Athlete Login
Scott Johnston
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Silpa:
I do think you need to add some spice to your training. Just doing aerobic base training with no hill sprints, no muscular endurance, no pick ups and no strength work is probably the reason you feel slow.
A few thoughts:
1) when you switched to the bike did you redo the HR drift test to find you biking AeT? It is most likely different from running which is also probably different from AeT on a stair master. Usually biking AeT will be lower and that might be why you felt like it was too much stress to train at 155 on the bike.
2) Adding interval training like Z4-5 without proper preparation with the hill sprints and ME could be why you injured yourself.
3) When I look at your test I select from about 25 minutes because that is here your HR stopped climbing so fastened began to stabilize. I select the next 26 minutes and see an average HR of 159. Selecting the last 26 minutes of the test gives and average HR of 164. 164/150= 1.03 or a 3 % drift. I would say that your starting HR of 157 is probably a good estimate of your AeT. What was your perceived exertion during this test? If it felt hard then yes, you need to do most of your base training at a lower HR, maybe around 135-145 range.
As to whether you should use one of our coaches: You will get your best results that way and you have a partner to help you decide what to do when and explain why so you can learn in real time. You’ve already done a pretty good job with the aerobic base training. But some elements do seem to be missing. Maybe dive back into one of our books and read about hill sprints, muscular endurance and pick ups.
I hope this helps.
ScottLCB:
You are correct. Done in sufficient quantity (sets and reps) with minimal rest all those exercises will produce an ME effect. Many other exercises can be used to elicit a similar effect. I think I mentioned this in the ME article .
I’m really glad the ME work has given you more confidence for your upcoming Denali trip. It has worked for hundreds if not thousands of others so you’re in good company.
Scott
Great questions. Thanks for asking. Nose breathing is not a surefire method for everyone to establish their aerobic threshold. Some people struggle to breathe through their nose, even at rest, due to congestion and swollen nasal tissue in the nose. It sounds like when you redid the test starting at 135; you got a more reasonable drift. I’d stick with that as the top of Z2 till you see some improvement in pace at that HR. Your HR is the result of the tug-of-war between your sympathetic (fight or flight) and parasympathetic (rest and digest) nervous systems. In your game, your excitement causes your sympathetic nervous system to overpower the parasympathetic. Your brain can’t tell the difference between VR and reality, so is preparing you for a fight or flight. When exercising, your sympathetic system jacks up HR in response to increased oxygen demand in the working muscles.
- Cold will affect your ability to nose breathe 40F is probably not cold enough to have much, if any, effect.
- Temps would need to be to the point of making your mucus membranes sting or burn to have much effect. Forget nose breathing.
- Go with 135 for now.
- See the above explanation.
I hope this helps.
Scott
Like most things in life….It depends.
The degree or absence of DOMS seems to depend on muscle fiber type composition and athlete strength. This is from my observations of hundreds of athletes who have used this program. FT dominate athletes often get no soreness at all. Super ST athletes can be super sore for up to 3-4 days if they overdo it. Hence my warnings about not going full out for the first few workouts until you understand how it affects you. I do see that athletes have less trouble with DOMS when they have done cycles of to before. So, your experience this time with minimal soreness on the second time through an ME cycle is in line with most others see. If DOMS is severe, low muscle load activities are in order until you feel better. Running might be out of the question for a day or two.
In the end, the response is very individual. But the more you do this, the less painful it will be, and the long-term benefits are worth the short-term pain. I don’t think there is a way to alleviate DOMS.
I hope this helps,
ScottChristian:
This is a great and very deep question. You always ask challenging ones. I’m sorry I didn’t see this earlier but……
This has been the age old problem for coaches and athletes. How to quantify the training load and the fatigue that coes with it. Training load is a term that, while vague and defined in several different ways, is a concept that captures all the things you speak about: duration of individual workouts, intensity, frequency, and total volume. The best method for capturing training load that I am familiar with are incorporated in the metrics that Training Peaks uses. These are based on TSS (training stress score). The TSS is calculated using an algorithm which involves power output (running or cycling), pace (running or simming) or heart rate (as a last resort when these others are not available. The TSS is a function of duration and intensity and the time spent above and below what we call AnT (TP calls this Threshold or FPT-functional threshold pace or power). So now you have this single number, TSS that is a proxy for training load. The power and pace baed TSS is much more accurate that heart rate based TSS.
From other algorithms TP comes up with CTL= chronic training load which is a proxy for fitness or work capacity. ATL= accute training load which is a proxy for fatigue and TSB=training stress balance which is an approximation of your form on any given day if you need to perform well.
These were all developed by Andrew Coggan PhD.
Like all algorithms, though; they need good data to give good results. That is why power and pace give more accurate TSS numbers than heart rate does.
I should do one of our book club sessions on TP metrics.
Watch for an a couple of upcoming podcasts on using power meters for running and hiking. I think you will enjoy them.
Scott
No concerns at all. It is a very well-designed, long-term progression of training load that has gotten rave reviews from the military crowd. The only undesirable side effect might be saluting your wife or your boss.
Scott
Joe: Great questions. Have you done an AnT test to see the spread between AeT and AnT? With a 9:30 pace at AeT it is possible that this spread might be less than 10%, in which case you might want to be doing more of your aerobic base training down in Zone 1 or around 125-135. That’s not far off your suggested 124 starting HR. Pacing on longer runs is always tricky. Have you tried that strategy of starting in the 102s? If so did you feel better at the end than if you start in Z2?
The bigger question is how do you feel the next day after longer runs done with these two strategies? It sounds like you blow up if starting in Z2. That in itself tells you the answer. Z2 is unsustainable for you for more than 2 hours right now. It will improve with time but the best route to accomplishing that is to do more easier volume.
I hope the helps,
Scott14rcole:
if you ran this test on a running track the pace to heart rate ratio is supplied in the Analytics on Training Peaks. We can see that in the data you shared. The algorithm that TP uses for calculating Pa: Hr will account for those heart rate swings. Your first test was probably a bit winky do to the stairs.
Scott
Tamas;
What an amazing story. Thank you so much for your kind words. I wish I could take credit but……I may have pointed you in the right direction, but you were the one that forged the path and did all the work to get these impressive results. Our mission here at Evoke is to inspire more people, point them in the right direction, and support them on their own journey. Your story will serve as inspiration to the timid, the reluctant, to the undecided to take the first steps like you did. Congratulations. I am proud to have played a small part in your story.
Scott
PS. I hope we do cross paths sometime. I would be honored to have my picture taken with you.
Christian:
How prescient of you! I addressed just this question in last night’s book group lecture. I think your mental model is good. As mathematician George Box said: All models are wrong (meaning that they are not perfect representations of reality), but some are useful.
Glycolysis and its resultant pyruvate production occur in the cell’s cytosol outside the mitochondria. A process of converting it to acetyl-coA allows it to pass through the mitochondrial membrane and get used in the Kreb’s cycle for aerobic metabolism.
Glycolysis can and will take place in the full spectrum of muscle fiber types. The faster the FT fibers the more they will rely upon glycolysis and the less mitochondrial content they have. Thus they are less endurance endowed.
Yes, one of the main goals of endurance training is to increase the mitochondrial content of faster and faster twitch fibers. Improving their endurance characteristics can provide propelling force for longer before fatiguing. As you point out. This moves the AnT upward in terms of power output. You can run faster for longer (i.e., more endurance).
The vacuum analogy is a perfect example of George Box’s little ditty. The vacuum is comprised of: mitochondria in those same muscle cells where pyruvate is being produced, more remote mitochondria, the liver, and the heart.
While the fibers do apparently exist along a continuum thing of the slower twitch fibers acting as the vacuum for the next level up the FT scale. This is what I talked about in the book group’s second physiology chapter. I think it will help you. But you essentially have it, at least at the macro level we need to understand it.
Scott
Quentin:
I’m sorry to be slow in answering this. I did reply a week ago, but for some reason, my reply didn’t stick. Your English is great. I butcher our language more.
Your race results indicate that you have a good work capacity even though your training volume is not high. I guess you can thank your parents for good genes.
I think using this plan of using training for the 42 km race as A priority is a good way to go. Prepping for the 42 km race will give you a good base for the longer race in October.
I can’t explain the most effective modifications to the Category 1 100km plan. The reason is that I don’t know enough about you and your training and fitness. If your goals are 42 and 75km, why are us using the 100km plan? Could it be that you feel you can handle the volume in that plan? Given the results you have gotten from quite a low volume of training, I’m not sure you need to jump to the 100km plan. A jump in volume like you are contemplating, from 275 hours to 500 hours, is much larger than I would normally think prudent. There is an injury risk when making a bog increase in running volume like you are planning.
Scott
Todd:
Thanks for the thoughtful questions and comments. I’m glad you are paying close attention and are provoked to think more deeply about these things.
You may recall this quote from Per Astrand, one of the fathers of modern exercise science:
“It is an important but unsolved question which type of training is most effective: to maintain a level representing 90% of the maximal oxygen uptake for 40 min, or to tax 100% of the oxygen uptake capacity for 16 min’’
You are asking this same question essentially, and no one knows the answer definitively.
The study I cited is: Adaptations to aerobic interval training: interactive effects of exercise intensity and total work duration. S Seiler, K Jøranson, B V Olesen, K J Hetlelid Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 23:74-83, 2013 I recommend you read it since you are curious about it. The summary I was making when I said that the 4x8min group improved their endurance was that they showed significantly greater gains than the other groups in the following qualities: maxVO2, power at maxVO2, power at 4mMol/l blood lactate, and time to exhaustion at 80% of max power. This test was done with cyclists, hence the power data.
All of those qualities combined, but especially the last one, indicate increased endurance.
For anyone but an elite-level athlete, a maximum effort of 8 minutes is going to give an intensity of just over the AnT. Local muscular fatigue will end up being the limitation to sustaining this output. The same holds that for most people, the 16-minute reps are going to be just below AnT or Zone 3 intensity.
This study is not saying that 4x8min is the holy grail of interval workouts and that is all you need to do. It is only showing that these did produce the biggest gains in endurance qualities.
The thing you need to understand is that just as the aerobic base serves as foundation for all the higher intensities but increasing the size of the vacuum cleaner in the ST fibers, each increasingly faster twitch group of fibers serves as the vacuum cleaner for the next higher level of FT fibers just above it. The reason intervals of different lengths are important is that the longer, lower-intensity ones serve as aerobic support for the shorter, higher-intensity ones.
I hope this helps.
It sounds like I might need to write an article or do a podcast about this topic. Thanks for prompting me.
Scott
Great question:
I’ll sum it up with this statement- the best training is not the most training you can do but the least training it takes to get the best results. In other words, DON’T GET GREEDY.
From a training/performance trade-off standpoint, two strength/core sessions/wk will get you where you need to be and allow enough recovery to see progress. Strength training, as with high-intensity training, will show diminishing returns as volume increases. More is not usually better in these cases. What is important is progress. If you are seeing progress with the current program, why change? Your body is responding positively to the training stimulus.
All that being said, if you need this type of stimulus 5-6 x/wk to stay healthy……… go for it. Because the bulk of core musculature is slow twitch it recovers quickly.
Scott
Sorry Folks;
I was busy with some other writing projects like this article https://evokeendurance.com/training-fast-twitch-and-slow-twitch-endurance-athletes/.
@ Rachel: I suspect the root of the problem is that you changed treadmills mid-test. Treadmills, unless they are of laboratory quality like the Woodway are notorious for being inaccurate and inconsistent. Here is an article I wrote about this last fall https://evokeendurance.com/treadmill-season/. I suggest doing your warm-up and test on the same treadmill to minimize this problem. Stop then restart the t-mill after your warm-up, so you get an hour of test data. However, if you only can capture 45 min of test data, you will still get a decent idea of the drift. I hope that helps.
@ kilfatmike: Both these tests sound like they were well done, and you have interpreted the AeT test data well. I’d use the 139 as the AnT because of the shorter test and the slower HR ramp-up. Good job.
Thanks to both of you for writing in. I will review testing in-depth on the Book Group monthly zoom meetings, so don’t miss that.
Scott
Santiago:
Thanks for your question. I would disagree that the results of fat adaptation are mere placebo. There have been exhaustive studies showing conclusively the rate at which fat can be metabolized in a well fat adapted athlete being over 3x that of non fat adapted athlete. I detail all of this on both my books; Training for the New Aplinism and Training for the Uphill Athlete. I too have found Science of Ultra a good resource. You might wat to listen to this podcast that address the fat adaptation subject head on. https://www.scienceofultra.com/podcasts/119
Scott
