Scott Johnston
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Remember that any “stock” plan is a sort of one-size-fits-all, which often means it fits no one perfectly. This is especially true when it comes to aerobic volume. Due to injury concerns, we will always err on the side of caution. You should continue the aerobic training at the volume you are accustomed to.
Another thing to consider is that in most of our plans we do not use the Training Peaks workout builder. That’s because, for aerobic base runs, it seems rather like massive overkill to use workout builder. I mean, how hard is it to remember something like “run for 60 minutes at aerobic threshold, right? Now, if there is an internal session, then workout builder can be quite handy, especially if the work rest periods vary in duration.
In your case, since you are at a much higher running volume than this plan calls for, you should not increase your weekly volume by 20%/week The higher the running volume, the slower the volume progression must be. To avoid injury when you are already doing some 1:45 runs I suggest keeping the increase to more like 5-10%/week
I hope this helps.
Scott160 is quite a reasonable AeT. We have had very well-trained young athletes with AeT heart rates up into the high 180s. These kids had max HRs of well over 200, though.
The drift test usually correlates very closely with a gas exchange test. If you have done this test several times and keep getting the same result, I think you can be confident that your AeT is around 160.
Scott
Brian:
I don’t think skiing will move the aerobic needle for running for someone with your fitness. XC skiing is indeed a great way to increase aerobic fitness, both central and peripheral. The demands of delivering more blood to both the upper and lower body in XC skiing puts a bigger street on the heart. This is why XC skiers typically have among the highest VO2 max numbers ever recorded.
When it comes to peripheral adaptations, though, these are more sport-specific. However, the transfer from running to XC skiing is quite good, which is borne out by looking at how much running the best XC skiers do. You see some XC skiers doing quite well in mountain running.
Good luck this winter,
Scott
Josh:
If I am reading your next to last paragraph, you did a 2-hour run the morning of your AeT test and then were on your feet for 9 hours before doing your AnT test. Try doing these tests rested and not stacked back to back on the same day. We usually have two very easy days before any AnT test.
Scott
Highpointer:
Biran and 14rcole have given you some good advice from their own experience. I can only reinforce what they have said. It does sound like you ADS, which, while disappointing, is the easiest fitness thing to fix. All it takes is patience and perseverance. We often see AeT heart rates in the 120s and lower. Like Brian, you may need to start with run/walks.
It is possible to climb big mountains without this aerobic base- you have proven that- but was it fun or a suffer-fest? Could you keep that level of work up for another several days, like will be required on Denali? Can you operate safely day after day? Could you respond to an emergency situation?
Because this intensity is so easy for many who have ADS, you can do a high volume of this kind of training if you have the time. The single biggest driver of aerobic base development is volume. I’d also go with option two and monitor AeT progress with a drift test every 6-8 weeks. When you see your pace improving, do another test at 5bpm higher.
Since you live in a terrain-challenged place, you can benefit from doing your aerobic base training on a steep treadmill and stair master. FOr the ME work, it is hard to beat the Stairmaster.
I hope this helps.
Scott
JDT: Great question. Sorry to be slow responding. It has been a very busy month at Evoke.
A couple of things: Treadmill speeds are notoriously off unless they are lab quality like a Woodway. My Nordic Track incline trainer is off by over 10% at all inclines. The last time I checked it when it read 10 min/mile, it was actually 8:45/mile. YOu may have been running faster than you thought.
Secondly, the 3.5% incline could have made a difference, although I normally only see big differences in the drift tests when the incline is steep. Steep is relative for each individual. You will have to determine that for yourself.
I hope that helps.
Scott
Josh:
Sorry for the delay in responding. It has been a busy month at Evoke. If you have the terrain for it or access to a stair master, I would recommend doing the ME work by carrying a heavy pack steeply uphill. This is more event-specific. It sounds like you have done a good job on the aerobic base-building part of your program and couldn’t be too far off your strength and ME training, either.
You might find this article interesting. https://evokeendurance.com/aerobic-training-for-the-military-athlete/ You will see why our methods are so successful for the military athlete. Marksmanship is a fine motor skill. Fine motor skills are the first things to degrade with central nervous system (CNS) fatigue. Long-duration events like carrying a heavy pack for hours in rough terrain greatly impact the CNS (try threading a needle immediately after a long run). Improving aerobic endurance is the surest way to improve marksmanship in a fatigued state. So many of the backcountry hunting fitness programs I see are nothing but CrossFit for hunters and completely ignore the need for a big aerobic base.
I hope this helps.
Scott
Great question. The short answer as to why I didn’t question Judd’s (whose opinion I respect) assertion that you can find AeT in a VO2max test with a rapid ramp-up/short stages is that I don’t know how that could be done. In hindsight, I should have asked him to explain how he does that. All can do is explain my experience of looking at hundreds of these tests.
The long answer follows:
I’m not a physiologist, but my supposition is that when the ramp rate is too fast, especially in the low-intensity aerobic zones, the aerobic metabolism is playing catch up, and its response to the change in intensity has a significant time delay. If that is true, the aerobic metabolism does not reach an equilibrium state, which takes several minutes. If that is true, then the gas exchange data in the form of RER, the respiratory exchange ratio, while accurately reflecting the metabolism, will not give the same information as it would when the stages are long enough for metabolic equilibrium to occur. This is why METs (Metabolic Efficiency Tests) have 3-4-minute stages. Ask the lab how long the test stages are.
Another BIG problem I often see in lab tests is the very short warm-up time before they start the test and start collecting data. As I have explained, the aerobic metabolism is slow to get cranked up to full capacity and slow to respond to changes in intensity (remember, the aerobic metabolic pathway’s job is to provide energy for long duration steady state work. The anaerobic path’s job is to respond to rapid changes in work rates). So if the work rate increases suddenly, like going from near zero (driving to the lab and walking in) to even light exercise, the aerobic metabolism needs time to get firing on all cylinders. If that happens, there is a very good chance, even with 3-minute stages, that the first few stages will have a lagging metabolic response. I just evaluated a test like that yesterday for one of our coached athletes. So a long, very easy warm-up of at least 10 minutes will give better results. But many labs don’t do that. Maybe it is because they want to get their customers in and out quickly so they can get on to the next one.
So, that’s my argument against using a short-stage gas exchange test for determining AeT. I have seen this in so many tests, some with stages as short as 15 seconds. What the center argument would be, I can’t imagine. Maybe I need to get Judd back on to explain that.
As for the AnT, that is an entirely different argument. The whole point of identifying the AnT is to determine the intensity that you can sustain for many minutes (like 30-60). If that is the point, then why not just do a real test of maximum sustainable effort? I call this kind of test a performance test. Since what we ultimately care about is improving our performance out in the field, we should use a performance test when possible. The Gas Exchange Test is a proxy test, not a performance test. Performance tests are like time trials. The AnT test is simply going as hard as you can for 30+ minutes and seeing what your average HR is. The AeT test measures HR drift during an hour of low-intensity exercise. I also like to do AeT and AnT time trials on the same piece of terrain every couple of months to see if your training is improving your performance. These tests are free, and you can take them whenever they fit into your schedule. They provide a true measure of performance.
If your performance is improving, you can’t be too far off the mark with your training.
I hope this helps.
Scott
Sorry I didn’t see this question earlier.
Use the 24 week mountaineering plan and do the aerobic workouts running.
Scott
I’m not sure of the maximum number of ME weeks. I have had athletes go for 16 weeks and see very good gains. And I have seen noticeable results from only 4 weeks
Scott
James:
Thanks for your questions. I’m sorry I was not more clear. There are a number of ways to increase max strength that have gained popularity in the strength training community. Far be it from me to critique them so I stuck with one that has been a fairly traditional approach for 50 years. The general principle is that using about 80-90% of your one rep max you do 4-6 sets (after a few warm up sets) of anywhere from 2-5 reps (this varies based on who you talk to). The main effect of this type of training is neurological. You are trying to train your motor nervous system to recruit more motor units. I chose this method because it is the least likely to cause hypertrophy (adding muscle mass) which is something more endurance athletes want to steer clear of. I wish I could be more concrete in my recommendations for the exact number of sets and reps But I have seen great gains using the full ranges listed above. I do not add more sets or more reps as the weeks go by. Instead you will be able to increase the resistance you are using. You will notice that the resistance you were using 2 weeks a go is no longer as challenging. That is your signal to increase the resistance. The effect if that your brain has to recruit more motor units to move that higher resistance. I suggest no t going to failure in most sets. The long rests between sets allow the motor nerves to recovery and the ATP stores in the muscle cells to recharge. If you are doing these workouts correctly you should feel energized an invigorated immediately afterwards. These session can speed recovery form endurance training because that are relatively low energy and stimulate your endocrine system to produce anabolic hormones.
I hope this helps.
ScottGreat question. It is one I hear a lot and one I have pondered many times. I have used these and other ME protocols with equal success. I tend to lean toward the gym ME for runners and skimo racers. I lean toward weighted hiking (either on a stair machine, actual stairs, or a steep hill for mountaineers.
However I have mixed these using the gym ME progressions for 6-10 weeks before shifting to steep weighted hiking for mountaineers. I have used weighted stairmaster for mountain runners as well. You might recall that in a couple of podcasts I have done with Jack Kuenzle he did a LOT of stair master ME in preparation for some of his mountain running and skiing FKT.
This may not seem very helpful in answering your question but you can take some solace that you can come at this from different directions and still get very good results. With some of the athletes I have coached for years we have tried all these combos with no significant differences and we end up either going with the one that the athlete enjoys more or we cycle them at different times of the year.
The thing that is similar across all of them is that we always include ME in every athletes training.
Scott
Great question and one that we hear often. Your comment about the steepness of this 50-mile race leads me to assume that there is also a lot of overall vertical gain and loss. If that is the case and you are crunched on time during the week, I would ditch the speed work day and substitute steep vert.
Train for the demands of the event (DOE)…….
If my assumption about the amount of vert in the race is correct, speed will not be an issue. What will be, though, is the ability to go up and down steep terrain. You will need to build fatigue resistance in the main propelling muscles. That means muscular endurance training. Since you have a long runway to build this, I suggest starting with a 10-16 week block of our gym ME program. Then shifting to weighted Stairmaster ME work. This strategy has worked well for many mountain runners we have trained for races with a lot of vert. We’ve seen this work very well for people with restricted time for training. The year Luke Nelson was 9th at Tor d’Geant (205 miles with about 80k vert), his average weekly mileage for the six months leading into the race was 48 miles/week. But he did a ton of ME work, and it paid off well, keeping his legs strong the whole time. You might want to read this post on ME.
You will probably be spending a lot of time walking. Tom Evans spent about 50% of the UTMB walking the year he was 3rd. You need to train for walking by walking a lot and fast uphill. If you will use poles, you should be doing most of your training with poles.
I hope this helps. Good luck with your training.
Scott
Great question.
As you are suggesting, you can let the duration dictate the intensity. You should also consider the event you are training for and the stage or period you are at in your training cycle.
If you are in the mid to late part of your build-up training for an event lasting more than a couple of hours, and especially if it lasts more than 5 hours or if you are early in the base training cycle for shorter events, even down to 3-4 minutes like a skimo or XC ski sprint have found the most benefit from doing a higher volume of low Z3. Staying at this lower intensity allows for more volume and quicker recovery. Evoke coaches have had good results using these principles. This Z3 training supports for higher intensity work in short events and is the even specific work for longer events.
If you are in the later stages training for a shorter event like a VK or 2-hour skimo race, then training in high Z3 will be useful as it supports the Z4 work needed for these sub 2 hor events that are either steady state for less than an hour like a VK or for 2-hour races with undulating terrain like an XC ski or Skimo race.
We like to build a pyramid of support. where each layer of intensity supports the one above and is supported by the one below.
This is where coaching becomes much more art than science as each athlete is different, and you MUST pay close attention to recovery. You don’t just do intervals on Tuesday because that is what the plan says. When it comes to high-intensity training, there is a lot of nuance and individualization. That is why there are so many different approaches. I am merely telling you what I have used for decades with good results and by extension Evoke coaches typically use.
I hope this helps.
Scott
Luke:
The reason we have you conduct this test so you can determine your actual metabolic response to exercise. Garmin’s algorithm uses a formula based on age. The HR drift test you conducted will help you define your aerobic threshold, where we set the top of Z2.
You do not need to breathe through your nose for the entire test, and that no doubt impacted your HR/intensity if you felt uncomfortable since you are not used to nose breathing. We recommend that for people who have no idea how hard to push in this test. It sounds like you did the test correctly and found the avg HR for both halves to be 105. That means you had zero upward drift. You did this indoors, and TP needs a GPS signal to know your pace. GPS does not work indoors hence the wonky Pa:Hr. Forget that metric, as it is meaningless unless you are outside. Because you have zero upward drift in HR you were below your AeT (top of Z2). Now you have an idea of what speed or HR you might start at. I suggest redoing the test.
Next test after the warm-up, find a speed that results in a pretty stable HR of 115. Once you do, push start and go doe an hour. More detailed info is available in this article.
You’re close to being able to individualize your training and not having to rely on a formula that may or may not apply to you.
Scott
