New Alpinism

kboofis wrote:As someone who has just started deliberately training in Zone 1 this is pretty much how I feel: theonion.com/articles/woman… I've realized my other Zones are pretty well trained because I've always moved in them but my Zone 1 is preeeetty slow

Good call on the woman-barely-jogging. That really captures the way I feel when the Zone 1 trail running starts uphill.

I have been doing Zone 1 training for almost two months (started before I bought Steve's book). My goals are out in August so I have been trying to patiently build a base, and ignoring the pace information my sport watch offers, but the lack of apparent progress has been frustrating. However, today I timed my benchmark six mile trail run and was very pleased to see an 80 seconds/mile improvement in the last three weeks. Maybe this stuff works after all.

I got the book back at the AAC meet-up in Denver earlier this year. I saw Steve House and Hans Florine give a talk on training for climbing as well. It was a pretty wild experience, Chouinard was in the room and Steve and Hans would occasionally throw questions to him in the middle of the talk.

I think one thing that's easily missed in reading the book is that they're not advocating a six or eight or ten week Zone 1 training period necessarily, they're really discussing the benefits of years of aerobic base and time in the mountains. This is a long-haul kind of training mentality.

MarktheCPA wrote:Looking at the transition plan, I am only supposed to work out 3 hours a week... But 25% of that (45 minutes) should be a zone 1 aerobic workout that leaves me tired from duration? Then I have about half an hour for each other workout day. The core workout as a warm-up looks like it could take half an hour by itself. I'm not sure I can workout 6 days a week and only spend 3 hours total. Anyone else doing/done the transition period? I guess I'm just going to pick a few of the exercises each time to stick to the time constraint.

Other folks have been running into this also (including me)...someone above posted that it really does seem like you need to give 8h/wk to this, which I think could be right. Intuitively doing the best with this you can until you have more time seems better than nothing, but that could be wrong: maybe there's kind of a minimum threshold of time invested?

My solution is to focus on the weekly volume, not paying very much attention to days per week. So, assuming I can get the recommended relative percentages in each week, and I do this over three separate days, then I consider that good to go. This outlook is reinforced in the book if you can hunt down the part where they talk about Scott's training for K2 - three days per week. I forgot what page it's on, though.

Optimistic wrote: Other folks have been running into this also (including me)...someone above posted that it really does seem like you need to give 8h/wk to this, which I think could be right. Intuitively doing the best with this you can until you have more time seems better than nothing, but that could be wrong: maybe there's kind of a minimum threshold of time invested?

Assuming my math was right. If you start with 8hr/weekly, your highest possible load for the entire training program is 20 hour a week towards the last phase of the program. During the last two phases (endurance and consolidation, 12 weeks), average weekly volume is around 15 hours.

Interestingly, if you start with 8 hr/wk from base period, the entire program will take between 250-300 hours total. Which is somewhat inline with the yearly volume chart of a college student. If you progress year to year, your next two years volume can reach 300-400 hours a year which is significant.

Do you guys run or hike for the duration? I personally run on a treadmill with a little bit of incline, since I have no hills to run.

Optimistic wrote: Other folks have been running into this also (including me)...someone above posted that it really does seem like you need to give 8h/wk to this, which I think could be right. Intuitively doing the best with this you can until you have more time seems better than nothing, but that could be wrong: maybe there's kind of a minimum threshold of time invested?

I wouldn't be too literal on this. The transition period should be something that is mentally easy to execute on, and yet still valuable training-wise. You need to not spend too much mental energy on this training since you'll need it later on when you're tired and want to throw in the towel. I wouldn't focus too hard on the literal time constraint.

I stand by my assertion that if you're already in OK shape (e.g. can go out and run a few miles without dying, or can do back-to-back 2000-3000' days in the hills), you're going to need something more on the order of 8 - 10 hrs / week with this approach to stimulate adaptations and get stronger than you are now or were last year.

If you are only gonna be able to do 5-6hrs / week training, don't expect to make year-over-year gains. You're probably better off using something like Mountain Athlete or Crossfit for conditioning.

divnamite wrote: Assuming my math was right. If you start with 8hr/weekly, your highest possible load for the entire training program is 20 hour a week towards the last phase of the program. During the last two phases (endurance and consolidation, 12 weeks), average weekly volume is around 15 hours. Interestingly, if you start with 8 hr/wk from base period, the entire program will take between 250-300 hours total. Which is somewhat inline with the yearly volume chart of a college student. If you progress year to year, your next two years volume can reach 300-400 hours a year which is significant. Do you guys run or hike for the duration? I personally run on a treadmill with a little bit of incline, since I have no hills to run.

This is why most people with full-time commitments can only progress so far with their fitness using this style of approach. It is not easy.

FWIW, training average 15 hrs / week is what you'd see a typical mid-level bicycle racer doing. Or Ironman-distance triathlon competitor who is mid-pack.

jaredj wrote: This is why most people with full-time commitments can only progress so far with their fitness using this style of approach. It is not easy. FWIW, training average 15 hrs / week is what you'd see a typical mid-level bicycle racer doing. Or Ironman-distance triathlon competitor who is mid-pack.

A cardiologist I work with was preparing for an ironman last year, he was frequently training as much as 3 hours per DAY during the workweek, which in his case is typically a 50-70h workweek. Seriously focused, that fella. 11:47 for his time, dunno if that's good or bad...I'd still be out there, myself!

Anyone have any thoughts on the L-sit in the core workout?

I cannot even vaguely do it, so I compensate by leaving one heel on the floor with the other heel off the floor, 20 sec each side. Does this seem like an effective bridge to being able to do the actual exercise someday?

divnamite wrote: Assuming my math was right. If you start with 8hr/weekly, your highest possible load for the entire training program is 20 hour a week towards the last phase of the program. During the last two phases (endurance and consolidation, 12 weeks), average weekly volume is around 15 hours. Interestingly, if you start with 8 hr/wk from base period, the entire program will take between 250-300 hours total. Which is somewhat inline with the yearly volume chart of a college student. If you progress year to year, your next two years volume can reach 300-400 hours a year which is significant. Do you guys run or hike for the duration? I personally run on a treadmill with a little bit of incline, since I have no hills to run.

I run, often up in the Mohonk Preserve or just here in town, and also ride...tons of hill options for both of those. Seems like there are a lot of great parks in NYC with hills, no? Central? Prospect? Burly hill at the NW corner of Central Park, for sure.

Optimistic wrote:Anyone have any thoughts on the L-sit in the core workout? I cannot even vaguely do it, so I compensate by leaving one heel on the floor with the other heel off the floor, 20 sec each side. Does this seem like an effective bridge to being able to do the actual exercise someday?

Here's some recommended progressions for working up to the L-sit if you're struggling at first.

jaredj wrote: I wouldn't be too literal on this. The transition period should be something that is mentally easy to execute on, and yet still valuable training-wise. You need to not spend too much mental energy on this training since you'll need it later on when you're tired and want to throw in the towel. I wouldn't focus too hard on the literal time constraint. I stand by my assertion that if you're already in OK shape (e.g. can go out and run a few miles without dying, or can do back-to-back 2000-3000' days in the hills), you're going to need something more on the order of 8 - 10 hrs / week with this approach to stimulate adaptations and get stronger than you are now or were last year. If you are only gonna be able to do 5-6hrs / week training, don't expect to make year-over-year gains. You're probably better off using something like Mountain Athlete or Crossfit for conditioning.

I can do more than 3 hours per week and that seems low to me but it is roughly 50% of my prior year training volume which is what the authors prescribe for the transition period. I hope to be training 8-10/wk once in the full swing but for the transition period? I've thought about just doing 6 hours per week because I know I can especially with all the Zone 1 but then I just hear Mark Rippetoe yelling YNDTP.

(not sure if anyone here is familiar with Mark Rippetoe and SS but he gets a lot of complaints and wrote a response that involves yelling at athletes for making modifications and not doing the program "http://startingstrength.com/articles/clarification_rippetoe.pdf")

This is my take - I am starting at a volume I know is lower than necessary, for a few reasons. First, as was said previously, this is for the long haul, it should be sustainable. Second, it is easy to ramp up a little more aggressively if your volume seems too low. In fact, you can ramp up during your transition period until you find a volume that kind of wrecks you for the following week, dial that back 10-20% for a good initial volume to work from.

It seems like starting low is the best idea - as everyone has noted, the program ramps up significantly as you get deeper into the cycle. It should feel pretty easy initially, it is a long, slow cycle. If week one of the base period feels tough, you will end up burning out or dramatically changing your volume mid-stream. I get the message from this book over and over "do the program, but listen to your body, total volume trumps intensity every time"

Your starting point should be based on your previous training volume. If you don't have one, then starting low is a very good idea, even if it doesn't feel like training.

Also, did anyone notice that at the end of consolidation period, "alternate week 4" suggested one day climb of liberty ridge or link up two different routes on mt Sneffels? That's freaking awesome! The motivation in this book alone is worth the price.

Mark, I always like the SS program. It helped me rebuild my fucked up ankle and other body parts after years of abuse and injury. It does required you to bulk up, if not, you'll plateau very quickly.

jaredj wrote: Here's some recommended progressions for working up to the L-sit if you're struggling at first.

Thanks! Although most of those look as hard as the L-sit!

jaredj wrote: I wouldn't be too literal on this. The transition period should be something that is mentally easy to execute on, and yet still valuable training-wise. You need to not spend too much mental energy on this training since you'll need it later on when you're tired and want to throw in the towel. I wouldn't focus too hard on the literal time constraint. I stand by my assertion that if you're already in OK shape (e.g. can go out and run a few miles without dying, or can do back-to-back 2000-3000' days in the hills), you're going to need something more on the order of 8 - 10 hrs / week with this approach to stimulate adaptations and get stronger than you are now or were last year. If you are only gonna be able to do 5-6hrs / week training, don't expect to make year-over-year gains. You're probably better off using something like Mountain Athlete or Crossfit for conditioning.

Not meaning to start a fight, but Twight goes on at some length and with quite a bit of force in the book saying that CrossFit was not working for him in terms of those year-over-year gains, and from what I've seen he was doing CrossFit quite a lot harder than I ever could! A key point in the book (may be wrong, I'm not an exercise physiologist) seems to be that high-intensity programs like that are not the right kind of stress to train for these long mountaineering objectives...

Hadn't heard of Mountain Athlete before...what's your take on it?

Optimistic wrote: Not meaning to start a fight, but Twight goes on at some length and with quite a bit of force in the book saying that CrossFit was not working for him in terms of those year-over-year gains, and from what I've seen he was doing CrossFit quite a lot harder than I ever could! A key point in the book (may be wrong, I'm not an exercise physiologist) seems to be that high-intensity programs like that are not the right kind of stress to train for these long mountaineering objectives... Hadn't heard of Mountain Athlete before...what's your take on it?

I agree with you and Twight about the year-on-year gains. But something that they don't come out and say explicitly in the book but was hit upon up-thread is that for year-on-year gains to be made, increases in volume year-on-year are necessary. For many, this comes at a shock. A max of 8-9 hrs this year? Doable. Doing more like 10-12 next year? Sheesh, gonna be tough. 15 the year after that?! It's merely the opposite side of the "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" coin.

Mountain Athlete is a gym run by a guy who has a background in strength training who is marketing training plans that he designs for outdoor athletes based on his views. I have purchased a couple. His plans are a blend of classical strength exercises, 'work capacity' workouts, and moderately high - intensity (think Zone 3 + 4 mostly) endurance workouts. This contrasts with Crossfit, which tends to be 'work capacity' focused primarily (as is my understanding - I've never spent time at a Crossfit gym).

I think of Crossfit at one end of a continuum (all high - intensity, all the time), and New Alpinism (low to moderate intensity but lots of it) at another. Mountain Athlete tries to strike a balance. I think it's a pretty good approach for the busy person with lots of commitments (job, kids, etc) for whom this is a hobby, and can only realistically devote 5-6 hrs / week to training on a regular basis.

My contention is that if you can't scale up to at least 10-12 hrs for a few weeks, then the gains made from a New Alpinism - style approach are gonna be pretty limited. Put more bluntly, if you've only got 5 hrs / week to work with on average, those 5-6 are probably better spent doing high intensity stuff. You just have to accept that if you can't push the volume, you've got very little chance of making those big year-on-year gains the book talks about. Instead what you'll be able to do is get in pretty good shape for awhile, but that fitness is shorter-lived.

Jared,

Does increasing intensity inside of a given time period not increase the total volume of work completed? If I can run 5 miles in one hour on year one (long, easy, zone 1 distance) and 7 miles in one hour on year three (long, easy, zone 1 distance) I have increased the volume of work I completed by almost 30%.

Genuinely curious, you seem well versed in this stuff.

Alexander Blum wrote:Jared, Does increasing intensity inside of a given time period not increase the total volume of work completed? If I can run 5 miles in one hour on year one (long, easy, zone 1 distance) and 7 miles in one hour on year three (long, easy, zone 1 distance) I have increased the volume of work I completed by almost 30%. Genuinely curious, you seem well versed in this stuff.

I think the right model in which to view this is through the lense of training stress. In your hyopthetical, the 'training stress' you are subjecting yourself to is identical in year 3 as it is in year 1. You have adapted significantly to doing more work (e.g. going from 5 mph to 7 mph for equivalent level of exertion / effort). But you will need a greater amount of training stress to stimulate yourself to make gains beyond that ability you have in year 3. As you've gotten more adapted to doing more work, you will need greater stimulus to continue to adapt (as opposed to plateau-ing).

Also I should point out that I'm not a professional in this area - just an enthusiast who reads a lot and has spent a lot of years training for cycling, running, and climbing.

Great opinions Jared. I really like the discussion and the points you put forth. I went after training intensity for a 1.5 year period before heading to Denali. Now I fully understand that I overtrained a ton - I had the burst but I didn't have the endurance I needed. Most of the intensity training I did was because of work schedule - not anything else. I'm considering that my next expedition will be more of the New Alpinism approach. Currently I am overtraining in order to be ready for my Liberty Ridge climb in a month or so. That is not going to be my approach going forward. Liberty Ridge is not going to require the endurance that something like McKinley would (not really high altitude for extended periods, not work for 15+ days, etc). So, I have a level of base fitness I'm happy with. I'm training specifics I need for that.

When I come home, I'm going to sit down and reevaluate my training and put myself more on a schedule. I need to get through this objective, plan and then prepare for my next expedition.

The hardest part for me is taking the transition, base and specific periods and figuring out where to start those plans. Since I just read the book, I'm not in the right position to start to lead up to the next expedition. So, I plan on getting this objective done and applying things I've learned.