More is not better? Muscle Growth vs. Muscle burn

I have seen topics posted that touch the surface of this subject but in doing my own research I have confused myself a bit as to what the best training strategy is for certain goals and was wondering what your experiences/approaches have been?

Training seems to be a balance between many things: diet, workouts, time spent in the mountains actually climbing, sport climbing, trad climbing, alpine climbing, etc...

My main goal is to be able to move fast and efficiently in the alpine on big routes. I have read Twights book 'Extreme Alpinism' among others and ones that just focus on diet, or body building more than training for climbing. The difference seems that most "stay in shape books" are geared towards those who are not committed towards any goals aside from looking good where as I am looking for the best way to approach improving my movement through the mountains ultimately improving myself as a climber.

My main confusion boils down to this one statement:

"More is not better" - I've heard it from trainers and I've read it in books but not Mark's.

Mark Twight suggests that for the Foundation Stage of his work out program you should run 1.5 hours a day and then lift low weight high reps for approximately another 1.5 hours 6 days a week. Your laying the bricks of what you will be building upon in the later stages. From a lot of the other books I have read they say that after running much more than 20-30 minutes or lifting for much more than an hour you actually start to burn muscle as opposed to fat and are therefore making backwards progress. To some extent this theory makes sense because you get to a certain point where the body stops burning fat reserves and in turn burns muscle to keep going. This seems like a bad way to build bricks and improve.

What are the benefits of training long and hard burning muscle as opposed to fat? I understand that you should train in a similar manner to the way you intend to climb so it makes sense that training long and hard would be the most suitable approach for long hard routes that are typical of alpine climbing.

What approaches do you take? What do you think is the best approach?

It seems that Mark Twight has changed his mind quite a bit regarding training since he wrote Extreme Alpinism. See his new website for a ton of good info:

gymjones.com

Look under knowledge, lot of good stuff in there.

The site has come a long ways since my last visit...time to start reading.

Jeff Barnow wrote:I have seen topics posted that touch the surface of this subject but in doing my own research I have confused myself a bit as to what the best training strategy is for certain goals and was wondering what your experiences/approaches have been? Training seems to be a balance between many things: diet, workouts, time spent in the mountains actually climbing, sport climbing, trad climbing, alpine climbing, etc... My main goal is to be able to move fast and efficiently in the alpine on big routes. I have read Twights book 'Extreme Alpinism' among others and ones that just focus on diet, or body building more than training for climbing. The difference seems that most "stay in shape books" are geared towards those who are not committed towards any goals aside from looking good where as I am looking for the best way to approach improving my movement through the mountains ultimately improving myself as a climber. My main confusion boils down to this one statement: "More is not better" - I've heard it from trainers and I've read it in books but not Mark's. Mark Twight suggests that for the Foundation Stage of his work out program you should run 1.5 hours a day and then lift low weight high reps for approximately another 1.5 hours 6 days a week. Your laying the bricks of what you will be building upon in the later stages. From a lot of the other books I have read they say that after running much more than 20-30 minutes or lifting for much more than an hour you actually start to burn muscle as opposed to fat and are therefore making backwards progress. To some extent this theory makes sense because you get to a certain point where the body stops burning fat reserves and in turn burns muscle to keep going. This seems like a bad way to build bricks and improve. What are the benefits of training long and hard burning muscle as opposed to fat? I understand that you should train in a similar manner to the way you intend to climb so it makes sense that training long and hard would be the most suitable approach for long hard routes that are typical of alpine climbing. What approaches do you take? What do you think is the best approach?

Everything is sport/movement specific. If you want to get strong with a heavy pack to be able to glacier slog, then do that. If you want to move fast over technical train, pack light and do that. Not what you want to hear, I know, but it is true. You will improve in the areas in which you train. Since your main goal is to be able to move fast on big alpine routes, you need to have the cardio endurance of an ultra athlete, the strenght of a solid trad climber, and the head/experience to pull it all together. To execute the training necessary to pull this off will require consistency over years not weeks or months.

"More is not better" boils down to being able to recover. One does not become stronger by tearing oneself down; rather, the recovery after a workout is where growth occurs. Just jumping into 1.5 hrs of running every day makes no sense if you have not built a base over many years to be able to handle that kind of volume. I believe that athletes who continue to improve for many years are the ones who are consistent with a moderate plan and value recovery as much as the actual workout.

If you are moving for several hours in the mountains, you are burning fat, not muscle. The benefit of long training sessions if they are done at an appropriate intensity is that you teach your body to become more efficent in burning fat and utilizing oxygen (increases the size and number of mitrocondria).

I have similar goals as yours, and I try to be consistent in each of the areas. I do cardio every day (but at 70-75% of max heart rate) for an hour or more, I climb Tue and Thur on my homewall with a few weights thrown in, and I climb on the weekends getting on the types of routes at which I want to be good. With that being said, I have a couple of decades of base under my belt to be able to pull that off.

Jed Pointer wrote: For running, Lactate Threshold is probably most accepted - ie, find it and train to it J

I am not sure that is true because not everyone agrees about the definition of LT -- is it the first spike in lactic acid, is it 2mmol, is it 4mmol?

At the first spike, you could train/move 30 or more hours if you are fueling correctly.

At 2mmol, you could go 6 to 12 hours of consistent effort.

At 4mmol, you aren't going to last much past 2 hours of a consistent effort.

I believe that all three intensities in training have there place for the alpine climber who wants to maximize his/her potential once a solid base has been established (but this takes at least a year of consistent, near every day training).

Lot of good talk on the topic here. I totally agree with Brett's comment on teaching the body to utilize fat.

I get by on a mix of short, very intense circuit workouts (metabolic conditioning is I believe the current buzzword), real dang heavy, raw strength work at 6 or less reps (deadlift, squatting, bench pressing)and an occasional real long slog in the hills. Mix in climbing and bike riding anytime I can.

I like to be prepared for anything, and this seems to do it for me. I do believe it is important to do occasional long days (6 hours plus) to be prepared for very long pushes in the mountains, but for me, once every two weeks seems to be sufficient, as long as I am doing a couple short, ridiculously hard workouts a week.

A couple other good spots that I like to surf to for info:
crossfit.com
mtnathlete.com/index.html

One other thing that I think is important: Write everything down. Write down workouts, how your eating (maybe not every detail, but at least in general how your diet is), log your performance on routes, trail runs, hikes, whatever you are doing. Then, when things seem to be going right, you can figure out how you got there. Everybody is built a little different, and you gotta find out what works for you.

So, I have a job that makes me sit down a lot and it consumes a lot of time. I read Twight's book and many others and always have to adjust for injuries (ACL, back fusion, broken shoulder - now arthritic, etc..)and allotted time. I can never live up to their regimens - but can't climb at their ability. For standard Alpine goals in NA - I can get in shape to do anything that takes 3 days. The most important component I have found to Alpine is stamina - both aerobic and strength. You do not have to run 1.5 hours - but you need the alpine push - that means hills, steep until you are breathing like a rutting bear, 30 minutes minimum. For strength the same is true and I do not do sets until failure but do super sets (4 minimum) - bi's to tris, to chest to back to legs to situps - 60 sec rest and start over again. I choose wieghts that my first set I can do at least 12 to 15 reps and final set at 8 reps. Dietary should always be common sense - if you are trying loose wieght eat less than you burn, don't drink booze (makes you hungry and it is empty calories). This unfortuantely means calorie counting and listening to your body. Lastly I subcribe to the ultimate no no - since I know I will only carry 2 liters of water max on any alpine climb - I train without being super hydrated philosphy - I train thirsty. Lastly and the fun part - you have to climb and learn to constantly improve technique in rope management, gear placement, transitions, etc.. that comes with experience. 1st days on Alpine when you are scrambling on 4th class with lots of exposure are always slow, 2nd day faster, etc.. that's just the nature of the beast. Then it back to work and drinking beer and BBQ - pass the pie please.

Thanks for the input here guys. I agree with everything said; you have to train specifically for what your goals are and at a high level if intensity but how do you know when you are pressing it too much or selling yourself short? For example I decided that the best way to train for Denali was to run Mt Sanitas or hike it with a heavy pack a couple times a week and then hit the gym training all muscle groups at low weight high rep until I felt like my base was good and then started to incrementally up the weight and do less reps with lots of sets. Every weekend I would try to do a route that would take somewhere between 8-30+ hours or just carry an absurd amount of weight into a good Colorado backcountry spot to camp and do some mountaineering the next day and then hike out.

Later in my studies I started to find that a lot of trainers advise against this kind of approach. That this would be way too much in way too long of an increment. Essentially that this level of training was too much and I was effectually moving backwards. I found it difficult to believe but in turn I haven't ran up sanitas since I got from Denali because of this line of thinking.

I know that this is science and there is really no right or wrong, or at least what is right today will be wrong tomorrow but I personally felt really strong after the sanitas/gym regimen. I feel strong now with a shorter approach of 20 mins of running 3-4 times/week and 3-4 visits to the gym and a couple of big days in the alpine per month.

I guess you just have to test different systems and see what works for you and run with that.

High intensity (anything greater than 80% max heart rate) is counter productive for any athlete looking to go great than 12 hrs in duration as his/her main event.

You know if you are pressing too much if you can't back your training program up day after day. If you need more than 24 hours to recover from a session, you have done too much. If you can't repeat a basic week(whatever that might be for you) for three weeks before you take a down week, you have done too much. If you can't repeat this cycle of basic weeks stacked on top of each other for 6 to 9 months before you take a down month, you have done too much. If you are always injured, you have done too much.

People rarely/never sell themselves short during the course of a single workout. Most people sell themselves short over the course of a lifetime of workouts because they wanted the results now and weren't willing to do the moderate work every day, which will allow one to improve for years, not for a couple of months and then something happens (injury, burn-out, bored, not seeing any more growth, unmotivated) and they start all over 3 to 12 months later only to repeat the same process. And in the end, they never really improved at all.

Jed Pointer wrote:" Both are necessary. The goal is to raise your lactate threshold, making you faster for longer while running more efficiently.

Yes, both will increase your LT, but one has essentially unlimited potential for growth with less risk of injury and one has limited effect on LT with a higher risk of injury.

When working at your Aet(Aerobic Threshold about 2mmol) you can push up your LT forever if you do it correctly. When working above LT (your defintion of 10k time -- so for most people 6 - 8 mmol), you can pull the LT up a small amount (compared to Aet), but you cannot maintain that peak performance for more than 6 to 8 weeks at the very best. Hence working above LT year round only inhibits aerobic growth since both system (anaerobic being the other) cannot improve at the same time. Thus, the best Ironman guys/gals, Ultramarathoners, etc. don't start LT training until about 2 months out from race day since the anaerobic system needs very little time to engage and it cannot be maintain for very long. So for these athletes, they are trying to both push up their LT and at the very end pull up the LT.

The only way, therefore, to improve long term is to increase your LT from Aerobic endurance. I would agree that this pace is significantly slower than what most people do, but I think it is misnomer to think that is some slogging fat burning pace. Because truth be told, the very best Ironman guys are running a 2:45 marathon (about 6:4? miles) at an effort that is not much more than this fat burning pace. They can do this because they have trained their aerobic system to be incredibly efficient.

Killis Howard wrote: For a while there I was climbing 60 hours a week. I trained laps, usually hitting three digits in number of routes per day in the gym. I hung out at the bolted bridge abutments down by the river (insert Farley joke here) and gang-soloed them until it felt like more of a pain in the ass to jog there from my apartment than to knock down 25 ropeless laps on a 5.10. On weekend roadtrips I went for 14 routes on Satuday, 8 on Sunday, trying to onsight everything and repeat nothing. I fell asleep in the van (surprise) and peeled it open like a sardine can. I bought a bike for $50 and got a second job. I moved out of my house and started urban camping in all kinds of weather to get used to brewing up in shitty weather and losing my interest in feeling sorry for myself. I got a gym membership (iron, not plastic) and started doing the ugly-45 minute sets on the stairmaster, twice a day, with 30 min of lifting free weights in between to rest. I finished each workout with 3-5 cycles from hot to cold taking russian style recovery showers a la Twight. They worked-kept the soreness down. I dropped from 5.10' 175 to 145. I ate a lot of spaghetti, switching to plain after I got totally sick of Prego for good. I left my job at a posh five star hotel and started chucking logs for a tree service... I'm back up to 165 right now, working a shitty desk job, and would describe myself as out of shape. .

I was reading this and fondly remembered my days of "training," and the day all of that stuff finally burnt me out. Being as young as you are Jeff, go ahead with training, and you might climb 5.12, but remember someday the day will come that you grow sick and tired of the endless run for weight-loss, strength (and science as noted above), quit for awhile (hopefully not forever) and start climbing for the humble reason most of us got into it in the first place; because its fun!

It sounds like you are on the right track, but I will add a few of my own observations from years of training for alpine rock routes and big wall free climbing.

First off, if you train 6 days a week you are probably training too often and for not enough duration. Unless you are training to climb 2 pitches a day for 6 days you should be combining your efforts into fewer more intense long workouts. That said, I do not think you should train over an hour more than 2 times a week if you want to make progress and recover fully. The gym jones and crossfit philosophy is intruiging to me but until I see some concrete evidence I am sticking with what I know works.

Second, do not train for optimum performance, train for depletion. Sure if you want to build muscle you whould lift weights before doing cardio, buy when do you climb before you do the approach? I say go for an hour run THEN hit the weights for a more specific workout. Also going long days with little no no calories a few times a month will teach you body to deal with hunger, dehydration, and high blood acidity. These long (12+ hour) days are the meat and potatoes of your training.

Most of the muscle building you do is in vain, you are going to loose most of it anyways. Why waste the energy? Most of the adaptations your muscles make that benefit long intense workouts are chemical not physical. As you gain 9 calories from every gram of fat you catabolize and only 3 calories from every gram of muscle, you will get more energy out of a belly roll than a massive bicep. Plus muscle weighs a lot more than fat. I have spent months training my muscles only to see all my gain disapear after a long weekend of effort. Now days the only time I work out with weights is when I cannot possibly do anything else.

Obviously every one is different. If some people did as little training as I do they would end up fat sausages stuck to their couch. I do think that if you focus on intensity and train specifically you cannot go wrong...unless you injure yourself that is.

Good Luck!

Jed Pointer wrote: BTW - nobody I've ever met running a 2:45 marathon is running 25bpm below LT or fat burning pace or whatever - no way - they're dealing with PAIN.

Have you met Gordo Byrn in Boulder? He has run multiple 2:45 - 2:50 marathons 25 beats below LT after swimming 2.4 miles in about 48 minutes, and biking 112 hilly miles in under 5 hours. Also, fast marathoners are not dealing with more pain, but are actually much more comfortable than a 3hr. marathon guy because they are much more effective at their Aet. All of this information can be backed up with a couple of internet searches.

Alan Couzans states, "The point best correlated to Ironman performance among the curves is the first point, i.e. speed at AeT. In order of Ironman performance we have:

Gordo AeT = 9.2mph [pace just over 2mmol is 10mph, which is a 2:36 marathon at a slow-fat burning pace -- my addition].

This is important to note. While, the profile of the curves is quite different beyond the AeT point, with some being more steep than others after AeT (e.g. Gordo & Alan vs. Mat, John, Jeff), the best predictor of Ironman performance is not the profile of the curve, but rather the speed at AeT (the other factors come into play, as discussed below but moving your curve as far ‘right’ as possible should be priority #1).

So, how do we move the curve to the right? Well, we could try to ‘push it’ with a high volume of work at or below the AeT or ‘drag it’ by elevating our VO2max as high as possible and hoping that the subsequent points will fall into line. The former method, i.e. ‘pushing the curve’ has received the most empirical support as the best method for long term adaptation (e.g. Touretski & Pyne, 1994) and makes the most logical sense when we break VO2max into it’s two constituent components: Cardiac output and Arterio-venous oxygen difference. The first of these is maximized in a very short period of time: 12-14 weeks (Seiler, 1998). Therefore, if continued top end improvement is desired, one must undertake training that addresses peripheral limiters which have a much greater time course of training adaptation (Seiler, 1998)."

Most runners don't know the differnce among easy, steady, mod-hard. Runners who only run easy and think they will improve will only be so-so runners forever. Runners who balance easy with steady and throw in an occasional mod-hard day ( which is still way below LT) improve theoretically forever. I agree that LSD (long slow distance) will make you slow, but that is not what I am saying at all. Obviously, the information I share applies to events 2hrs plus. Anything below this, is a slightly different game, but not much.

Kevin, when you talk about training 6 days a week are you refering to climbing or cardio? If climbing, I would highly agree. If cardio, I would highly disagree.

" Strength gains endurance, but endurance does not build strength (at least not very well). This is well explained in Udo's book.

In terms of climbing, I would agree. But I've know a couple V10 climbers in my day who couldn't do much with a rope on. And in my own personal experience I have redpointed routes much harder than I have ever bouldered. I have a much higher percentage of slow twitch than fast (I have had this tested), so I will never be much of a power guy. Yet, I will agree that even for me when I was at my most powerful I was climbing my best (but this was still way below my comparative redpoint ability at the time)

In terms of cardio lasting 2hrs plus, I disagree. If this were the case, then a Carl Lewis sprinter would also be the best marathoner. The 100 meter guy uses a completely different energy system than the marathoner. This goes back to specificity. The 100 meter guy is using energy systems like ATP and other stuff I don't understand that require special training, while the 2:05 marathon guy is still only working at 85% max heart rate and probably less than 4mmol, which is almost entirely an aerobic effort -- they aren't pulling from the anaerobic system until late into the race.

Training either cardio or climbing 6 days a week usually means you are not going to gain much because you do not give yourself enough time to recover.

As for the Strength vs endurance you hit the gym for 3 months and I will hit the trails and we will see who has a faster time on the Diamond.

Kevin Stricker wrote:Training either cardio or climbing 6 days a week usually means you are not going to gain much because you do not give yourself enough time to recover.

But, then why do world-class runners run every day?

They run every day because they balance easy/recovery days with their harder days. Any world class marathoner is not only running once a day, but most twice a day.

Kevin Stricker wrote: As for the Strength vs endurance you hit the gym for 3 months and I will hit the trails and we will see who has a faster time on the Diamond.

As long as the guy hitting the trails is still climbing during this time, he will kill the guy who is only in the weight room.

And in terms of total fitness, how much can really be gained in three months? Maybe 3 years would be a better time frame, and then one would start to really see the results of one's program.

Climb, drink alcohol, climb, drink, sleep, climb, drink sleep,
Eat anything you want, climb,
You'll look gaunt,, (or as climbers say FIT) get strong, take a big whipper cause your such a hard ass, then you'll settle into your easy chair with the remote and more beer......

The best part of this routine is the food, eat, eat, eat........

It works for me.......

Having just started out this spring climbing, I have a workout that has been wonderful. I first started sprint walking 3 times a week for 30 min to an hour. Than I started doing that with my pack full of gear. Now I'm up to running 30 min 2-3 times a week. I climb every weekend and once during the week at the gym. I have sense lost 30 lbs. All my muscles are lookin tone and getting stronger. I eat as much as I can.

The best thing to do is find out what works best for you by experimenting. After you figure it out, keep going with that and you should be fine.

This is all great info guys although like many of us I am still not 100% sure of what would/will work best for me. I have been pretty committed to my training for about 2-2.5 years now. Of course I have had my good and bad streaks but for the most part I have been fairly consistent. At least when it comes to frequency not necessarily intensity.

So I thought that I would be in pretty good shape (relatively speaking) from my newer approach of 20ish minutes of running intensely a few times a week and lifting hard for 45-1 hour a few times a week. I went for the Sanitas run from my house (which adds about 40 blocks) and my time was pretty good but I was straight dying from the second I hit the trail on the up and up. I had beat my time to the trailhead by almost half but was in turn back to my house about 15 mins later than my previous consistent efforts of conquering this trail. I guess my observation is that in one sense my short distance running has improved significantly but my endurance is down (not that much). I had to walk quite a bit of the trail and could feel myself going anaerobic.

I have always done my running before my lifting just b/c that simulates the alpine climbing scenario best...I will often run after lifting too.

I guess that it really boils down to pushing on keeping better consistency on all levels, experimenting with different styles to see what works best for each individual. Logging the workouts, diet, etc... is a real pain in the ass but to hone in on a system it seems necessary.

Have any of you trained specifically for 8000m peaks? Any recommendations as to approaches for this, aside from go live at 14k in CO taking down all the snow/ice routes possible?