or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Total Skiing's approach to functional movement and ski fitness
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Total Skiing's approach to functional movement and ski fitness - Page 3

post #61 of 99

When alpine skiing it may be hard to get your heart rate up to the higher levels unless you are skiing a steep sustained run with tons of vertical or in a race course that requires your highest level of skiing.  Oh and long bump runs, well actually many situations in skiing get your heart rate up.   When you are there it feels different than when when you are cranking on your bike up a really steep hill.  I wonder what the difference is if any relative to the work your heart is doing.  With that said, I sometimes wonder if a diet of heavy interval training is the best aerobic plan for alpine skiing.  In Total Skiing, I have suggested that you do a combination of aerobic work outs and anaerobic work that range from low intensity to max intensity(like you want to puke).  This is based on what top performance coaches for soccer as well as national alpine ski team coaches have advised for ultimate dryland conditioning.  I am not an engineer, but I have been skiing and coaching skiers for a long time and the skiers that I know who stay healthy and continue to progress have been committed to staying and getting in top performance.  Thanks for the heads up about the typos, I will surely fix it in the second edition.           

post #62 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Fellows View Post

In Total Skiing, I have suggested that you do a combination of aerobic work outs and anaerobic work that range from low intensity to max intensity(like you want to puke).  This is based on what top performance coaches for soccer as well as national alpine ski team coaches have advised for ultimate dryland conditioning.  I am not an engineer, but I have been skiing and coaching skiers for a long time and the skiers that I know who stay healthy and continue to progress have been committed to staying and getting in top performance.  Thanks for the heads up about the typos, I will surely fix it in the second edition.           


I am an engineer (as well as a strength & conditioning coach and ski instructor), and I'd agree with the suggestion of a combination of steady state aerobic with intervals ranging from moderate to high. For myself and my skier clients, I tend toward more high intensity intervals than the moderate ones or the steady-state, but I definitely include all of them. The energy system you use in skiing is going to be very dependent on how and where you ski. You may want to adapt your training based on that, but honestly, a mix will probably suit you well.

 

chilehed - I haven't read the book in question, but I'm going to guess that you want to use: 

low HR range: 65%-75% of Max

mid HR range: 75-85%

high range: 85% to 90%. 

 

I'd be surprised if a training plan had you pushing 100%, but I could be wrong.

 

I'd also suggest that you are probably right about using the heart rate range (HRR) instead of Max heart rate (MHR) for the calculations, where HRR = Max HR - Resting HR (RHR). Multiply the HRR by the appropriate percentage and then add the RHR back in (as you noted).

 

Elsbeth

 

 

post #63 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by chilehed View Post

Christ, I got the book, a lot of good information and I expect to get a lot of good out of it.

 

But re. the aerobic assessments starting on pg 31, I'm still not clear about the definition of the training zones. The target HR formula is great, but there's nothing that says something like "zone 1 is 60-70%, zone 2 is 70-85%, zone 3 is 85-100%". Could you please clarify... I'm an engineer and my inner rainman isn't able to fill in the blanks.

 

Also, I think there are typos in the HR formulas. Looks to me like it should be =((220 - age) - RestingHR) * %Level + RestingHR ,

but the first one in the text is shown as =((220 - age) - RestingHR* %Level) + RestingHR (which gives the wrong answer)

and the second one is shown as =((220 - age) - RestingHR) * %Level) + RestingHR (in which the parenthesis in red is unbalanced).

 

 

EDIT: OK, I finally see that 60-70% is easy, so that'd be Zone 1. So Zone 3 would be 85-100%?

 


I had similar confusion but fall back on the effort levels I use for running training. Here's what I do (warning: I'm an engineer too, so I get a bit too serious about these things.)

 

  • I think I can cheat the tests if I use broad zones (e.g. If zone 2 is 70-85%, I can run along at 70% and easily fall back into zone 1 at the end of an interval.  That's not right.) 
  • I also think heart rate isn't very useful at the high end of your effort level.  Everything from 400m pace to 10K pace will max my HR and make me puke, it's just a question of puking in 60 seconds or 35 minutes. Also, it takes a while to get your HR up even when your putting in the right effort. So I prefer pace targets based on my current racing ability.
  • Zone 1 as described in the book is pretty much my standard base building effort level.  It leaves you comfortably in the fat-burning aerobic zone but can feel very slow at first.
  • As I read the book, it seems that the zone 2 training is focused on your ability to clear lactate, so I try to perform the zone 2 tests and workouts just below a pace where lactate starts accumulating.  The rule of thumb is that it is a pace you could maintain (under great effort) for an hour. For me, that is about my 10 mile race pace.  
  • Zone 3 is focused on your ability to tolerate lactate at maximal oxygen consumption, and here the rule of thumb is that this happens around 5K race pace.  I often run repetitions faster than this, but do it to train strength, power, and neuromuscular coordination, not aerobic capacity.  Faster than 5K pace is just too hard, requires more rest, and in the end isn't as effective for aerobic conditioning.

    With that said, the Zone 3 workouts in the book are short and have a lot of rest.  I usually spend 3-4 minutes at 5K pace with 60-90 seconds rest for a "Zone 3" workout. This time of year I save the higher intensity stuff for skiing specific strength and power training.  Running is just for aerobic development unless I'm planning to race.

 

As for HR targeting, it works great for Zone 1, just stay below 70% of HR Reserve.  Once you figure out the right target, it works well for Zone 2 but there seems to be a lot of individual variation.  For me, my max HR is around 185, resting HR is 37, and my "Zone 2 target HR" is 170 = 37+ 0.9*(185-37) = 90% of HR Reserve.  This is on the high end, numbers around 80% are more typical.  For me 80% is much too low -- I can run a 50 mile race at that pace -- so it is important to try to find your personal Zone 2 target!

 

For Zone 3, HR targeting doesn't work at all IMO.  These workouts need to be hard, but not too hard.  Save the real intensity for plyometrics, strength training, and other ski specific work.

 

Have a look at, e.g., Daniels' Running Formula for much more info on training intensities.

 

Well, hopefully the ski areas around here will open this weekend and I won't have much time for running until May.

 

post #64 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolfe Schmidt View Post


I had similar confusion but fall back on the effort levels I use for running training. Here's what I do (warning: I'm an engineer too, so I get a bit too serious about these things.)

 

  • I think I can cheat the tests if I use broad zones (e.g. If zone 2 is 70-85%, I can run along at 70% and easily fall back into zone 1 at the end of an interval.  That's not right.) 
  • I also think heart rate isn't very useful at the high end of your effort level.  Everything from 400m pace to 10K pace will max my HR and make me puke, it's just a question of puking in 60 seconds or 35 minutes. Also, it takes a while to get your HR up even when your putting in the right effort. So I prefer pace targets based on my current racing ability.
  • Zone 1 as described in the book is pretty much my standard base building effort level.  It leaves you comfortably in the fat-burning aerobic zone but can feel very slow at first.
  • As I read the book, it seems that the zone 2 training is focused on your ability to clear lactate, so I try to perform the zone 2 tests and workouts just below a pace where lactate starts accumulating.  The rule of thumb is that it is a pace you could maintain (under great effort) for an hour. For me, that is about my 10 mile race pace.  
  • Zone 3 is focused on your ability to tolerate lactate at maximal oxygen consumption, and here the rule of thumb is that this happens around 5K race pace.  I often run repetitions faster than this, but do it to train strength, power, and neuromuscular coordination, not aerobic capacity.  Faster than 5K pace is just too hard, requires more rest, and in the end isn't as effective for aerobic conditioning.

    With that said, the Zone 3 workouts in the book are short and have a lot of rest.  I usually spend 3-4 minutes at 5K pace with 60-90 seconds rest for a "Zone 3" workout. This time of year I save the higher intensity stuff for skiing specific strength and power training.  Running is just for aerobic development unless I'm planning to race.

 

As for HR targeting, it works great for Zone 1, just stay below 70% of HR Reserve.  Once you figure out the right target, it works well for Zone 2 but there seems to be a lot of individual variation.  For me, my max HR is around 185, resting HR is 37, and my "Zone 2 target HR" is 170 = 37+ 0.9*(185-37) = 90% of HR Reserve.  This is on the high end, numbers around 80% are more typical.  For me 80% is much too low -- I can run a 50 mile race at that pace -- so it is important to try to find your personal Zone 2 target!

 

For Zone 3, HR targeting doesn't work at all IMO.  These workouts need to be hard, but not too hard.  Save the real intensity for plyometrics, strength training, and other ski specific work.

 

Have a look at, e.g., Daniels' Running Formula for much more info on training intensities.

 

Well, hopefully the ski areas around here will open this weekend and I won't have much time for running until May.

 


Lots of good stuff here Rolfe. I agree with most of what you say. There is a big difference between 85% and 100%. Heart rate does not really say anything in the upper region IMO, If I do a full out effort for 20 secs I will not reach 100%, but a much lower intensity can take me to 100% in 30 minutes. A better measure here is % of anaerobic threshold, but not HR, but output power. I.e. if I run at 170% I run with an intensity that is 70% higher than what I could maintain static state.

 

I used to do a lot of running in the past, but I got to a point where I could not really improve without increasing training time. I started to do more HIIT oriented workouts instead, and I have to say that it works surprisingly well. Contrary to what you say above High intensity does train  aerobic capcity. Tabata showed that 4 Tabata intervals per week improves the capacity more than 5 hours running per week, and that is only a total of 16 minutes active training. On top of this Intervals give you anarobic capacity and strength.

These days I do only 2 functional strength session per week, 45 minutes each, and a few HIIT +plyo sessions. I spend much less time than before, I am much stronger and I can still run the 10k under 40 mins, which is good enough for me now when I don't compete anymore. Sometimes I feel "guilty" for not training more, but with this high intensiy I feel that I could not train anymore without risking overtraining.

 

In order to be a top athlete in a cardio event you have to spend a lot of time in zone 1, and then complement with various intervals. The problem for normal people is that if you don't have 20 hours per week to train its not very efficient to train in this way. On top of this most people don't realize how slow they must run to stay in zone 1, so they really spend too much time in zone 2, which does not give you much more benefits, but puts you at risk for overtraining.

 

I think most people who don't have serious ambitions would benefit a lot more by looking into HIIT. Here is a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training

 

As a final note I can comment that a recent study here in Sweden showed that aerobic condition have almost no relevance to performance in ski-racing. an-aerobic and strength is much more important.  

 

post #65 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt View Post

I used to do a lot of running in the past, but I got to a point where I could not really improve without increasing training time. I started to do more HIIT oriented workouts instead, and I have to say that it works surprisingly well. Contrary to what you say above High intensity does train  aerobic capcity. Tabata showed that 4 Tabata intervals per week improves the capacity more than 5 hours running per week, and that is only a total of 16 minutes active training. On top of this Intervals give you anarobic capacity and strength.

These days I do only 2 functional strength session per week, 45 minutes each, and a few HIIT +plyo sessions. I spend much less time than before, I am much stronger and I can still run the 10k under 40 mins, which is good enough for me now when I don't compete anymore. Sometimes I feel "guilty" for not training more, but with this high intensiy I feel that I could not train anymore without risking overtraining.

 

...

 

I think most people who don't have serious ambitions would benefit a lot more by looking into HIIT. Here is a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training

 

 

 

Thanks for pointing out the Tabata intervals. I wasn't aware of that study and I'll have to experiment with it.  I spend too much time with the ultrarunning crowd where "intervals" mean something very different.  

 

Accidentally, I already do something like that in my ski training -- twice a week I'll do circuits of pullups, plyo pushups, box jumps, squats, jump rope, etc. (changing it regularly, but staying balanced) with very intense bursts and short rests for 30-40 minutes.  I can reach an intensity similar to all out racing but still feel great and get stronger, where 2 races per week would break me. 

 

So when I was suggesting that people shouldn't run their "Zone 3" intervals too hard, my rationale may have been off.  I said that it wouldn't give the aerobic benefits as efficiently (dogma I may have picked up from Daniels' book and others), but really I hold back on the running so that I can get high quality intense strength training.  It makes me a better runner and skier.

 

 

 

Quote:
In order to be a top athlete in a cardio event you have to spend a lot of time in zone 1, and then complement with various intervals. The problem for normal people is that if you don't have 20 hours per week to train its not very efficient to train in this way. On top of this most people don't realize how slow they must run to stay in zone 1, so they really spend too much time in zone 2, which does not give you much more benefits, but puts you at risk for overtraining.

 

Absolutely.  It is amazing how much event-specific zone 1 training can pay off if you are disciplined about staying slow and building volume gradually.  But if you're training to ski, I don't think 10+ hours/week of slow running is the best use of your time.

 

 

Quote:

As a final note I can comment that a recent study here in Sweden showed that aerobic condition have almost no relevance to performance in ski-racing. an-aerobic and strength is much more important.  

 

I believe that.  I think running 35km/week helps my skiing because it provides the endurance to power through quality functional strength and plyo sessions and keeps me strong all day on the hill.  Running 120 km/week actually hurts my skiing (and everything else but running). I lose lateral mobility, have imbalanced flexibility, and just don't have the energy.  If I run that much, I'm only doing it because it helps my running.

post #66 of 99

You run 35 k per week, that's a 5 k every day!!  Am I missing something... that amount of running dominates your training.

 

What exactly is your strength program like?  When you do strength work, what else do you do on that day?

 

 

post #67 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post

You run 35 k per week, that's a 5 k every day!!  Am I missing something... that amount of running dominates your training.

 

 

 



For sure,way to many other modalities to work on.

What about the 120km? Way beyond any aerobic benefit

But to each his own

 

post #68 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post

You run 35 k per week, that's a 5 k every day!!  Am I missing something... that amount of running dominates your training.

 

What exactly is your strength program like?  When you do strength work, what else do you do on that day?

 

 



I should qualify this by saying I run a lot, so 35km/week is relative rest. Also I want to be competitive running next summer so running is more of a focus for me than it would be for most people on the forum. Obviously it wouldn't be that way for everyone.  Here is my typical weekly schedule this fall:

 

Monday:

  • Dynamic prep routine (from the Total Skiing book) and some mobility exercises (15 min)
  • 5 cycles of  pullups, lunge jumps, ring arrows, pistols, bicycle crunches, and single leg jump rope. (30 minutes)

Tuesday:

  • Dynamic Prep
  • Core exercises - 3 rounds of leg drops, bicycles, back raises, stability ball crunches, single-arm planks, side planks, cobras (35 min)
  • Easy run - 10K  (50-55 min)  May add in cruise intervals (Zone 2)

Wednesday:

  • Dynamic prep
  • Strength training at the gym. I warm up and cool down on the rowing machine and focus on leg and rotary strength b/c it's hard to get that at home.  I still keep this pretty structured, making sure I get 3:30-5 min rest between sets of each exercise and I follow a "flat pyramid" set loading pattern. (65 min)

Thursday:

  • Similar to Tuesday (Core + 10K run)

Friday:

  • Similar to Monday

Saturday:

  • Dynamic prep
  • Long run  - 15K  (80 min)

 

So overall I spend about 8 hours per week training, of which 3-3.5 hours is running (and the running is by far the least intense part).  For context when I'm training for a marathon I'll run 10  hours per week and spend 2 hours on core and strength training.

 

EDIT:  Yep, the 120km/week is for endurance in longer races and I don't recommend it unless you want to run long races.  It's also the result of a long build-up.

post #69 of 99

This is a great discussion and I am really impressed with the depth of knowledge this group has.  I was in Mammoth Mountain Ca skiing with the western region PSIA tech team yesterday, good early season skiing on mostly man made snow.  The real life application to all this fitness material is how one performs on the snow.  I have to say I felt relatively strong for this time of year, balanced, good mobility and able to perform the tasks and demos that we require of all our examiners in the west.  The examiners that have been training with the Total Skiing concepts said they felt the same on snow results that I was feeling.  To get to the point, I honestly don't know what aspect of my preseason conditioning best prepared me for yesterdays training, but to stick with the premise of Total Skiing it begins with mobility and stability and then works its way up the pyramid through performance fitness, and then to tactics and technique.  Of course they are all interrelated  but with out the foundation of M&S I would have been a sliding compensation.  To keep things in perspective I have to step back and look at the whole picture remembering that my dryland program is design to keep me healthy and to perform my best on the snow.  Total Skiing is written for those who want to perform their best and achieve their skiing dreams.  I don't think I ever said in the book this program will make you a better runner, or cyclist, however that could be a fringe benefit.  My biggest concern with the principles described in the book is.... will skiers be willing to adopt these changes and make them a part of their everyday fitness programs ultimately allowing for better skiing performance.  

post #70 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Fellows View Post

... I don't think I ever said in the book this program will make you a better runner, or cyclist, however that could be a fringe benefit.  My biggest concern with the principles described in the book is.... will skiers be willing to adopt these changes and make them a part of their everyday fitness programs ultimately allowing for better skiing performance.  


Yes, sorry to the OP for hijacking the thread.  I love your book because it helped me identify dramatic functional movement weaknesses and understand how that impacted my skiing.  I used it to completely revamp  my fitness program (which was pretty much just periodized running) and I've seen major improvements on the functional movement, power, and agility tests.  I still haven't been able to test it on the snow but I expect great things (hopefully this weekend).  As a side effect, I think I'll be a more powerful, injury resistant runner too, but that's just the gravy.

 

post #71 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolfe Schmidt View Post

 

 

 very intense bursts and short rests for 30-40 minutes.  


So what do you consider to be a long rest if 30-40 minutes is short? ROTF.gif

 

Sorry, couldn't help it. I do realize that you meant seconds.

 

Seriously though, your program looks pretty good IMO.

 

I think the total skiing approach is probably a good complement for running becuase a lot of runners have a too weak core, and also mobility problems (which lead to injuries).

 

I read an interview with a top marathon runner. 240 km per week!

post #72 of 99



 

Quote:

 

 

 

 

  Running 120 km/week actually hurts my skiing (and everything else but running). I lose lateral mobility, have imbalanced flexibility, and just don't have the energy.

 

This should be telling you something.

Listen to your body. You should feel refreshed ,energized,and stronger as a result of training.

post #73 of 99

 

Quote:

So what do you consider to be a long rest if 30-40 minutes is short? ROTF.gif

 

Sorry, couldn't help it. I do realize that you meant seconds

I read that as he does the interval/rest routine for 30-40 minutes, and nothing to do with how long the intervals are.

 

 

I think I'll have to pick up this book and see what I can do with it. 
I've been getting in shape a lot this last year, in fact I'm in my far the best shape of my life and at a weight I haven't been at since I was a young teenager, being about 30-50 lbs lighter then I was through most of high school and college.
What I have been doing has been general fitness but I have been wanting to find some ski specific stuff to do.  Although from reading I think I've been doing a number of the exercises already (always forget to check this at home where I can load the videos).

Then I just need to make sure I get more time on the snow.

post #74 of 99

double post, said it didn't go the first time

post #75 of 99

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt View Post


So what do you consider to be a long rest if 30-40 minutes is short? ROTF.gif

 

Sorry, couldn't help it. I do realize that you meant seconds.

 

Seriously though, your program looks pretty good IMO.

 

I think the total skiing approach is probably a good complement for running becuase a lot of runners have a too weak core, and also mobility problems (which lead to injuries).

 

I read an interview with a top marathon runner. 240 km per week!

 

Well, I like to do a set of pullups then nap on the beach for a few hours before I amble back to the garage for the next round...

 

Actually erloas read it right -- the whole workout takes 30-40 minutes -- I just wrote it ambiguously.

 

Re: running 240 km per week, I guess that's why I'm not a top marathon runner.  Well that and genetics.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by erloas View Post

I think I'll have to pick up this book and see what I can do with it. 
I've been getting in shape a lot this last year, in fact I'm in my far the best shape of my life and at a weight I haven't been at since I was a young teenager, being about 30-50 lbs lighter then I was through most of high school and college.
What I have been doing has been general fitness but I have been wanting to find some ski specific stuff to do.  Although from reading I think I've been doing a number of the exercises already (always forget to check this at home where I can load the videos).

Then I just need to make sure I get more time on the snow.


The real value of this book IMO is not the specific lists of exercises (and most of the exercises I listed above aren't pulled directly from the book BTW).  It is the way Chris combines functional movement and fitness tests with performance on the snow then directs you to specific exercises that will correct your deficiencies efficiently.  It will lead you to very targeted workouts that will have specific effects on your skiing.  Nobody in this thread has even been talking about all of the on-snow tests and drills in the book that build on the dryland training (and point back to the dryland training when needed).

 

After working through the assessments you may find you are doing exercises you knew about anyway, but now you'll know why you are doing them and you can revisit the tests to monitor the progress.  You'll use your time much more efficiently.

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by loboskis View Post

This should be telling you something.

Listen to your body. You should feel refreshed ,energized,and stronger as a result of training.


Well, that gets complicated.   If I want to feel refreshed, energized and stronger right now, I'll have a cup of coffee.  If I want to feel that way for the rest of the day and into tomorrow, I'll do 20-30 minutes of intense work that makes my legs feel like jello and makes my head spin (i.e. not refreshed ad stronger).  If I want to feel that way long term, I'll eat well and work out regularly making sure to rest muscles and metabolic systems appropriately.  This is a healthy and good way to be.

 

But if I want to feel that way 32 km into a marathon then I personally need to build up and go through about 6 tough weeks of high volume training followed by a 2-4 week taper.  During the concentrated loading cycle I'll be too tired to get a good day of skiing in -- I need my energy to run and recover -- but at the end I'll be strong and fast.  Is this healthy? Not as healthy as a balanced training plan, but it gets results.  Even though I feel very fit right now, proper training (yes, I mean ~120 km/week) would reduce my chance of injury and drop my marathon time by about 45 minutes compared to what I could do today.  And that training will leave me feeling much better after the race.

 

So it's all a question of when you want to feel good and how you want to spend your time.  Me, I like a racing a marathon or ultra once every other year or so.  It's good for the mind if not great for the body.

 


 

 

post #76 of 99

There are some great points for discussion here. IMO, which seems to be supported by several recent threads, the recreational skier is looking to ski longer without getting tired and developing burning muscles - i.e., endurance. Leaving aside, for purposes of this issue, the obvious fact that the most common cause of excessive exhaustion is poor skiing technique, it's worth looking at what best develops endurance and why. So, what does exercise physiology tell us about endurance, how in the real world do elite endurance athletes train and, finally, are these data pertinent to non-elite, recreational athletes?

 

Without going into the nuances (and hopefully limiting jargon as much as possible), there are two major determinants of exercise capacity: VO2 max and lactate threshold. VO2 max is a measure of the capacity of one's cardiocirculatory system to deliver oxygen to tissues; lactate threshold represents that intensity of activity above which levels of lactate begin to accumulate rapidly in the blood because the body's ability to clear it has been exceeded. Both are trainable -i.e., can be improved with appropriate training programs - lactate threshold much more so than VO2 max. Both are involved in our subjective perceptions of how hard we are working -i.e., how unpleasant any given level of activity seems to us. But, each responds primarily to a different set of training stresses. VO2 max responds to periodic, high intensity exertion which, by definition, has to be limited in duration. Training effects plateau relatively rapidly; indeed are probably largely genetically determined for each individual. Lactate threshold responds to training volume, basically the more the better, and is capable of showing very great improvement over long periods of time (seasons or even decades) if training is continued. It doesn't respond to intensity above a certain threshold, it responds to duration. We have a very good understanding of why this is so down to the molecular level. (I recently completed an invited review of the scientific literature in this area for the Journal of Applied Physiology. Although I can't reproduce it here because of the journal's copyright agreement - and because it would glaze the eyes of people here - I'd be happy to point anyone who is interested when it is published.)

 

What do elite endurance athletes do? They train a lot! One doesn't need to have a detailed understanding of exercise physiology to be a good coach, but one's methods must produce results or Darwinism goes to work. Athletes at the top level in running, cycling, rowing, cross-country skiing, etc typically train from 800 (at the low end) to 1500 hours per year. Of this, approximately 80% is conducted at 60-65% of VO2 max (below the lactate threshold) and the balance is high intensity, periodic training at above 85% of VO2 max. Numerous studies, including cross-over trials, have shown that this is a good mix and it is consistent with the physiological considerations above.

 

There are few controlled studies on non-elite, recreational athletes. Part of the reason is that it's difficult to get people to train easy, easy enough (and long enough) and to train hard, hard enough! Consequently training intensity tends to converge in the middle, having neither the intensity to push VO2 max, nor the volume to make big gains in lactate threshold measures. Recently a team in Norway succeeded in getting three groups of amateurs through a study that confirmed that the 80/20 split produced the best gains in endurance even at a total training volume of just 10 hours per week (results not yet published).

 

So, the data support the idea that, for average people looking to ski with more endurance, it is more important to train lactate threshold than VO2 max, to train longer and easier, and to limit high intensity periodic workouts to 20% of total training hours.

post #77 of 99

HardsDayNight,

 

Fantastic information. While waiting for your review to be published, I would appreciate it very much if you could give me a few references on studies of lactate threshold response to training, especially those dealing with the molecular or biochemical aspects.

 

Hermann Maier, after his accident, trained at low intensity (monitored with blood lactate level) for hours and hours on a stationary bike. Most professional endurance athletes also train with a heavy emphasis on LSD. But there is a plausible argument that they have to do that because the training volume is so high, a higher mix of high intensity would push them into overtraining. For cycling, some, like Armstrong's coach Carmichael, believe that a focus on high intensity training is better for people with limited training time. "Sweet Spot Training", intensity around lactate threshold, is believed by others (e.g. Andy Coggan) to be highly effective for cycling. The Norway study seems to indicate that maximizing fitness is more than just a matter of cramming in as much training load as the body can handle in a given time budget. Some scientific insight into apparently different empirical observations would be very satisfying.

 

Thanks!

Chuck

Quote:
Lactate threshold responds to training volume, basically the more the better, and is capable of showing very great improvement over long periods of time (seasons or even decades) if training is continued. It doesn't respond to intensity above a certain threshold, it responds to duration. We have a very good understanding of why this is so down to the molecular level.

 

post #78 of 99

It's a very active area of research in exercise physiology. An excellent recent review at the molecular/biochemical level is G. A Brooks, J. Physiol. 2009, 587, 5591-5600. He is a major proponent of the intracellular lactate shuttle hypothesis, for which there is good evidence that he presents comprehensively. Another review that also reports some diverging opinions is L. B Gladden, J. Physiol, 2004, 558, 5-30.

Enjoy, hehe!

post #79 of 99

Quote:

Originally Posted by evaino View Post

...

chilehed - I haven't read the book in question, but I'm going to guess that you want to use:

low HR range: 65%-75% of Max

mid HR range: 75-85%

high range: 85% to 90%. 

 

I'd be surprised if a training plan had you pushing 100%, but I could be wrong.

 

I'd also suggest that you are probably right about using the heart rate range (HRR) instead of Max heart rate (MHR) for the calculations, where HRR = Max HR - Resting HR (RHR). Multiply the HRR by the appropriate percentage and then add the RHR back in (as you noted).

 

Elsbeth


Elsbeth, thanks.

 

I must be doing something wrong. I'm 50 years old, RHR = 60, that puts 70% at about 136 and 80% at 146.

Five minute warmup at a rate that gets me to about 110 (an easy drink a latte' pace).

Then three minutes at a rate to get me to 146 +/- within 30 seconds then backing off to hold it near that. A lot of times overshooting into the mid-150's for close to a minute.

Then two minutes at a pace not as slow as the warmup but close.

 

After the seventh rep the computerized bike I was on flaked out and I had to stop, but I was still easily able to get my HR into the 120's in two minutes and the effort required to get my HR back up wasn't somewhat lower than it was on the third or fourt rep but not a whole lot. Knowing myself, I could have gone on like that for quite a while longer.

 

So either I'm taking it too easy during the cool-off periods or I'm in good shape.

post #80 of 99


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chilehed View Post
 - 

Quote:


Elsbeth, thanks.

 

I must be doing something wrong. I'm 50 years old, RHR = 60, that puts 70% at about 136 and 80% at 146.

Five minute warmup at a rate that gets me to about 110 (an easy drink a latte' pace).

Then three minutes at a rate to get me to 146 +/- within 30 seconds then backing off to hold it near that. A lot of times overshooting into the mid-150's for close to a minute.

Then two minutes at a pace not as slow as the warmup but close.

 

After the seventh rep the computerized bike I was on flaked out and I had to stop, but I was still easily able to get my HR into the 120's in two minutes and the effort required to get my HR back up wasn't somewhat lower than it was on the third or fourt rep but not a whole lot. Knowing myself, I could have gone on like that for quite a while longer.

 

So either I'm taking it too easy during the cool-off periods or I'm in good shape.


 

First off, the Karvonen formula (220-age) is very inaccurate, although probably still the best estimate out there. If you go hard on the bike or running (or whatever your conditioning fancy), how high does your heart rate get? It may be that your max is much higher or lower than 170. 

 

Second - I'm not familiar with the intervals in the book, but it may be that the book is hoping you'll build your base in various zones. I've been through that process in the past and it can certainly be frustrating. But there is an element of fitness in how well you recover from exertion, and in how much you can exert yourself without having your heart rate skyrocket. In fact if your HR didn't drop quickly enough (I may be misreading what you're saying though), then I would actually take that as a sign that you're not in great shape (sorry). Along these lines, there's also benefit to training your cardiorespiratory system at various exertion levels - you don't necessarily have to be at your peak all the time. 

 

But again - I'm not 100% sure I get what you're saying as I don't know what the intervals you're trying are. 

 

 

post #81 of 99
post #82 of 99

4:45 Fran

 

We have seen great results with CFE in our Triathletes.  And most like (enjoy) that type of training over LSD and the broader conditioning it offers.  But some people just like to run.

 


Edited by Paul Jones - 11/19/11 at 5:05am
post #83 of 99


So I finally checked this thread at home... So I tried this one, but I don't think I could jump over the stands at quite the height they are at in the video, just jumped over marks on the floor.  Balance wasn't amazing, but I think that's mostly because I didn't warm up beforehand.

So far what is done in the rest of the videos are stuff I've been doing at least variations of in the classes I've been taking at the gym.  The instructors just love the squats and lunges in the classes.  Pilates and yoga have been a great help in core strength and stability too.

 

And I have ordered the book, just have to wait for it to show up.  (well had my dad order it because he was looking for something to get me for Christmas, hopefully I can get him to let me look over it a bit before then)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Fellows View Post

Try this exercise to see if you still feel that your core stability is your strong area.



 

post #84 of 99

Quote:

Originally Posted by evaino View Post

 

First off, the Karvonen formula (220-age) is very inaccurate, although probably still the best estimate out there. If you go hard on the bike or running (or whatever your conditioning fancy), how high does your heart rate get? It may be that your max is much higher or lower than 170. 

 

Second - I'm not familiar with the intervals in the book, but it may be that the book is hoping you'll build your base in various zones. I've been through that process in the past and it can certainly be frustrating. But there is an element of fitness in how well you recover from exertion, and in how much you can exert yourself without having your heart rate skyrocket. In fact if your HR didn't drop quickly enough (I may be misreading what you're saying though), then I would actually take that as a sign that you're not in great shape (sorry). Along these lines, there's also benefit to training your cardiorespiratory system at various exertion levels - you don't necessarily have to be at your peak all the time. 

 

But again - I'm not 100% sure I get what you're saying as I don't know what the intervals you're trying are. 


To find the target I used (220 - age - RHR) * % + RHR.

The intervals are described as three minutes in Zone 2, then two minutes at an easy pace.

Repeat this until HR does not drop into Zone 1 during the easy period, and count how many intervals is takes.

Zone 1 is specified as 60-70%, but Zones 2 and 3 aren't specified. Neither is "easy pace".

So based on some of the feedback above I chose Zone 2 as about 80% and easy pace as about 50%

 

When pushing I have to stop at about 180, and can usually resume after a couple of minutes of rest. This summer I've been doing a lot of mixed aerobic/anaerobic work with a trainer,In my session above my HR was getting down to the low 120's or less during the easy period, so maybe I was going too easy.

 

Great shape? Probably not, I certainly can't average 25 mph over 100 miles anymore like I used to or draft city buses at 50. But I can average 16 for an hour or more in rolling hills, and back in July I rode 20 in 1:40 which included a 1200' climb over the first 8 (Lake Lure to Hendersonville, NC). This summer I've been doing a lot of mixed aerobic/anaerobic work with a trainer, and I think it's reasonable to consider myself to be in good shape.

 

So far my biggest difficulty with the book is in understanding the anaerobic assessments. I don't want to score myself better than I really am, but there's a lot of ambiguity in the text. Maybe for me it's a moot point, given the level of exercise I've been getting.

 

EDIT: Another thing, about the hexagon agility assessment on page 39. Three times around in each direction in 11 seconds to score a 3?  eek.gif Cripes, PLEASE tell me I've misread that. 36 jumps in 11 seconds? I could score a 2 if it was based on three times around in one direction; otherwise I score a one and probably will forever.


Edited by chilehed - 11/19/11 at 2:11pm
post #85 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDaysNight View Post

Lactate threshold responds to training volume, basically the more the better, and is capable of showing very great improvement over long periods of time (seasons or even decades) if training is continued. It doesn't respond to intensity above a certain threshold, it responds to duration. We have a very good understanding of why this is so down to the molecular level. (I recently completed an invited review of the scientific literature in this area for the Journal of Applied Physiology. Although I can't reproduce it here because of the journal's copyright agreement - and because it would glaze the eyes of people here - I'd be happy to point anyone who is interested when it is published.)

 

What do elite endurance athletes do? They train a lot! One doesn't need to have a detailed understanding of exercise physiology to be a good coach, but one's methods must produce results or Darwinism goes to work. Athletes at the top level in running, cycling, rowing, cross-country skiing, etc typically train from 800 (at the low end) to 1500 hours per year. Of this, approximately 80% is conducted at 60-65% of VO2 max (below the lactate threshold) and the balance is high intensity, periodic training at above 85% of VO2 max. Numerous studies, including cross-over trials, have shown that this is a good mix and it is consistent with the physiological considerations above.

 

 

Interesting HDN. I'm wondering what this threshold marked in red is? I thought that Lactate threshold was trained primarily with interval training, and with what you write in your second paragraph it seems to suggest that it responds primarily to extensive training at low intensity?

I suppose that the LT it really trained by the 85% and above, but then what is the primary benefit of the low instensity training?

 

There has been a lot written about HIIT training lately, and it seems to suggest it is good for improving both LT and VO2max. I'd appreciate your view on that.
 

 

post #86 of 99

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilehed View Post
...Another thing, about the hexagon agility assessment on page 39. Three times around in each direction in 11 seconds to score a 3?  eek.gif Cripes, PLEASE tell me I've misread that. 36 jumps in 11 seconds? I could score a 2 if it was based on three times around in one direction; otherwise I score a one and probably will forever.


Alright, after thinking about this some more and asking a few people I've concluded that it's not humanly possible to score a 3 on this one. My 13 year old daughter is a dancer, gymnast and cheerleader, she's the most agile person I know and she can't come anywhere CLOSE to this even when I make the hexagon smaller to match her small size. Neither can my trainer, who's in as good a shape as anyone I've ever known.

 

In order to score a 3 you have to make a total of 72 jumps in 11 seconds (36 out and 36 in). That's more than six per second. NOT POSSIBLE!

post #87 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by chilehed View Post

Quote:


Alright, after thinking about this some more and asking a few people I've concluded that it's not humanly possible to score a 3 on this one. My 13 year old daughter is a dancer, gymnast and cheerleader, she's the most agile person I know and she can't come anywhere CLOSE to this even when I make the hexagon smaller to match her small size. Neither can my trainer, who's in as good a shape as anyone I've ever known.

 

In order to score a 3 you have to make a total of 72 jumps in 11 seconds (36 out and 36 in). That's more than six per second. NOT POSSIBLE!



Where is Chuck Norris when you need him?

 

post #88 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by chilehed View Post

Quote:


Alright, after thinking about this some more and asking a few people I've concluded that it's not humanly possible to score a 3 on this one. My 13 year old daughter is a dancer, gymnast and cheerleader, she's the most agile person I know and she can't come anywhere CLOSE to this even when I make the hexagon smaller to match her small size. Neither can my trainer, who's in as good a shape as anyone I've ever known.

 

In order to score a 3 you have to make a total of 72 jumps in 11 seconds (36 out and 36 in). That's more than six per second. NOT POSSIBLE!


I *suspect* it means 3 reps, EACH rep in <= 11 seconds...

 

post #89 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by docbrad66 View Post

I *suspect* it means 3 reps, EACH rep in <= 11 seconds...


I'm with you, but here's what it actually says:

 

Outline a hexagon with chalk or tape, each side is 24 inches long. Stand in the middle with both feet together and face the front line. When you start the stopwatch, jump across the line, and then return to the middle of the hexagon, jumping backward over the same line. Continuing to face forward with your feet together, jump over the line that forms the next side of the hexagon and then back again. Move clockwise around the shape in this manner for three revolutions. Perform the test again, moving counterclockwise for three full revolutions. Your score is the time needed to complete three full revolutions in each direction.

 

 

Give yourself a 3 if the following apply:

   You are male and can perform three reps in 11 seconds or less.

   You are female and can complete three reps in 15 seconds or less.

 

Give yourself a 2 if

   You are male and can complete three reps in 12 to 15 seconds.

   You are female and can complete three reps in 16 to 18 seconds.

 

 

OK, there's some ambiguity here between the text in red and the text in blue. Perhaps what he means is your score is the slowest time you needed to complete a single set of three full revolutions. That's more doable, but still extremely challenging. If anyone here can do it with good form, I'd surely LOVE to see the video.

 

Chris, if you're out there, please clarify.

 

BTW, I've been doing a lot of the exercises I've identified thus far. Some I'd been doing all summer, but of the new ones I particularly like the drop lunge (an EXCELLENT stretch) and the 1-leg bridge.  My legs are sore as hell.

post #90 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by chilehed View Post


I'm with you, but here's what it actually says:

 

 

OK, there's some ambiguity here between the text in red and the text in blue. Perhaps what he means is your score is the slowest time you needed to complete a single set of three full revolutions. That's more doable, but still extremely challenging. If anyone here can do it with good form, I'd surely LOVE to see the video.

 

 



This isn't me (I wish I could do it like this!), but have a look:

 

 

Notice

  • he actively extends to get his feet to the ground quickly (he doesn't wait to land),
  • he appears to do something like "down-unweighting" so he doesn't have to jump as high and waste time in the air.
  • his heels don't seem to touch, and may not clear the line each time allowing smaller jumps,
  • and he certainly doesn't jump all the way back to the center.  

 

So it's not really jumping in and out  as much as lifting your feet and touching.  Mimicking these techniques I was able to come down from about 20 sec to 12 sec without much trouble.  That last second has been trouble though...

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Total Skiing's approach to functional movement and ski fitness