or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Fitness, Health, Nutrition, Injury, and Recovery › The most important aspect of a training for skiing program
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The most important aspect of a training for skiing program - Page 6

Poll Results: What is the most important part of a ski fitness program?

 
  • 18% (8)
    Mobility / Flexibility
  • 25% (11)
    Power / agility
  • 13% (6)
    Strength
  • 11% (5)
    Cardio / conditioning
  • 16% (7)
    "The best way to train for skiing is to ski"
  • 13% (6)
    Other (If you pick other, please specify in a comment)
43 Total Votes  
post #151 of 170
Quote:
  1.  


That's it. This thread is long past it's prime,
 

No! Save the thread,we want page 6!:duel:

post #152 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post
 

...

I've asked your personal experience and you ignored that too.
 

Finally the book gave me the answer I was looking for from you, which was (in case you don't remember) how you would train LT on a bike... 

I'll leave you with two things:

 

1) LT training at their level is only possible because of the staff, technology, and funds available. It is not something that can be done at a lower level with significant results. Wonder why? I had to do it and the lower end testers like the ones suggested in your article are simple not accurate enough. 
...

If you would like to get back at me with some real scientific evidence, saying why biking is better than any other training protocol for alpine ski racing training please feel free to PM me.
 

Let's take this in reverse order.

 

Anyone who reads this thread can see that I've said that not just biking, but activities ranging from inline skating to Nordic walking to trail running can all be good ski prep.  I've said those things multiple times, so it's possible you haven't read my posts at all, and also possible you're simply trying to put words in my mouth.

 

LT training at "their" (Maier, Lindsey Vonn, etc.) level being accessible:  well., first of all, a few posts up you were insisting they wouldn't be trying to train LT, and demanding "proof" that they were training LT, when anyone aware of the last 15 years or so of training history should have taken this as a given.  (It's not the only thing they are training, but in terms of training on a bike one big point of emphasis).   You were claiming they were training VO2max, which would have made no kind of sense for that volume of training, and as noted VO2max in nondoping highly trained athletes doesn't increase through further training to begin with.

 

As far as training LT, it's very possible for average people to do.  This is very well-known.  You don't need to prick your ear to do it.   You, jzamp, need to learn about RPE among other things -- you've already made clear in this thread you don't even know which RPE relates to VO2max versus LT, for instance, and so it makes sense to me that you wouldn't know that RPE can be used to train LT pretty accurately.  For someone making millions of dollars from their sport, like Vonn, it makes sense to be more precise at least occasionally, but someone can walk into a gym or go out on their mountain bike tomorrow and come "close enough" for most training purposes.  Average recreational skiers can also get in very good LT, and sub-LT, work in an hour or less of training; racers do lots of things including weeks at a time of skiing in the summer that recreational skiers don't need to do.

 

As I have noted repeatedly throughout this thread, they can also go for a run or a skate or a hike and do the same.  I shouldn't have to say that, but since jzamp seems to be trying to misrepresent what I have been saying, it's necessary to stress that.  Daron Rahlves likes riding and steep hiking, e.g., Sage Cattabriga-Alosa likes MTB (and generally doesn't lift, at all), Backstrom MTBs, etc. etc.  Walking a golf course at a brisk pace can be good prep.

 

For those wanting to be more precise but not prick their ear, there are also power meters available for people to use on a bike that, with some initial data-crunching to get an individual profile including, critically, FTP, can be used very precisely to train LT among other things.  These power meters measure watts, not lactate, but because of the nature of a bike the watts are a pretty good measure of what the rider is doing.

 

For the benefit of passive readers, it can even be useful to convert other types of effort to watts.  For instance, I went for a long, steep hike the other day, and crunched that into a W/kg number, as well as noting what the RPE was.  But, frankly, just scoring that on RPE would have been good enough.

 

As far as your claims for HIIT, I'll simply make the cultural observation that these fads come and go, and there's a reason HIIT is viewed as a passing fad by people with serious athletic backgrounds.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mih%C3%A1ly_Igl%C3%B3i  In terms of cites, Mihaly Igloi, though, is a good example of an empirically-based interval training approach that works.  The key is the modulation of the interval effort and the recovery, something that a HIIT approach doesn't provide.  For those people attacking me as argumentative, note how I didn't contest when Loboskis said his Crossfit box has an interval emphasis?  If they do that's cool.  There are easier ways to do lower-intensity training than an Igloi approach, so it's not to my knowledge used without tweaks now, but assuming you modulate the intervals to keep enough of the work at lower levels of intensity, it works.

 

As far as your great curiosity about my personal experience?  If I were saying anything that is controversial in the real world, I agree experience and credentials can be good anchoring points for a dialogue.  In this case, I'm reminded of when some people got bent out of shape that I'd said that airbag packs were effective and adopted by a number of patrols.  This was obvious and should have been known by people vigorously disagreeing with me, but part of the response was a number of people attacking me as a poster and demanding what my "credentials" were to make such a [entirely factual, very basic] claim.  Attacking a person on the basis of credentials when you are surprised by factual information that they have posted is classic internet, albeit often crudely effective.

 

On the facts of this thread, I have the experience to know that skiing is not "as anaerobic as it gets," that average people can easily train LT, , and to have laid out what RPE was, complete with cites.  I even just mentioned Igloi, and I'm pretty confident few people reading this have heard of him.  Because there've been some personal attacks, and even one poster suggesting I need to leave the forum, certainly passive readers might wonder whether anything I say is on the mark (again, those personal attacks can be effective).  If they're curious, I'd suggest they look into whether they can use RPE to effectively do LT training on their own, just as one example.  http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/rpe-scale-predicts-lactate-threshold  Here's one quick link that can help, though I'd suggest they read into a good bit more.

 

 

.

post #153 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by loboskis View Post
 
Quote:
  1.  


That's it. This thread is long past it's prime,
 

No! Save the thread,we want page 6!:duel:

Your wishes shall be granted lol

post #154 of 170

:popcorn

post #155 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post

 


That's it. This thread is long past it's prime,
 

 

 

Uh oh!  I'm in trouble.  I'm long past my prime too :o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How close are we to page 6 now?

post #156 of 170

well into it! :D

post #157 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by L&AirC View Post

After I made my earlier post and was working in the yard I thought:

"If you have to get in shape to go skiing, you're doing it wrong."

By doing it wrong I mean living your life. 

the gem of the thread for myself..... thank you!
post #158 of 170

Now, let's talk periodization.

 

The Austrians and the USST aren't simply doing the same type of long bike ride every day of the year to work on the "aerobic" conditioning that is a key part of their success.  For a recreational skier, while again there's not the same need to worry about "peaking" physically, many may end up in a situation where they have, say, a destination ski trip coming up in 3 months and feel more-motivated than usual to prepare.

 

The overall idea of periodization would be getting in relatively more volume and less-intense activity for the first 4 weeks or so, and then upping the intensity for some days a bit more the next 4 weeks, and then a bit more (with more very easy or rest days) for the last 4 weeks.

 

Let's say someone does inline skating.  They could focus for the first 4 weeks on fun skating for an hour or less at an easy-moderate pace plus skate-to-ski drills, many of which are also low to moderate intensity in terms of effort, for 2-3 days a week.  While skating also will develop leg strength at the same time, maybe they can throw in a weekend Jivamukti yoga class or lunge walks or similar to work on strength endurance.  Edit:  I'm not addressing how to stretch the rest of the time, but for the mention of yoga, because it can be even more individual than the rest of conditioning.  But, a good rule, do a bit of dynamic warm-up pre-workout, and save the static stretches for post-workout.

 

Then, the next 4 weeks they could up the intensity a bit, throw in maybe a park with a few more hills to skate, looking to feel overall like there's more of a moderate intensity.  A couple days a week they could work in a couple of maybe 10-minute intervals that feel reasonably hard but know they can keep a steady pace without losing form, followed by 10 minutes of easy skating after each interval.  Later in the 2d four weeks they could go for 4 shorter intervals of 4-5 minutes that would be slightly harder.  Etc.  The week before the trip, implement a "vacation taper" which means don't work out and get your stuff ready or spend time with friends and family instead.

 

You can obviously do much the same on a MTB or running, and with each activity end up working balance in a way with some crossover to skiing, agility, etc.

 

Certainly someone could periodize a gym-based program to also build a good base in much the same way, though due to the lack of crossover balance-wise, the balance and agility side of things would take a lot more attention.  And, you'd have to be willing to do the work on a bike or elliptical/ whatever indoors.  But, you can't get there with weight training in the conventional sense alone.


Edited by CTKook - 10/23/13 at 8:01am
post #159 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by evaino View Post
 

     Long post, but here's my thoughts, for what it's worth. Split out by the topics in the poll.

 

1. Mobility/Flexibility: This is, in one way, the foundation of all movement. If you can’t move through a range of motion that your brain asks your body to do, one of two things will happen:

  1. You won’t be able to do it
  2. Your body will find a way to do it using other muscles and joints.

 

The former sucks from a performance perspective, but may be better from a body health perspective. Hip rotation strikes me as the part of the body where lack of mobility will affect performance. If your femur doesn’t move well within your pelvis, you’re not going to turn well. Often this happens on one side and not the other, and we see this on the slopes as turning well to one side and not to the other.

 

The latter is a bigger problem because the body is so good at cheating. I look at it like this: every movement in the body can be done by one primary system and at least one back up. If the primary system doesn’t work well, then something else will pick up the slack. In the hip rotation example, if hip rotation is limited, you will probably rotate through the lumbar spine and/or through the knee. Neither the lumbar spine, nor the knee takes kindly to repeated rotations, and the result can be injuries. Repeated rotations, or worse, rotations with flexion (many of us are in lumbar flexion when we ski) is a very common cause of low back pain.

 

So how important is mobility? It’s pretty important.

 

By the way, in case you’re wondering about the terminology: flexibility generally refers to the length of a muscle and mobility refers to the range of motion of a joint.

 

2.Power / agility:

I’m a bit surprised that this one got so many votes, but I think I understand why. Some of the responses when talking about power made reference to exercises like squatting, which is actually an exercise primarily for developing strength.So it may be a bit of confusion about terminology.

 

One question asked why I put power and agility together. Three reasons really:

  1. I think they’re on a continuum. If you think about it, most agility exercises (ladder drills for instance) could also be considered low level power exercises. For my non-athletic and senior clients, a ladder drill is really a power drill. Or at least it is until they get strong enough to be able to do “real” power exercises safely.
  2. Further to that – agility is going to be determined by how powerful you are. If you can’t generate force rapidly, you are not going to be agile. Period.  
  3. Honestly I also put them together because it’s just how I write programs: First we warm-up which includes most of the flexibility and mobility exercises we’re going to do, then we spend a bit of time on power and agility, and then we move to strength, and we finish with conditioning.

 

So how important do I think they are in relation to the other items on the list? Actually I would put both power and agility training last out of the list above. Now please note that all of my skier clients have power and agility training in their programs, so it’s not that I don’t value it. I do. I just think everything else on the list is more important. Well, I might put it as a tie with one other on the list, but I’ll get to that.

 

Why do I devalue power and agility training for skiing (relative to the other training elements)? It’s simple physics. Power = Force x velocity. Another way to express that is to say that power is the ability to apply force quickly. Now it’s important to understand the effects of both parts of the equation. On one end of the spectrum, you’ve got strong but slow, and on the other end, you’ve got weak and fast. Is one better than the other? For some applications, sure, but for most, including skiing, either end of the spectrum is undesirable.

 

For skiing, I would suggest that the speed part is very important in terms of reacting to the terrain, but the strength part is important for recovering if you lose your balance. If you don’t have the strength to safely absorb or decelerate whatever movement your speed has got you into, you’re going to be in trouble.

 

3. Strength: I think I gave away my answer in the section above: I believe strength is the most important part of a ski training program, with mobility a close second. I say this partly for what I noted above – that strength is one of two building blocks for power. But also because of what strength is at its fundamental level: developing your muscles.

 

Your muscles have two roles:

  • to protect your bones and joints, and
  • to move them.

 

The former is critical for injury prevention, and the latter is important for both injury prevention and performance.

 

Bottom line: Without strong muscles, nothing else matters.

 

4. Cardio / conditioning

 

Before I get into my thoughts on the relative importance of cardio (aka conditioning aka energy systems development), a few thoughts on aerobic vs anaerobic training:

 

Aerobic vs Anaerobic. Few sports are purely aerobic or anaerobic.  Most are somewhere along a continuum. Where skiing lies on that continuum depends where you get to ski. At my local hill, I’m lucky to get a 30 second run followed by an 8 minute chairlift ride. Hands down anaerobic. When I vacation out west, it’s different. I can't remember exactly how long skiing Kicking Horse top to bottom was for me - I think in the 10 to 20 minute range - taking as many bump runs along the way down as I could, followed by slightly longer than 10 minutes on the way up. Guess where that lands? Pretty squarely in the middle actually.

 

A few thoughts though:

  1. There have been numerous studies that show that we derive aerobic benefits from anaerobic training, but that the opposite is not true.
  2. If you do strength training in a circuit fashion, your heart rate will likely be in the aerobic zone for most of your workout, which develops your aerobic capacity while you build strength.
  3. As long as there are relatively lengthy lift rides (and lift lines, and put your skis on at the top time, and sort out where you’re going time…), you are getting recovery between bouts of exertion. Even a 5 minute ride is giving you quality recovery. That puts us into “repeat sprint ability” territory.
  4. There are two important elements we develop with interval training: anaerobic output and recovery ability. Both are important to be able to perform at a high level repeatedly throughout the day. Honestly I don’t know whether steady-state or interval training develops this better, and I’m not sure studies exist. My gut says intervals do because you’re actually training it. In fact this is one of the ways to set up intervals: use a heart rate monitor and set an HR recovery target that you have to get down to before you can start your next interval. I’ve seen impressive improvements in this.

 

So how important is cardio?

 

There’s no question that developing your cardio-respiratory fitness level will make skiing more enjoyable as you won’t be huffing and puffing. But there are two reasons I put cardio (or conditioning) near the bottom relative to the others:

  1. This is a part of your training where you can ski yourself into shape. It’s not as fun as being fit first, but it is possible. It won’t take many days to develop your ski lungs.
  2. Done right, you can get your cardio from your strength training.

 

Side comment on lateral trainers:

 

I am a fan of including some lateral training in a ski training program. That said, take a look at someone doing squats or deadlifts. That’s lateral training. I think considering the force vectors in training is important, but I think that still falls within the realm of what I’ve suggested above. In other words, I don’t place a lot of value in lateral conditioning tools like the skiers edge or that other one that was linked in this thread (sorry – can’t recall what it was). If you have one, then sure, use it for some of your conditioning. I have a slideboard at my gym, and all of my skiers use it. But don’t mistake lateral conditioning as a quality replacement for strength or mobility training.

 

5.“The best way to train for skiing is to ski”

 

This is one where I’ll quote from iriponsnow from the forum’s response: “Why is skiing the only sport where skiing is the training?” Why indeed?

 

In my opinion there are two primary reasons that skiing is not great training for skiing:

  1. As with any sport, there are certain movements that we do repeatedly in skiing, where we run the risk of overuse injuries. We spend an awful lot of time in a hip flexed position when we ski, which typically results in weakened glutes and tight hip flexors and quads, and with it, low back pain and often hamstring dysfunction. One of the most important elements of training for sports is to train the opposite of what we do in the sport, so that our joints can stay nicely aligned and we can reduce the incidence of overuse injuries.
  2. The movements that we do repeatedly, we often do with a shortened range. What happens when one day we hit a rut or an unexpected bump that throws us into a position our body isn’t used to? Will we be strong and mobile enough to deal with it?

 

 

6.“Other”

While I was surprised that nobody but me picked strength, I was very happy to see so many people chose “other” and then write in “all of the above” as their answer. To that I will say:  “Winner, Winner, chicken dinner!” :beercheer:

 

Final thought:

 

Like most things related to human performance, there is no absolute “this is the one right answer”. Rather there are a lot of bits of information that we get to piece together and draw conclusions based on (hopefully) well-thought out assessments of the best evidence available.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rx2ski View Post
 

 

Thanks for the comprehensive response. You can never train one part independently and there are overlapping gains made from training each system.

 

I'm wondering, do you think you can get enough strength training of the lower body and core without weights (for the average bear--no Lindsey Vonn's here)? For example, just using your body weight for squats (multiple variations), lunges, steps, etc..

I tend to agree that there are overlapping gains made from training in each of the areas that Evaino identified.  

 

The reasons that I went with Power/Agility (as well as all of the above) is-

 

1.  I tend to keep up with mobility/flexibility year round- if someone is really poor in this area, then this is a good place to start a training program, IMO.

2.  I think a program that focuses on Power & Agility is more likely to increase your strength relative to how much a strength program is likely to improve your Power/Agility (especially the balance and quickness parts which I think are important to good skiing).  Of course, if someone is really weak to begin with, then it makes sense to start with strength training before moving onto Power/Agility.

 

So the stepping blocks for a training program for someone who is weak, immobile and lacking agility would start with strength and mobility training before getting into good enough shape to focus more on Power/Agility.  

 

For someone who stays in reasonably good physical condition year round but is limited in the amount of time they can put into a ski specific work out, then I think they should focus on Power/Agility after a warm-up that includes mobility/flexibility.    

post #160 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by evaino View Post
 

   

4. Cardio / conditioning

 

Before I get into my thoughts on the relative importance of cardio (aka conditioning aka energy systems development), a few thoughts on aerobic vs anaerobic training:

 

Aerobic vs Anaerobic. Few sports are purely aerobic or anaerobic.  Most are somewhere along a continuum. Where skiing lies on that continuum depends where you get to ski. At my local hill, I’m lucky to get a 30 second run followed by an 8 minute chairlift ride. Hands down anaerobic. When I vacation out west, it’s different. I can't remember exactly how long skiing Kicking Horse top to bottom was for me - I think in the 10 to 20 minute range - taking as many bump runs along the way down as I could, followed by slightly longer than 10 minutes on the way up. Guess where that lands? Pretty squarely in the middle actually.

 

A few thoughts though:

  1. There have been numerous studies that show that we derive aerobic benefits from anaerobic training, but that the opposite is not true.
  2. If you do strength training in a circuit fashion, your heart rate will likely be in the aerobic zone for most of your workout, which develops your aerobic capacity while you build strength.
  3. As long as there are relatively lengthy lift rides (and lift lines, and put your skis on at the top time, and sort out where you’re going time…), you are getting recovery between bouts of exertion. Even a 5 minute ride is giving you quality recovery. That puts us into “repeat sprint ability” territory.
  4. There are two important elements we develop with interval training: anaerobic output and recovery ability. Both are important to be able to perform at a high level repeatedly throughout the day. Honestly I don’t know whether steady-state or interval training develops this better, and I’m not sure studies exist. My gut says intervals do because you’re actually training it. In fact this is one of the ways to set up intervals: use a heart rate monitor and set an HR recovery target that you have to get down to before you can start your next interval. I’ve seen impressive improvements in this.

 

So how important is cardio?

 

There’s no question that developing your cardio-respiratory fitness level will make skiing more enjoyable as you won’t be huffing and puffing. But there are two reasons I put cardio (or conditioning) near the bottom relative to the others:

  1. This is a part of your training where you can ski yourself into shape. It’s not as fun as being fit first, but it is possible. It won’t take many days to develop your ski lungs.
  2. Done right, you can get your cardio from your strength training.

 

Final thought:

 

Like most things related to human performance, there is no absolute “this is the one right answer”. Rather there are a lot of bits of information that we get to piece together and draw conclusions based on (hopefully) well-thought out assessments of the best evidence available.

YES!!!

post #161 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow View Post


the gem of the thread for myself..... thank you!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by L&AirC View Post

After I made my earlier post and was working in the yard I thought:

"If you have to get in shape to go skiing, you're doing it wrong."

By doing it wrong I mean living your life.


Yep - I'd have to agree as well, although I change focus, intensity, and activity depending on the time of the year.  In the spring, the focus becomes  more aerobic conditioning with less emphasis on strength/power (but not eliminated) because I love riding and want to build up for distance.  In the late summer and throughout the fall my activities change to include more gym work, which I enjoy, to prepare for skiing.  Nonetheless, I still ride (or blade or run or BC ski) as much as I can to keep the aerobic conditioning good for touring and x-country skiing. 

 

so perhaps for me, the most important aspect of a ski training program is a way of life that emphasizes thoughtful, active and consistent exercise.  Frankly, the biggest pay off is this makes me happy.

post #162 of 170

This is for CT :D

sound like HIIT to me, and no bikes! LOL

http://www.shape.com/celebrities/celebrity-workouts/olympic-skier-julia-mancusos-beach-workout#



i'm joking obviously.  but still it shows that not every elite skier is doing the austrian way... 

post #163 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post
 

This is for CT :D

sound like HIIT to me, and no bikes! LOL

http://www.shape.com/celebrities/celebrity-workouts/olympic-skier-julia-mancusos-beach-workout#



i'm joking obviously.  but still it shows that not every elite skier is doing the austrian way...

You are trying to claim in your small type that this shows that not every elite skier is doing things the "Austrian way," and are suggesting as well that Mancuso doesn't use a bike for conditioning.

 

To address the second point, Mancuso is actually a really good road biker.  She also mtbs, surfs, standup paddleboards, etc. and has spoken very openly about how they're all great crosstraining for skiing.  If that sounds familiar, it's a lot like what, say, Daron Rahlves was saying in the article I'd linked to upthread.  What you are doing is pulling one workout and photo shoot and trying to claim that this reflects her training program as a whole, which is hugely distortive.  It is one heck of a photo shoot, though...

 

In a periodized training program, including those utilized for elite skiers, there's a place for things like Mancuso's two workouts in that Shape article, assuming they're appropriate for the individual athlete.   You can also find video of Mancuso doing all sorts of balance training and a number of other specialized things.

 

As for "the austrian way," the US in general spends a bit less time overall on a bike versus the Austrians, and they both would agree they get good results each way.  It's still a periodized training plan and still has a big emphasis on building a base and working LT among other things -- which you had been claiming they weren't training.

 

Now: appropriate for the individual athlete.  The USSA cautions coaches about not just plyos for juniors, but also about the need to not work juniors too hard at the lactate tolerance/max effort end of the exertion scale.  Part of that is due to kids not responding as well before puberty to that intense training, but part is that at the junior level the risk/reward suggests not spending much time with that kind of effort, particularly when you could be doing something that builds technique instead.  Recreational adults may look at themselves and decide individually whether their needs are more advanced than those of an athletic 15 year old who skis every day of the week.  They also can look at the many examples in ski towns of very strong locals who never touch weights and don't do HIIT training or plyos, and question how much those really are needed in that case, even if they think they're up to them.

 

Edit: since I have mentioned juniors a few times here, http://ussa.org/sites/default/files/documents/athletics/alpine/2011-12/documents/ats_matrix_september_09.pdf this can be a helpful thing to look at in terms of passive readers assessing their own "training age" within the sport.  You can see that up until the mid-teens, the emphasis is skewed away from weights and anaerobic training in general, even for kids skiing 100 days/year.  Now, these are still kids, and on the one hand adults are ready physically to benefit more from weights and anaerobic work.  But, on the other hand, few recreational skiers fit the profile of the "mature" young athlete at 16+ for the women and 17+ for the men, where they are skiing 130+ days/year, have been skiing hard for a decade or more, and only then really begin hitting everything hard within the context of a periodized plan  (they still don't hit it hard all the time).  When those athletes do begin intense anaerobic work and plyos, etc., they don't do it at the expense of  "aerobic" work, except in percentage terms (i.e., they still get the aerobic work in).  They add a few days of conditioning to the week, and in essence add a different segment to their periodization plans.


Edited by CTKook - 10/24/13 at 6:50am
post #164 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post
 

In weightroom terms, no, in part because there's no meaningful correlation between weightroom numbers and racing performance (racing performance is a limiting reference point, but at least is an objective standard).

 

 

Quoting Per Lundstam, then the head of sports science for the USST, and now in a similar role with Red Bull, "There's not much correlation between performance [ski racing] and the strength gains you make under a bar  at the squat rack."       http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/strength-and-power-training/core/Step-3--Build-with-Balance.html 

 

A lot of this thread has focused on both recreational skiing and ski racing.  It is also relevant that the USST even has its bump skiers doing significant work spinning on a bike, for hours, at a conversational pace.  Since moguls certainly are both very short runs at the competitive level, and at that level do require a high degree of explosiveness, this may seem counterintuitive.  Part of the explanation is that in their case they are "training to train," i.e. developing their aerobic base to enable them to stay fresh through multiple training runs.

 

As for recreational skiing, I believe the industry average for time actually spent skiing is anywhere from 25% to 30%, with the remaining time for a ski day spent riding lifts, at lunch, and taking other types of extended breaks.  For a 6 hour ski day, that would be more than an hour of active skiing, even close to two hours.  For that volume of physical exertion, the body will by definition be relying heavily on "aerobic" energy sources.

 

Regarding low-intensity training to develop an aerobic base, some of the physical adaptions that occur from this type of training do not occur as fully at higher intensity levels (and vice versa).  These adaptions do take time to achieve, so for a recreational skier looking to get in shape before a trip, aerobic base logically should get priority in order of training (but does not need to exclude other types of training at the same time). 

post #165 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldPlank View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post
 

In weightroom terms, no, in part because there's no meaningful correlation between weightroom numbers and racing performance (racing performance is a limiting reference point, but at least is an objective standard).

 

 

Quoting Per Lundstam, then the head of sports science for the USST, and now in a similar role with Red Bull, "There's not much correlation between performance [ski racing] and the strength gains you make under a bar  at the squat rack."       http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/strength-and-power-training/core/Step-3--Build-with-Balance.html 

 

A lot of this thread has focused on both recreational skiing and ski racing.  It is also relevant that the USST even has its bump skiers doing significant work spinning on a bike, for hours, at a conversational pace.  Since moguls certainly are both very short runs at the competitive level, and at that level do require a high degree of explosiveness, this may seem counterintuitive.  Part of the explanation is that in their case they are "training to train," i.e. developing their aerobic base to enable them to stay fresh through multiple training runs.

 

As for recreational skiing, I believe the industry average for time actually spent skiing is anywhere from 25% to 30%, with the remaining time for a ski day spent riding lifts, at lunch, and taking other types of extended breaks.  For a 6 hour ski day, that would be more than an hour of active skiing, even close to two hours.  For that volume of physical exertion, the body will by definition be relying heavily on "aerobic" energy sources.

 

Regarding low-intensity training to develop an aerobic base, some of the physical adaptions that occur from this type of training do not occur as fully at higher intensity levels (and vice versa).  These adaptions do take time to achieve, so for a recreational skier looking to get in shape before a trip, aerobic base logically should get priority in order of training (but does not need to exclude other types of training at the same time). 

What is the correlation between strength levels and performance? not gains and performance.

post #166 of 170

~~"But you got to be durable, too. Real durable. Most ain't."

Jack Wilson

 

Your not getting that from spinning for hours. yes you need an aerobic base but you need a strength base as well.

post #167 of 170

Training our hearts will make us live longer.

 

Training our muscles and connective tissue will allow us to enjoy our lives, well into our 80's.

post #168 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post
 

 

 

I think you're conflating a couple of points here.  

 

It is true that the overwhelming majority of posters on this board can't go anaerobic for longer than 90 seconds.    

But you haven't demonstrated that most on this board go anaerobic during skiing at all, as opposed to keeping the pace to where they're modestly comfortable breathing and can even chat or whistle or hum along to their ipods.

I actually took the suggestion made later in this thread to look at other skiers during the last month.  Based on that, I'd say recreational skiing generally doesn't leave people severely out of breath, and judging by their outward signs of exertion, very few people are spending much sustained time above LT. 

 

I'm surprised more attention wasn't given to bad technique, though.  Backseat skiing in particular is very common, and does involve sustained isometric contractions that can lead to thigh-burn.  But, carrying a bag of groceries in one arm can involve sustained isometric contractions that lead to shoulder and bicep burn, without carrying groceries becoming an extremely anaerobic exercise.  If someone skis severely backseat for long enough without relaxing, certainly they can end up turning a run into an effort that would be viewed as highly "anaerobic."  But, most people don't seem to be doing that.

post #169 of 170
When I'm skiing anaerobically I know it.
When I'm skiing aerobically, I'm just cruising down the slope ski school style.

YMMV
post #170 of 170

Here's a good blog from last month by a former Canadian Development Team tech coach and fitness trainer, www.fitsolutions-online.com/blog/ .

 

"~~Both strength and endurance are important qualities for alpine ski racers. Maintaining both of these qualities through the winter is important for consistency of performance... it is recommended that alpine ski racers spend more time cycling to improve/maintain endurance and less time running. However, it is imperative that young athletes are exposed to a variety of endurance training methods, including running, as this is an important component of physical literacy."

 

As regards cycling, one aspect to keep in mind for ski racers in particular is knee injuries.  Ski racers have this in common with motorcycle racers, who also tend to prefer cycling over running for their critical aerobic base training for this reason as well.  People with fairly good knees who enjoy trail running shouldn't feel that trail running as a source of cardio for alpine ski prep is necessarily something to replace. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Fitness, Health, Nutrition, Injury, and Recovery › The most important aspect of a training for skiing program