Athlete Login
Scott Johnston
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
ScottJeremy: I second the choice of the Lactate Plus meter. Works well. See my article here https://evokeendurance.com/126579-2/
Scott
Josh:
If your “step mill” is of the escalator type, then you should be able to get a very good ME training effect on it. As you progress, you can use some of the saved drive time to extend the ME sessions on the machine. Your hill sounds perfect, though, so maybe occasionally toss in a session there. 40% is very steep and probably will give some good technique training for balance and coordination on steep, rough ground.
Thanks for writing in.
Scott
Dominic;
I’m sure the Cardio Coach will provide accurate data. What is much more important is the test protocol and what you hope to learn from the test.
A standard maxVO2 test usually involves a rapid ramp-up in intensity which zooms through the low-intensity aerobic realm to get you to your highest output before you fatigue; Because the aerobic metabolism is somewhat slow to respond to changes in intensity, it will lag in time, and IMO will not provide you with the information you seek to set zones. A maxVO2 test is good for testing maxVO2.
If you want to find AeT and AnT I recommend you use the tests explained in this article https://evokeendurance.com/our-latest-thinking-on-aerobic-assessment-for-the-mountain-athlete/. These tests will give you the information you need to set your zones. They are free, and you conduct them anytime you want as you see improvements that occur during your training progression.
If they can test you using 3-4 minute stages so the intensity is ramped up slowly, there is a good chance that the data will show AeT (RER=.75), but you or they would need to see the raw data to see that point. They’ll give you an AnT (what they may call lactate threshold (LT)) form this test, but our ANT test is more actionable and is an actual performance test rather than using a proxy like the gas exchange test does.
I hope this is helpful.
ScottAsi;
I’m no physicist either. As an engineer, I have to dumb things down from the Fizziks level to the Engineer (people who drive trains) level.
This is fun and has caused me to spend some time on the interwebs. It turns out this is a subject (climbing a down escalator) that has a fair bit of discussion surrounding it. Let me start by saying: “You are correct” and I have been wrong all these years. Touche, and thank you! I love learning things.
I stumbled upon a Reddit post where a group of engineers were debating this very thing. Those engineers, like me, didn’t come to the same conclusion that you did by using the “frame of reference” argument. They and I came to it from the kinetic vs. potential energy argument.
Climbing fixed stairs involves increasing the potential energy of the person by the amount of kinetic energy it takes to move the mass vertically some distance.
In my now discarded model, I only considered that the person on the stair machine was not increasing their potential energy by moving farther from the surface of the earth. Thus the chemical energy needed to do the work of climbing the down escalator was less than climbing stairs.
What helped me see the error in my thinking is that the escalator climber stays stationary by doing work on the machine to make the stairs move. That work, instead of being converted into the potential energy of raising his mass, is instead converted into heat by the friction of the machine.
Using a thermodynamics (energy) viewpoint is what finally made the dim bulb in my brain flicker to life.
Thanks,
ScottThe need for more core and upper body strength work for alpine climbing and mountaineering on steep (and technical) terrain with a heavy pack is greater than for running.
BUT…and this is important. Any strength training program should be individualized to your needs and weakness.
I hope this helps.
Scott
Assaf: That’s great news that you figured the ME out. You may have seen a YT video of me doing this workout years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI-_rcWcwiY You can clearly see that I am not going at a sprint effort. You might also have seen on our IG recently a Tuesday Training Tip by coach Seth Keena a short video of him doing this same workout. It is also very clear that he is not moving very fast.
With regard to the stair machine: Here is my understanding.
If work is force x distance the mass is moved, then the work done against gravity (energy expended) on the stair machine is a function of the distance your mass is raised. Your mass is not raised by the full height of each step when on a stair machine because as you step up, the step falls away beneath you. If your mass was raised to the full height of each step, you would quickly hike right off the top of the machine. It would seem to me that the frame of reference must include the earth and its gravity since that is what you are working against. With each step, your mass is oscillating up and then back down in relation to the center of the earth but not by the full step height. This is not the same as when running on a train, where the frame of reference does not need to include the earth because the runner is not working to overcome gravity.
IMO: The reason for high RPE on a stair machine, which gives the impression that this is just as hard if not harder than hiking steeply uphill, is that the gradient is something close to 100%, which is much steeper than almost any terrain you could hike on outside, combined with the step size being significantly greater than the step hight on, say a 30% grade.
But I am happy to hear a rebuttal to my argument.
Scott
Josh:
To get yourself used to faster paces, you need to start incorporating more fast training. Start by adding “strides” or “pick-ups” (TftUA pages 168-169) into 1-2 of your runs. After you have completed 4 of these sessions to help you access some faster twitch fibers, add on a session of hill sprints (TftUA pages 179-183) per week and drop to 1 stride/pick-up run per week.
This will help you add another gear to your running and build some running-specific leg strength.
You might find this post helpful and motivating https://evokeendurance.com/forums/topic/aet-and-ant-too-close-together/
Scott
Hey Quentin.
Thanks for asking his very good question. That’s a great training plan you have that Mike and I wrote. It is one of the most popular plans we used to offer and many people have had great success with it.
First, the Anaerobic efforts. The quote you mention from TftUA is correct. This training does make up a tiny fraction of the overall yearly volume. These are essentially longer hill sprints. They combine the training effect of power you were getting from the hill sprints with some of the muscular endurance benefits.
The debate about using aerobic endurance training (Z3, tempo) vs aerobic power training (sometimes called maxVO2 or Z4) is one that has no black-and-white answer. What we’ve been seeing for the past few years with ultra runners, especially top-level ones like Tom Evans, is evidence that the benefits of being able to spend more time in Z3 during these “tempo” workouts simulate more closely the intensity of the harder efforts during ultras. Z4 training entails longer recovery and lower volume in individual workouts. The athlete’s recover faster from the Z3 work than from Z4; it affects their overall training volume less than when we add Z4.
Where possible, we’re controlling the intensity of this training using lactate monitoring. But with others, we’re giving them the guidance that these efforts should feel like 85%. Like they have another gear if they wanted to run faster.
I think it would be easier for you to handle one long hill sprint workout and one long Z3 tempo run (for example, 3x15min on the terrain you feel the weakest on) in a week than the long hill sprint + Z4 intervals.
I hope this helps.
Scott
Josh:
Here are a few thoughts on your test procedure. Could it be that the 18% grade made the test muscularly more demanding than your training has prepared you for? Saying this another way: maybe muscular endurance was causing the high RPE?? With a 2% drift, I’d suggest that your AeT is likely around 155ish.
Was the 20 min steep uphill at 160-163 pretty much “all out”? If so, that would indicate an AnT of 163ish.
With such a small spread between thresholds, you probably need to do most of your aerobic base training down in Z1, which for you is probably below 140. As a further verification of that, think about whether you could train daily in the 150-155 range and recover enough to repeat the same workout the next day, and the next, and the next. Probably not, based on your comments. So Z2 training is just too close to your AnT to allow training their too often.
I hope this helps.
ScottPlease read this article for a deeper explanation. But in a word, it is not possible to build capacity and utilize it simultaneously. As you have figured out, you will need some recovery after a major utilization session, like a big climbing objective, and you will want to taper a bit before the next objective. As you are figuring out, this does not leave much time for training (AKA capacity building). If you have done a good job of building capacity in those first 22 weeks, you should be fine shifting gears to this more specific utilization period to make your training more event specific.
I hope that helps,
Scott
