New Alpinism

Probably many of you have heard of Kilian Jornet (recent new speed records on Denali and Grand Teton), turns out he is pretty fit. I thought some of you might enjoy this from his website, although it is a little bit lean on specifics...
kilianjornet.cat/en/training/

Optimistic wrote:Probably many of you have heard of Kilian Jornet (recent new speed records on Denali and Grand Teton), turns out he is pretty fit. I thought some of you might enjoy this from his website, although it is a little bit lean on specifics... kilianjornet.cat/en/training/

I like how he tracks his elevation gain/loss during the year, along with his mileage. I've been doing that as well. The details are so sparse though, that you can't tell if he is counting only the "ups," or adding the downs to the ups. The youtube video of Killian and Krupika cruising to the Summit of the Grand Teton and back is great. Krupika doesn't even wear a shirt, and they are crossing paths with astonished mountaineers. Killian wore a GoPro to get the footage.

Tom Nyce wrote: I like how he tracks his elevation gain/loss during the year, along with his mileage. I've been doing that as well. The details are so sparse though, that you can't tell if he is counting only the "ups," or adding the downs to the ups. The youtube video of Killian and Krupika cruising to the Summit of the Grand Teton and back is great. Krupika doesn't even wear a shirt, and they are crossing paths with astonished mountaineers. Killian wore a GoPro to get the footage.

I remember reading an article about Ueli Steck's training somewhere (maybe right here!) and he also left out a ton of detail...I get the sense that these guys feel their regimes to be kind of their secret weapon. In Steck's case, I think he's got at least two or three different coaches working on different aspects with him.

I've noticed that my speed gains in the Zone 1 have pretty much stopped (although the increasing summer heat may be an important confounding factor)...I'm slogging my way through (selected parts of) the Noakes book that House/Johnson refer to frequently, but man, does that guy need an editor!

Anyone else encountered good approaches to increasing speed over long distances? Just keep doing the Zone 1? Build some speed intervals into the long runs? Intervals on other days?

The goal is to be faster in Zone 1, so just being patient and keeping up the Zone 1 (I do 3-4h/wk, been at it for about 4mos, although it was more like 2h/wk initially) seems like it could well be the answer.

Kai Larson wrote:Weight loss specifics are often linked to genes and body chemistry. Some people simply can't lose weight without anaerobic exercise.

Weight loss has significantly more to do with diet and caloric restriction than it does with exercise of any kind. I'm sure there are some people that truly can't lose weight due to a genetic problem, but they are the outliers on the fringe.

Excercsing is the easy part compared to reducing caloric intake.

Jon Clark wrote: Excercsing is the easy part compared to reducing caloric intake.

That sure is true for me! The hypothalamus is a worthy opponent indeed... My wife's baking habit doesn't help either.

Speed gains will come with time (four months isn't a very long time), but they aren't really what an alpine climber should be primarily interested in. They are a nice, but secondary/tertiary goal. It's time consuming, but if the time is available the idea is to just keep building aerobic volume. With enough volume, adding that speed work in (I think they say 10% of total volume over a year) will yield some excellent gains in overall speed.

The big base of "easy aerobic" fitness will aid in recovery and increase the efficacy of the speed training. It's a give and take based on your goals, and I struggle with it - it would be nice to be faster now (I run really slowly), but adding in significant amounts of speed work without having a good, solid base is detrimental to recovery. This makes building a large weekly volume of work difficult and is therefore harmful to my long term goals. I am therefore focusing on increasing the length of my longest run each week, and as long as the speed is within the same +/- 10 seconds per mile average, I call that a PR. This gives me a "PR" to strive for every week, which keeps my mind off of my snails pace. In fact, I am trying to learn to hew as closely to that pace as possible to learn how to better control my aerobic pacing for a long distance effort.

How much speed did you gain in the four months before you began to hit a "speed plateau?" Are you still able to reliably increase the length of your "Long Zone 1 effort" every week or two by 5-10%?

Optimistic wrote:I've noticed that my speed gains in the Zone 1 have pretty much stopped (although the increasing summer heat may be an important confounding factor)...I'm slogging my way through (selected parts of) the Noakes book that House/Johnson refer to frequently, but man, does that guy need an editor! Anyone else encountered good approaches to increasing speed over long distances? Just keep doing the Zone 1? Build some speed intervals into the long runs? Intervals on other days? The goal is to be faster in Zone 1, so just being patient and keeping up the Zone 1 (I do 3-4h/wk, been at it for about 4mos, although it was more like 2h/wk initially) seems like it could well be the answer.

For climbing, I don't think that zone 1 speed gains are as important as building up the length of time you can continue, without slowing down, or altogether "bonking." I can't think of a single instance where my partner(s) and I failed due to lack of initial speed (first few hours). Plenty of times we failed because we eventually slowed down too much, or just got exhausted (which is unsafe).
Take a simple example, applicable for some of us mere mortals: Doing the East face of Whitney, along with approach and descent, in a single day. It takes several hours of steep hiking to get to the base of the climb. The important thing is that you are still totally fresh at that point in time (typically sunrise). It doesn't matter a bit whether you took 3 hours or 4 hours to get there. You better not be tired at all when starting that climb. Then you climb most of the day (at least I did), and need to still have the energy to do a long hike down. If you start taking breaks on the climb, you'll end up "benighted" (i.e. have to bivy). If you get fatigued and need to take breaks on the way down, it will take forever.

Tom Nyce wrote: For climbing, I don't think that zone 1 speed gains are as important as building up the length of time you can continue, without slowing down, or altogether "bonking." I can't think of a single instance where my partner(s) and I failed due to lack of initial speed (first few hours). Plenty of times we failed because we eventually slowed down too much, or just got exhausted (which is unsafe). Take a simple example, applicable for some of us mere mortals: Doing the East face of Whitney, along with approach and descent, in a single day. It takes several hours of steep hiking to get to the base of the climb. The important thing is that you are still totally fresh at that point in time (typically sunrise). It doesn't matter a bit whether you took 3 hours or 4 hours to get there. You better not be tired at all when starting that climb. Then you climb most of the day (at least I did), and need to still have the energy to do a long hike down. If you start taking breaks on the climb, you'll end up "benighted" (i.e. have to bivy). If you get fatigued and need to take breaks on the way down, it will take forever.

I see what you mean: maintain a respectable pace all the way through.

But why do speed and range need to be mutually exclusive? I was thinking that I'd like BOTH more speed and more distance. The distance part seems like it's coming along well, and I'll certainly continue to push that, but if I can shorten that Whitney approach from 4 to 3 hours AND feel fresh and frisky when it's time to rope up, that seems like the best-case scenario. To extend your example, it seems like that extra hour of light could come in quite handy on a big route like that, not because you get tired, but because you get off route, storm blows through, rope stuck, whatever.

"Speed is safety" is tried and true for the mountains...

Speed in the mountains is continuous movement, not fast movement. The issue isn't "having both", it's allocating training time to both. One half hour speed workout will wreck you in a way that a two hour run never could. With limited time and resources (which we all have) the vast majority of your effort should be expended towards increasing your capacity for continuous work, not your speed. Think about the length of your runs, can you run/hike at that easy pace, with your heart rate elevated, for 12+ hours non stop? If you cannot, there is a lot of volume work to be done before speed is of much concern.

This definitely seems right to me given my experience.

The really good climbers I have climbed with over the years don't move lightning fast, but they keep a moderate pace all day long.

Alexander Blum wrote:Speed in the mountains is continuous movement, not fast movement. The issue isn't "having both", it's allocating training time to both. One half hour speed workout will wreck you in a way that a two hour run never could. With limited time and resources (which we all have) the vast majority of your effort should be expended towards increasing your capacity for continuous work, not your speed. Think about the length of your runs, can you run/hike at that easy pace, with your heart rate elevated, for 12+ hours non stop? If you cannot, there is a lot of volume work to be done before speed is of much concern.

Thanks guys!

Optimistic wrote: I see what you mean: maintain a respectable pace all the way through. But why do speed and range need to be mutually exclusive? I was thinking that I'd like BOTH more speed and more distance. The distance part seems like it's coming along well, and I'll certainly continue to push that, but if I can shorten that Whitney approach from 4 to 3 hours AND feel fresh and frisky when it's time to rope up, that seems like the best-case scenario. To extend your example, it seems like that extra hour of light could come in quite handy on a big route like that, not because you get tired, but because you get off route, storm blows through, rope stuck, whatever. "Speed is safety" is tried and true for the mountains...

On a long, steep, uphill, you'll notice that you very rarely pass people that move continuously without rests. If they stop for any reason (get water bottles or food out of their pack, fix a blister, take a rest break, ..whatever), that is when you pass them. If they started 30-60 minutes ahead of you, you won't be passing them unless they stop for something.
Since you are doing just 4 hours a week, distance/endurance will be you weak area rather than your speed. That is, unless you are not telling us about that 8 hour hike you do on every weekend, lol.
You may not have big mountains near where you live, but long hikes (fast, with a pack, and without rests) are reasonably accessible to most people. Since you do some trail running already (I've seen your other posts), why not use some ultra-distance races that are in your area as a yearly test of your endurance/fitness? The ultras nowadays have such mellow cut-off times that a solid hiker should be able to get a legitimate finish. Pick the courses that have tons of elevation change, so you can hike more than run and still compete with the "runners."
Skip the 50K distance. That is just a glorified marathon, which is still more of a runner thing than a hiker thing. Go for a 50 or 100 miler.

Tom Nyce wrote: On a long, steep, uphill, you'll notice that you very rarely pass people that move continuously without rests. If they stop for any reason (get water bottles or food out of their pack, fix a blister, take a rest break, ..whatever), that is when you pass them. If they started 30-60 minutes ahead of you, you won't be passing them unless they stop for something. Since you are doing just 4 hours a week, distance/endurance will be you weak area rather than your speed. That is, unless you are not telling us about that 8 hour hike you do on every weekend, lol. You may not have big mountains near where you live, but long hikes (fast, with a pack, and without rests) are reasonably accessible to most people. Since you do some trail running already (I've seen your other posts), why not use some ultra-distance races that are in your area as a yearly test of your endurance/fitness? The ultras nowadays have such mellow cut-off times that a solid hiker should be able to get a legitimate finish. Pick the courses that have tons of elevation change, so you can hike more than run and still compete with the "runners." Skip the 50K distance. That is just a glorified marathon, which is still more of a runner thing than a hiker thing. Go for a 50 or 100 miler.

That seems like a big jump from my 8.5 mile trail runs! My knees got scared, reading your post. Maybe some bigger days out that aren't quite THAT big, to start!

Optimistic,
I'm about 4 months into the program. As mentioned earlier, things were really slow and awkward (between a run and a walk) at first. My run times came back down significantly during the course of the transition phase; I went from 7 minute miles pre-training to 12 minute miles when I started and am not down to about 8 minute miles and have been stagnant there for a little over a month. Now, however, I don't really even track speed-- just intensity and time. The deal is that, if you choose this, you're training a system-- the aerobic system. This means you want to stay aerobic and not engage in detraining by kicking up above zone 2. You're teaching your body to learn how to deal with long days in the mountains. If you get faster, great, but the key is to learn to go long without crashing-- which you can do better if your body is burning aerobically. Hang in there and keep up the training.

Optimistic,
In case it's not clear, I'm a big fan of House/Johnston's method. One of the really great things about the book is that it gives you guidelines for customizing your training based on your activity level over the past year and then builds from there-- so no killer jumps from 8.5 milers to 100 milers overnight. Plus, it's huge on periodizing your training so that your body has a chance to consolidate its performance gains and recover before launching into a new phase of increased performance.

I am on week 14 for the program right now and am definitely sold on the program. I was pretty shocked at the beginning with how slow I was running to stay in Zone 1 (about 12.5 - 13 minute miles). I've now gotten it down to about 9.5 - 10.5 minutes a mile for zone 1 depending on how hilly the course is, and how hot it is.
As they say in the book, at least the way I have been interpreting it, is that the speed in the mountains will come from going through the entire cycle of the program. You need the long easy days to have the slow twitch fibers to keep moving for hours on end, you increase your pool of motor fibers during the Max Strength workouts, meaning more power per stride since those fibers will be cycled in less and thus recover more between uses (and I did notice another drop off a plateau in mile splits after a few weeks of the max strength workouts). I would imagine that as the muscular endurance workouts come along those will add even more to being able to push a harder pace for a given level of perceived exertion.
I know I am having to work to stay patient and keep to the program as best as I can and believe that the results I want are at the end of the program and I am just working my way toward them, making small adjustments by sticking with the program, even though I wish I could churn at a steady, respectable pace up steep terrain right now. I just know that I need to do ALL the work to get there.

Thanks for all the good ideas and insights... And the Zone 1 is really enjoyable, so I definitely don't mind doing it, I'll just keep that going. Nice long hilly trail run planned for the morning, actually.

Sean S, I hadn't put that together about the strength and speed, that's an interesting way to look at it. I've actually modified the strength training to focus a lot more on rock climbing performance (not much lower body), so maybe that's why I'm not seeing as much speed gain.

And as you're seeing, I've also really been impressed by what a huge effect temperature has on the heart rate. Cool what you notice when you start tracking things. Another interesting thing I've noticed is how intensely hungry I get if I do a long run in Zone 2-3, versus really not being hungry at all in Zone 1, just as would be expected with the glycogen vs fat metabolism thing.

I've been doing quite a bit of research and exercise related to the House/Johnston book.

• The low heart rate training recommended in the book has a long, proven, historical precedent in triathlon training.

Phil Maffetone coached Mark Allen to 6 Ironman wins using it.
Maffetone Method
Mark Allen on low heart rate training

The "aerobic response" may be increased by:

• a low carb diet
• exercising on an empty stomach
• ingesting some caffeine without sugar.

see Canute's efficient running site, many articles

• 3-5 months is typical for aerobic base building

e.g. Mike Pigg, (30 wins in US Triathlon series), "After five months of loyal, consistent training, I saw that the program was working."
Mike Pigg and the Maffetone Method

Allen and Pigg were already seasoned athletes. No information is available for the period of: couch-to-seasoned athlete ;-)

Of course, intervals and speed training can help endurance:

"speed endurance training consisting of six to twelve 30 second sprints 3-4 times/week for 6 – 9 weeks improved ability to pump the potassium ions back into muscle cells. Potassium ions are expelled from muscle during exercise. The depletion of potassium within the muscle probably plays an important role in fatigue....the improved ability to pump potassium back into muscle cells was accompanied by an average improvement of 18 seconds in 3 Km race time, and an average improvement of 60 seconds in 10 Km time, in a group of 17 moderately trained male endurance runners"
High intensity vs. high volume training

However, a vast study of professional athletes shows that the greatest success was most often achieved using a consistent but rather lean mix of HIIT:

• "the optimal intensity distribution approximated a “polarized distribution” with 75-80 % of training sessions in Zone 1, 5 % in Zone 2, and 15-20 % in Zone 3."

and

"all of the above studies show remarkable consistency in the training distribution pattern selected by successful endurance athletes. About 80 % of training sessions are performed completely or predominantly at intensities under the first ventilatory turn point, or a blood-lactate concentration £2mM. The remaining ~20 % of sessions are distributed between training at or near the traditional lactate threshold (Zone 2), and training at intensities in the 90-100 %VO2max range, generally as interval training (Zone 3)."

• "An elite athlete training 10-12 times per week is therefore likely to dedicate 1-3 sessions weekly to training at intensities at or above the maximum lactate steady state."

see: "Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training"
Sports Science Journal article

Everybody likes to work out hard, it feels good, like you're accomplishing something, a catharsis. But apparently HIIT erodes the aerobic base and that has to be built back up. (TINSTAAFL)

Lastly, we should all admire Killian Jornet, but he's clearly a genetic freak:
"In moderate temperatures, Jornet says, he can run easily for eight hours without drinking water." ...
Killian Jornet: Becoming the All-Terrain Human

Hey all,

Been following this thread and have quite a few questions about the book - there are some things that are definitely confusing and I need more answers. Good to see there is a thread here on this book.

I posted a sample workout that I did today (mountain biking) and this was an attempt at staying in zone 1. Although my average HR was 127bpm over the 2hr 10min workout - I peak several times at 160bpm. This was due to some steep hill climbing, hot weather, dehydration later during the workout - and overall exertion.

One of my questions is - Is it ok to go out of zone 1 as long as your average stays in the zone 1 range for the duration of the workout?

Thanks!