anything in particular to distinguish them other than severity of the issue?

Thanks for any time spent answering these!

• This topic was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by SteelT.

[Scott Johnston]

SteelT:

Thanks for your questions. They’re great.  Comments below.

During the discussion on intensity and recovery, the comment was made that a rough gauge of intensity is that any workout you do you should be able to repeat day after day and recover from it. Can some clarification be made on how you apply progressive overload in context of this gauge?  Sorry if I was not clear enough.  What I had intended to say was for aerobic base training, that is, Z1-2, you should be able to recover within 24 hours to repeat the same workout.  This idea does not apply to high-intensity training as recovery well be longer.  It is one way to tell if you are training in the aerobic realm.  It it takes you more than 24 hours, you either went too hard of perhaps too long for your given work capacity.  

Additionally, we have the 10% rule to provide general guidance on volume and this seems to contradict the aforementioned recovery gauge. E.g., in my current fitness state I could probably manage 5 miles a day every day of the week. By doing this however, mileage would be up 200-300% from last year and wouldn’t be a wise approach. How does the interplay between recovery feeling and volume work and does one take precedence in planning? I thought I said that 10% would be a big annual increase for some with significant training history.  Those just getting going can expect to make bigger increases in the early stages.  If last year was just beginning training and you felt like you were nowhere near your limit from a recovery/energy standpoint, then a big jump is not out of the question.  200-300% seems extreme to me, but I don’t know you or your history.  If 35 miles/wk is what you think you can manage now, I assume you were training about 10-15 miles/wk last year.   For many, this would not be a problem.  The biggest risk is an overuse injury.  That depends so much on your running form.  I do think my 100-mile rule is useful here at the start of most folks running season post winter. You need 100 miles in your legs before you are really ready to train by running. This needs to be gradual to condition the connective tissue, especially in the lower legs, to the repetitive impact loading of running to give your self the best change of avoiding injury.  The overall message I had hoped to convey is that gradualness if the key to longevity.   Given adequate, not excessive stimulus with adequate rest your body will adapt.  No formula can describe this for every individual.  Hence my message to pay attention to the feedback your body is giving you.  You will have to find these limits on your own by testing.

Additionally, we have the 10% rule to provide general guidance on volume and this seems to contradict the aforementioned recovery gauge. E.g., in my current fitness state I could probably manage 5 miles a day every day of the week. By doing this however, mileage would be up 200-300% from last year and wouldn’t be a wise approach. How does the interplay between recovery feeling and volume work and does one take precedence in planning? The fatigue mechanisms will be mixed and highly individual.  Fatigue is a fairly obvious and immediate feedback.  Whereas overuse injury tends to creep up and pounce on you unexpectedly, especially in running.   So this is a more important concern than fatigue for increasing running volume or intensity.  

REDS and energy deficiency; for weight loss, you have to be in a caloric deficit that’s going to involve negative symptoms. Where is the balance between under fueling to the point of harming recovery versus a manageable deficit and how does one read that balance on their own?  You can use the bathroom scale to monitor weight combined with a simple pinch test a few times a week.  Short-term weight loss or gain will be mostly water, but in the summer, this is a good way to be sure you are staying hydrated after a sweaty run.  The pinch test of adipose fat is a cheap and pretty good way to monitor body fat changes.  But these need to be combined with your perception of recovery status.  If you see weight loss over weeks, reduced adipose fat, and lower energy, you are dipping into REDS.   Again there is no formula that can work for everyone.  I’m not a fan of counting calories (both in and out) as a way to monitor energy intake and use.  I don’t think the chemistry of indirect calorimetry, where they oxidize, by combustion, food to determine how much energy it contains, translates well to the chemical processes our body uses to produce ATP.  We don’t combust our food. We don’t even oxidize all our food.  A significant portion of our ATP is produced via the non-oxidative glycolytic pathway.  Anyway, that’s another discussion.  Don’t try finding a formula to answer your question.  There is none.

OTS vs under fueling vs deficit fueling; they seem to have many overlapping symptoms. Is there anything in particular to distinguish them other than severity of the issue?  They do, which makes them hard to diagnose and treat.  The easiest way I know is if eating more makes your energy return you are not eating enough.  Fairly immediate feedback and is so easy to try.  If resting a few days does not make you feel better even when eating plenty, you’re probably looking at OTS.

I hope this helps, Scott

 

[aaholmes]

The step test described in the book and your talk is intriguing.  Curious if Scott can share any data from some athletes that used this and how it was applied to their training or correlated with their comments in their training logs.

[Scott Johnston]

The test protocol is not critical.  The goal is to provide a small load/stress and see how your body responds.   It could be done on a stationary bike. Walking on a treadmill.  The main thing is to be consistent in the application.  Like, step up and down at the same rate for the same time and then sit down and measure your HR in a minute.

There is no way to compare other people’s data and yours.  You need to establish a baseline when you are rested by testing a few times in a week.  This will show the HR drop after 1 minute when rested.  When the training load is high, you should be able to see a correlation between 1 min HR drop and fatigue state.  If your normal 1min HR drop is 50bpm when rested, but later you see a drop of 30bpm, and on that day you have a poor workout due to fatigue, you have learned something from the test. The more data you collect, the more reliable it will be.

Heikki Rusko developed what he called the orthostatic recovery test to be used in a similar way.  With a recording HR monitor, you lie quitely for 5 minutes, then immediately stand up.  Your HR data will record the lowest HR, the highest standing, and the HR 1min after standing.

These all measure the balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems.  These were more common before HRV became so ubiquitous in HR monitor watches. But I honestly think these tests are more reliable.  They just take more work on your part than an HRV test.

Scott

 

[mtnathlete]

Is there an article or paper on this zone 3 development? I heard Scott discuss it with Jack on the podcast and then he discussed it here and i want to know more about it. I recently did some sustained zone 3 hill climbs for a race and they worked beautifully. Thank you.

[Scott Johnston]

I am working on an article about Z3/tempo training.  But you’ve already proven to yourself how effective this type of training can be.

Scott

[Author]

Posts