Scott Johnston
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Upwards:
Fasted training still has its place, but as I have maintained for years, it will be most beneficial for low-volume trainers for whom the added stimulus of low glycogen will enhance the AMPk signaling pathway, which is one of the main paths for upregulating many of the genes responsible for aerobic adaptation. These lower-volume trainers will have plenty of time between sessions to restore glycogen levels.
For higher volume trainers, like you seem to be, the benefits of fasted training may not outweigh the drawbacks. High-volume trainers, those doing in excess of 8-10 hours of aerobic work in a week, are already giving a big stimulus to the AMPk pathway. Low glycogen levels will delay recovery and if this condition persists due to too much fasted training, you risk overtraining.
Using fasted training in your base period where intensity is kept low and doing, say, the first 1-2 hours of a long run in a fasted state before beginning normal fueling are strategies used by Tour de France riders and some of the top triathletes in the world. I have this information from personal communication with those athletes’ coaches.
As with so much in life, nuance plays a big role. Blanket statements concerning training or physiology when speaking about as complex an organism as humans seem short-sighted.
Scott
Ellena;
Both max HR and HR response to exercise are highly variable from individual to individual. With a max HR of 212, your AeT and AnT numbers make sense. It is good that you have tested these things. From these tests, you can see why relying on formulas like 220 minus your age is not a good idea. Same with using the kinds of zone settings based on a percentage of your max HR. Getting your own personal HR data will allow you to personalize your training most effectively. While a max HR of over 200 is probably only exhibited in less than 10% of athletes, it is not unheard of and there is nothing wrong with you.
One of our coaches, Maya, when she was ski racing, had an AeT of about 190 with an AnT of 195 and a max HR of 210.
Keep training that aerobic base to raise your AeT.
Scott
Quentin:
Thanks for your thought-provoking post. Clearly, you have been thinking a lot about this. I want to start by saying that our typical progression is close to the funnel periodization model you show. In the fundamental (base phase) we use speed work like strides and hill sprints that are well above the specific speed of an ultra combined with a high volume of low to moderate-intensity running. Also included is more general strength/ME work. But in this phase, we keep these qualities separated into different training sessions.
Separating the special and specific periods in ultra running is not so easy because we can’t use pace as conveniently as a road or track runner. Training pace relative to race pace is what determines the fibers recruited and the metabolic load. This is one reason I advocate doing some of the higher-intensity work on a treadmill or incline trainer for mountain runners. The machine allows control of speed and lactates.
So the specific and special periods become muddied a bit, but the idea in the funnel-type periodization is to bring several of the basic qualities from the fundamental period together into workouts that begin to, more and more, mimic the demands of the goal event.
It is good to keep the overarching principles of funnel periodization in mind, but do not get too worried about specific intensity distribution and long-range detailed plans. Those detailed plans look good on paper but are very hard to pull off on a day-to-day basis. Instead, unless you are a very high-level athlete, have as long a base period as you can get away with and keep 8-10 weeks for a more specific block. The elite athlete needs more specific training and so can benefit from the special and specific blocks.
I hope this helps.
Scott
Vincent:
If your goal is longer, easy multi-pitch routes and the Presi traverse, I think you would be smart to use one of our running plans. This one will provide a good structure with progression in it. Running will be a great way to build the aerobic base to handle long days in the mountains even those involving rock climbing.
Scott
Adam:
Your English is excellent.
Max has the right idea: Do not reduce your aerobic base training. I will only add a few comments. Doing most of your running uphill, on rough trails, and with a weight vest will not make you faster. Get rid of the weight vest on your runs. Running with a weight vest has a high injury risk and will make you slower. You might want to read this https://evokeendurance.com/why-even-ultra-runners-need-speed-work/ Running fast is a special kind of strength training. I would replace one of your general strength sessions with hill sprints and add strides to your Thursday gym cardio.
Scott
Todd: See my thoughts below.
1) even or slight increase in HR during each work bout – the athlete is able to complete every interval as prescribed, and the average heart rate for the first and last intervals are the same or within 5-10% of each other, and during the recovery interval the HR drops back to baseline quickly. Looks like a well-executed Zone 3 workout. Quick recovery between reps means you were rested and had a good aerobic base capacity which could quickly restore homeostasis.
2) large increase in HR during each work bout – the athlete is able to complete every interval as prescribed, but the average HR during each work bout is clearly rising, let’s say by 15-20%, between the first and last interval. During the recovery interval, the HR drops back to baseline quickly Looks like a well-executed Zone 4 workout with the same comments as above.
3) large increase in HR during each work bout AND HR is also increasing during the recovery interval. Same as above, except even during the recovery interval, the average HR is increasing by 10-20%. This was a lactate tolerance workout. Sounds like maximum intensity rather than controlled sub-max. Not sure what its intended purpose was. If it was for anaerobic power, the rests needed to be longer. Many people think this is the way to do interval training, gasping with hands on knees at the end of each rep. Minimal benefit to long distance endurance athletes.
4) Athlete unable to complete workout as prescribed, but HR is not decreasing. – Similar to the example that Scott J talked about where the athlete is slower each interval, except the HR is just going through the roof during the work periods and lower but still relatively high and increasing for the athlete during the recovery periods until the workout is over or the plug is pulled. Same comments as above. Probably not a very useful workout unless you are training for events under 3 minutes.
Fedoman:
Thanks for writing in with your questions. The Skierg is an excellent tool for training for Cross Country skiing, skimo, and even mountain running, especially for a race like the Vasaloppet, which has a lot of double poling. How you control the intensity can be either by heart rate or power. Power is going to vary much more during the workout, though. You will probably want to use some kind of smoothing function to give you a running average power reading. Maybe averaged over the trailing 1-2 minutes. You can apply the same principles as with all your endurance training. First and last, elevate the aerobic base capacity as high as you can. This is going to be the main goal for a 90km race. This means getting your sustained aerobic output increased as measured by pace or power. Heart rate is not a measure of power or pace. It is a proxy for those things, but since you have a Skierg you can actually measure your performance. So do a HR drift test and see to establish the power or pace at which you are in Z2. You should also conduct an anaerobic threshold test on the Skierg. It could be that training in Z2 will be too taxing to do the bulk of your training at that intensity.
The way to use the lactate is to when you are doing more race-specific workouts like tempo (Z3) and yo want to know if you are improving. Improving means going faster with lower lactates.
Here is the set up I have used with XC skiers and Skimo racers.
Max:
Thanks for writing in with these great questions. Your concern with lack of ME is common, so allow me…….
This high volume of low-intensity running you’ve been doing has mainly only been recruiting the slowest of the slow twitch fibers. They are getting the training benefit which, as you point out, is metabolic. To run faster or even longer especially in the mountains, requires the recruitment of a pool of faster twitch, more forceful fibers. You can do that with all the methods you list in bold; plus, I would add Strides or Pick Ups to your list.
With runners, we have had very good luck achieving what you are asking about by adding on gymME and one hill sprint workout a week for a minimum of 8-10 weeks. Take a break from the ME and add strides in place of the hill sprints. You should find yourself running faster and feeling less fatigue from the long runs
If that all worked and feels effective give yourself a couple of months of faster running including 1xZ3 session/week. Then repeat that cycle but go 12 weeks in the ME/hill sprint phase.
For the hill sprints, stairs in a tall building can work, and so can stadium stairs. If you belong to a gym that has sleds, you can push or pull a sled sprinting for 10-15 sec to get the same effect.
During this ME and power phase, you should minimize the amount of Z3 as it will target many of the same fibers, and you could have trouble recovering.
I hope this helps,
ScottIt was probably the added weight that was the issue. Not so much the running per se. Carrying a 10kg pack adds a muscular endurance element to the you don’t get with normal trail running.
Scott
See my comments below:
1. How to find power for top of Evoke Z1 and Z2? I assume the Aerobic Threshold Test is still recommended and I could simply try to hold a constant power for 1h and look for heart rate drift <3.5%? Or perhaps just try to hike at top of my previously determined Z1 or Z2 heart rates and determine what power that is? I’d suggest doing the drift test but using power rather than heart rate.
2. Markus’ FTP test appears to approximate the power you would get doing the Evoke AnT test. Unsure though if Markus’ suggested power zones align well with Evoke recommendations. FTP should align closely with AnT
3. How well does this work with Skimo? Are users adding the weight of their pack (and maybe also their boot/ski weight) into the RunPowerModel settings? These things I don’t know and Markus was pretty clear that his power model may not work when heavy weight is added.
4. Muscular Endurance Water Carries – does the power meter help with this? At least to approximate TSS? For uphill ME weighted carries Markus’ suggestion about heavy weight may apply again. I typically apply a TSS of 150 for 1 hour or 1000m of this type of work.
5. Long runs – are Markus’ pacing suggestions for races also helpful for long runs? I’ve always had issues pacing 2-4h runs. I think they are very applicable for long training runs and they can help you learn better pacing for races.
It will be fun to explore this new tool and I like Markus’ advice to have a skeptical view of the numbers. Looking forward to hearing about other users experiences.
Rob:
Thanks for writing in and sorry to be slow replying. I’m not familiar with the Welsh 3000 route but see that it is about 40km and 3000m vertical gain and loss that can take most people 2-3 days. Your screen shot is a bit hard to read. Correct me if I am wrong but I think I can see that most of your weeks of training are under 10 hours. We have a general rule of thumb that you should be comfortable doing at least your event’s total distance and vertical in a normal training week. This is not to say that you won’t be able to complete your event but it may a struggle and will significantly drain you if you do not have the base to handle that amount of work in 7 days.
Since I can’t read what the volume of week 3 was I can’t really comment your thought on how to progress. I can say these things: You need to consider how you have been recovering. Was week 3 tough? You will want to taper. The length of taper is going to be dependent on how tired you are getting from the current training load. I’m afraid that without know quite a lot more about you and your training it is impossible to give any kind of detailed training advice.
Scott
Hey Todd:
Great questions. I hope I can do them justice with my answers.
#1 The Mihaly Igloi story. I think Igloi was simply making the point to my friend that when he had the aerobic work capacity to be able to run 10 miles a day for a month, my friend would be ready to start training with Igloi. The implication is that the hard work needed this big base of support. I do not think he was making any sort of comment about how my friend would arrive at the fitness where he could run 10 miles/day for a month. He was just stating, and could have been using a bit of hyperbole, that my friend would need to have that level of aerobic work capacity before he could be ready to train with Igloi’s guys. I would say that most people would need to use modulation in their training to accomplish the level of aerobic work capacity to be able to run 10 miles every day. Keep in mind that 300 miles/month is not at all outside the normal range for an elite distance runner.
#2 I would make the same prediction. However, 21 weeks of that much intensity would go well beyond a normal duration of a training mesocycle, and I wonder if the result for both would be staleness or even overtraining in some of the subjects.
I use the Astrand quote to illustrate the idea that there is no one way to add high intensity to your training. Coaches tend to favor methods that have worked for them and their athletes historically. This stuff is not like developing an aerobic base for an aerobically deficient person. There is a great deal more nuance when it comes to applying high-intensity training to increase an athlete’s specific endurance. There is a huge variation in methods that have resulted in success with athletes. Here the coaches lead the scientists, and training fads come and go.
Something to keep in mind with the Seiler study: I have not seen very many athletes that can maintain consistent power/speed output doing 4x8min or even 4x4min. Yes, a world cup cross-country skier might, but most amateurs will get slower with each repetition due to the power limitation imposed by local macular fatigue. This is why we almost always do a block of ME training leading into a block of more conventional HIIT.
Referring to the other post where I showed an example week for Tom leading into Western States: An elite athlete like him can run very fast (like 10x1km @ 3min/km pace) while keeping lactate levels low. This is clearly high intensity in terms of speed. But it does not fit into the classic HIIT paradigm where fast equates to high metabolic load and high lactates. Tom’s glycolytic metabolism was contributing a huge percentage of the ATP required for that workout. No one is running that fast for that long on predominately fat. But because his aerobic base is so big, like what Igloi was requiring, the vacuum cleaner is so big that lactate levels remain low.
Moving fast with low lactates should be the goal of ALL endurance athletes. Once you can do that, you have a great deal more flexibility in choosing training methods like interval protocols like you refer from the Sieler study.
In the last book club session, I also quoted Canova talking about the great Ethiopian distance runner Haile Gebreselassie having a 60 story house of fitness. When he goes and fiddles around with different intensity methods, it’s like he is just rearranging the furniture or changing the drapes. Recall my podcast with Kilian after he published his training for the last year. and everyone got excited that this was the NEW best thing? He very wisely published his training volume history for the past decade or more at the beginning of the article. BUT…. how many readers really understood that he was just rearranging the furniture inside his skyscraper of fitness? I doubt many got this. Certainly, several of the podcasters he spoke with didn’t get it at all.
I hope this makes sense. This last point about Tom is the reason I often say that amateurs should not try to copy the training of the elites. If I knew more details about Kilian’s training, I am 100% confident that I could have said the same thing.
Scott
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
All of the top alpinists I have worked with do a lot of running. It translates over very well to moving slower in the mountains like you will be doing on approaches and long routes. If you can handle the running volume, then this will be a better approach for you.
Scott
Michael:
Thanks for writing in with this question. The only way you can know if you are training properly is with your performance. If you’re getting faster, then you’re doing it right. If you are not, then it is time to look for “why.”
It is important to keep in context who we are talking about when we get too far into the weeds in the discussion of intensity. This probably does not apply to you, but I am going to put it out there for any reader. If you have a low aerobic capacity/slow aerobic threshold speed worrying too much about fine-tuning your higher-intensity training is a misplaced effort.
There is a nuance to any discussion about high-intensity training. Remember Astrand’s quote. Paraphrasing, no one really knows whether it is better to spend 16 minutes (4x4min) at 100% of the maxVO2 or to spend 40 minutes at 85%-90% of maxVO2. That was true in 197 when he wrote it and remains true today. That is why there is so much variation in how good coaches and athletes approach high-intensity training. They mess around over the years and find a system that works and tend to stick with it.
If you have an aerobically deficient athlete, then it is black and white what they need to do for training. That’s coaching 101. But when you are looking for the next 2% gain the way forward is not so clear. There are going to be a lot of opinions. What you hear from me is my opinion based on my experience.
Why the nuance? Because the very aerobically fit athlete has a compressed Z3 and Z4. Z3 may only be 10 beats wide. The top of Z3 (AnT in our system) might be at 90+% of max HR. For this athlete, Z3 may mean low lactates but it also means fast speed and speed is what we are training to improve.
For this well-trained athlete, it is Z2 that is kind of the black hole of training. Their speed at AeT is going to be within 5% of their speed at AnT. So doing a high volume of Z2 training will quickly lead to overtraining.
By keeping the intensity of this tempo training at around the 2.5mMol/L blood lactate level, the elite athlete can do a much higher volume of this high-speed training than if they sped up 5% and were carrying about 4-6mMol/L. The fatigue load of training with 4-6mMol/L is exponentially greater than with 2.5mMol/L. This allows them to keep up a high volume of training and include a relatively high volume of very fast training.
Here is a typical (early May) week for Tom Evans building into the Western States which he won.
Mon: AM 20×400 @78″ w/ 200 jog PM: 5x2km at 3:05 down to 3:00/km w/ 2min recovery walk. LA after #2,4,5 2.0, 1.9,1.9
Tues: AM easy 60min. PM: Gym ME sled push/pull followed by easy 60min.
Wed: AM easy 30min shake out PM: easy 60min
Thur: AM 25km trail tempo @3:15/km PM: 10x1km @ 3:00/km w/ 2min rec LA during; 2.2-2.6
Fri: AM easy 60min. PM: Gym ME sled push/pull followed by easy 60min.
Sat: 45km @5-5:15/km on a muddy trail with 1800m elevation gain/loss
Sun: Easy 16km
Total for the week 13o miles. 4 fast sessions, 2 ME sessions. BUT>>> Notice how much easy running there is
There is no way he would be able to keep that aerobic volume up AND do high lactate training. This way, we can balance volume and intensity. I have seen this work very well with elites from Cross Country skiing to ultra running.
The ultimate goal for every endurance athlete is to be able to move fast with low blood lactate levels. The more fast running Tom can do with low lactates, the better the training effect.
I hope this helps.
Scott
