What's the best type of training?

[highpilgrim]

Civics.

[Vincopotamus]

True. But I don't have any winter ascent experience.
I'm looking for a good peakbagging "list" if you will. Something for a beginner like myself. 7ers, 8ers, etc.
I'm sure the Wasatch has plenty.

You have already been given a list of peaks several times that are next to SLC that require no winter experience. Why don't you go read the threads you already started and stop asking the same s
questions over and over again?

Why talk to him like you're a dick? You're usually one of the most helpful on here. Go back to bed.

If you were to browse Jbrow327's profile, you'd find that he often starts new threads asking very similar questions:

- Mar 8, 2020: Slc vs denver mountains. Utah vs Colorado mountains.
- May 10, 2020: How does the Wasatch range in Utah compare to other ranges in the west?
- Jul 5, 2020: Best Utah peakbagging list
- Sep 23, 2020: Good peaks to bag in Utah.
- Jan 4, 2021: Utah vs Colorado.

and most recently,
- Jan 13, 2021: Wasatch peaks.

Scott has shared his knowledge in each, apparently going in one ear and out the other.






Honorable mention for this thread being oddly akin to his July 10 How do I practice climbing peaks?

[pvnisher]

Lol. Sounds like buzzfeed article clickbait titles.

[12ersRule]

Lol. Sounds like buzzfeed article clickbait titles.

10 things that you don't already know about Wasatch peaks that may surprise you.

[Plugugly]

You have already been given a list of peaks several times that are next to SLC that require no winter experience. Why don't you go read the threads you already started and stop asking the same s
questions over and over again?

Why talk to him like you're a dick? You're usually one of the most helpful on here. Go back to bed.

If you were to browse Jbrow327's profile, you'd find that he often starts new threads asking very similar questions:

- Mar 8, 2020: Slc vs denver mountains. Utah vs Colorado mountains.
- May 10, 2020: How does the Wasatch range in Utah compare to other ranges in the west?
- Jul 5, 2020: Best Utah peakbagging list
- Sep 23, 2020: Good peaks to bag in Utah.
- Jan 4, 2021: Utah vs Colorado.

and most recently,
- Jan 13, 2021: Wasatch peaks.

Scott has shared his knowledge in each, apparently going in one ear and out the other.






Honorable mention for this thread being oddly akin to his July 10 How do I practice climbing peaks?

So don't answer him if you don't want to, who cares? Anyone who answers is engaged. And you went so far as to research his post history. So are the posts on "ignore user" and whatever on CaptCO more important than this post? He's civil, right? I know I've read every reply on this thread and received good information.

[Gandalf69]

Put a picture of whatever 14er you want to summit next summer somewhere you see it alot. The best training is to get yourself mentally ready each and every day for whatever you want to accomplish. In marathons about 30 percent is physical, 70 percent is mental. While being in shape helps, your mind must be ready for whatever you plan on doing. Its literally mind over matter, after not summiting Capitol Peak due to bad weather in 2019, I looked at a picture of the peak every day, summer 2020, 4 successful summits. I know it sounds cheesy but give it a try

[timisimaginary]

I did a 12 week TFTUA training block for a trail half marathon last summer. End result: I hated it and saw very little improvement in aerobic pace (about 20 sec/mile at AeT), I was slow AF when I started and slow AF minus 20 seconds when it ended. More importantly, training become another boring chore I had to do, never fun, never interesting, always constrained and measured. I'll not do it again.

Variety is important. Yes, TFTUA includes higher intensity later on, but the base period is f*cking boring. Maybe I'll revisit if I have a more appropriate multi-day goal where a huge aerobic base is more important. Until then, I'm gonna go have fun running as fast as I feel like, cycling, and even doing a good bit of HIIT - it makes me good in the feels.

one thing i will say: after i started doing more hiking and less running (thereby increasing my "base training" without even realizing it) i got noticeably faster and started hitting PRs i never thought i'd get. i took up hiking in large part because i was getting hurt too much from running. i tried triathlons for a while for variety, but i absolutely hate swim training with a vengeance and didn't have enough safe places to go cycling to keep it interesting. so i decided to go with hiking, figuring it would be easier on my body while keeping me active. i didn't know anything about heart rate zones, 80/20 training, or any of that stuff. i just started replacing shorter, faster runs (which i'm sure i was doing at high HR zones) with longer, slower hikes that inherently stayed in those lower zones, so i was base training without even knowing it.

so i do believe base training works, and will make you faster in the long run. you just have to figure out a way to do it that is actually enjoyable so that you'll want to do it often enough and for long enough periods to see the effect. for me personally, running slowly enough on flat terrain to stay in the base zone is just not enjoyable, but hiking is, so that's what i'm sticking with. for someone else, it could be skiing or cycling or any number of other activities that aren't as intense as running.

as a bonus, i also found that hiking significantly improved the strength and recovery abilities of my lower legs, so not only did i get faster, i can also now run further and more often than i could before with fewer injuries.

[Dave B]

one thing i will say: after i started doing more hiking and less running (thereby increasing my "base training" without even realizing it) i got noticeably faster and started hitting PRs i never thought i'd get. i took up hiking in large part because i was getting hurt too much from running. i tried triathlons for a while for variety, but i absolutely hate swim training with a vengeance and didn't have enough safe places to go cycling to keep it interesting. so i decided to go with hiking, figuring it would be easier on my body while keeping me active. i didn't know anything about heart rate zones, 80/20 training, or any of that stuff. i just started replacing shorter, faster runs (which i'm sure i was doing at high HR zones) with longer, slower hikes that inherently stayed in those lower zones, so i was base training without even knowing it.

so i do believe base training works, and will make you faster in the long run. you just have to figure out a way to do it that is actually enjoyable so that you'll want to do it often enough and for long enough periods to see the effect. for me personally, running slowly enough on flat terrain to stay in the base zone is just not enjoyable, but hiking is, so that's what i'm sticking with. for someone else, it could be skiing or cycling or any number of other activities that aren't as intense as running.

as a bonus, i also found that hiking significantly improved the strength and recovery abilities of my lower legs, so not only did i get faster, i can also now run further and more often than i could before with fewer injuries.

I'm with you 100%, base training is key but I think base training means a lot of different things to different people. Youtube runners like Jason Fitzgerald and Sage Canaday have a much higher intensity perspective on base training and seem to promote using RPE more than HR, my PT here in Fort Collins who's a consistent top-5 finisher in e.g. Black Squirrel half marathon recommends the same thing. For me, as a relatively large framed guy and even with a high AeT (158 from multiple drift tests), running in the TFTUA method means I have to run at about a 13-13:30 pace. Eff that, I'll stick with hiking, rucking, or cycling for my Z1 and Z2 training and run at what feels fun, otherwise I can't motivate to get out running.

The other thing that really turned me off on TFTUA is how much they poo-poo cycling. I get the reasoning for this, as it's not weight bearing and trains different motor patterns than running or uphill hiking, but it's also a great low impact way to get a high volume of Z1/Z2. I can only run 3x a week before things start hurting, so having cycling is pretty important for me. The puritanical and absolutely no shortcuts approach is great for a subset of people with an abundance of time and/or motivation. I have one or the other in variable amounts on any given day, and I just have to dig into the self-motivation pool a little too much to keep motivated to train boringly.

[timisimaginary]

yeah, i don't get the antipathy for cross-training in some training regimens. if you're a professional track athlete or something, maybe. but even there, i think more pros are beginning to realize the benefits of cross-training, especially ones that have dealt with a lot of injuries. no training plan is going to work if you're too hurt to follow it. and while there may be some slight advantage to doing cross-training that has more similarity to your main activity, the most important goal of base training is improving the aerobic capabilities of your body at a cellular level (the one thing TFTNA does well... maybe too well... is explaining/describing the actual biological processes involved and how they're affected by different forms of training). at the cellular level, it really doesn't matter how those processes are stressed by training, as long as the intensity and duration is the same. whatever slight advantages there may be from sport specificity in base training, the difference is really only going to be noticeable if you're at the elite level. at that point, you're getting paid to train, so if someone wants to pay me to run super-slow for hours for my base training, i'll happily do that, but as long as i'm doing this for free, i'll take a pass.

i was following Matt Fitzgerald's 80/20 program last year and wasn't thrilled with the results, though i can't completely blame that, 2020 had lots of challenges such that any training program may have been just as disappointing. i've never actually tried to follow TFTUA but i hear it's similar in theory. once you've read enough of these training books, though, i think you eventually just start figuring out on your own what works for you and what doesn't, and piecing it together on your own. i'd love to run every day and if i could do 9-minute miles in my base zones and stay uninjured, then i would. but not too many people can. i think the theory behind 80/20 and TFTUA is sound, but each person has to figure out the most effective way to apply it to their own individual circumstances.

[Dave B]

the most important goal of base training is improving the aerobic capabilities of your body at a cellular level (the one thing TFTNA does well... maybe too well... is explaining/describing the actual biological processes involved and how they're affected by different forms of training). at the cellular level, it really doesn't matter how those processes are stressed by training

This is an important point because, from my, arguably-incomplete, understanding of the literature, there's a good bit of evidence showing HIIT or other high intensity training forms to have similar impacts on mitochondrial synthesis as long slow training. There's just a metabolic economy-of-scales with long and slow because the injury risk and stress hormone production is lower. My interpretation of this is that you can do a bit more high intensity to instead of a lot more long-slow and get similar benefits at a cellular level with much less time investment - a key thing for those of us who aren't, as you say, getting paid to train and are more interested in short-cutting the process as much as possible... and according to TFTUA, there are no shortcuts, period, be bored or you're doing it wrong and should feel bad.

i was following Matt Fitzgerald's 80/20 program last year and wasn't thrilled with the results, though i can't completely blame that, 2020 had lots of challenges such that any training program may have been just as disappointing. i've never actually tried to follow TFTUA but i hear it's similar in theory. once you've read enough of these training books, though, i think you eventually just start figuring out on your own what works for you and what doesn't, and piecing it together on your own. i'd love to run every day and if i could do 9-minute miles in my base zones and stay uninjured, then i would. but not too many people can. i think the theory behind 80/20 and TFTUA is sound, but each person has to figure out the most effective way to apply it to their own individual circumstances.

Either way, I think the principle of a strong base is solid, and that it's best to do the vast majority of your training at an easy pace. However, defining easy is harder than it sounds. TFTUA uses AeT to define easy, 80/20 a percent of lactate threshold, others use RPE. All three are likely to produce vastly different heart rates. I like how Jason Fitzgerald (from Strength Running) takes a much broader approach to what consists of base training - wherein economy and turn over speed are also important parts of the base but need to be trained with higher speed/higher intensity training. I certainly noticed the quality of my running stride suffered a good bit during my TFTUA block, if I were to do another, I'd make sure to incorporate some strides into every easy run to just to keep the motor patterns fresh. And... it's way funner that way.

[Conor]

the most important goal of base training is improving the aerobic capabilities of your body at a cellular level (the one thing TFTNA does well... maybe too well... is explaining/describing the actual biological processes involved and how they're affected by different forms of training). at the cellular level, it really doesn't matter how those processes are stressed by training

This is an important point because, from my, arguably-incomplete, understanding of the literature, there's a good bit of evidence showing HIIT or other high intensity training forms to have similar impacts on mitochondrial synthesis as long slow training. There's just a metabolic economy-of-scales with long and slow because the injury risk and stress hormone production is lower. My interpretation of this is that you can do a bit more high intensity to instead of a lot more long-slow and get similar benefits at a cellular level with much less time investment - a key thing for those of us who aren't, as you say, getting paid to train and are more interested in short-cutting the process as much as possible... and according to TFTUA, there are no shortcuts, period, be bored or you're doing it wrong and should feel bad.

i was following Matt Fitzgerald's 80/20 program last year and wasn't thrilled with the results, though i can't completely blame that, 2020 had lots of challenges such that any training program may have been just as disappointing. i've never actually tried to follow TFTUA but i hear it's similar in theory. once you've read enough of these training books, though, i think you eventually just start figuring out on your own what works for you and what doesn't, and piecing it together on your own. i'd love to run every day and if i could do 9-minute miles in my base zones and stay uninjured, then i would. but not too many people can. i think the theory behind 80/20 and TFTUA is sound, but each person has to figure out the most effective way to apply it to their own individual circumstances.

Either way, I think the principle of a strong base is solid, and that it's best to do the vast majority of your training at an easy pace. However, defining easy is harder than it sounds. TFTUA uses AeT to define easy, 80/20 a percent of lactate threshold, others use RPE. All three are likely to produce vastly different heart rates. I like how Jason Fitzgerald (from Strength Running) takes a much broader approach to what consists of base training - wherein economy and turn over speed are also important parts of the base but need to be trained with higher speed/higher intensity training. I certainly noticed the quality of my running stride suffered a good bit during my TFTUA block, if I were to do another, I'd make sure to incorporate some strides into every easy run to just to keep the motor patterns fresh. And... it's way funner that way.

I don't necessarily fully grasp what is meant by "cellular level". But, that being said, what sple (slow pace, low effort) buys you is a few thing. 1) the ability to train day in and day out. The approach must be taken with caution and built slowly, as suggested by House-Johnston/Maffetone/Olbrecht. Typically, many training programs suggest (especially early on) to skip every other day. I think with a zonal approach, moderation and sple, that can be achieved every day and the benefits are better.

2) we've been taught - no pain no gain. It was drilled into me as a little kid. But, it is almost the worst kind of training one can do. It lands one into the "no man's land" of training, especially with a more endurance focused objective. It leaves one's muscle fibers in an identity crisis. And it is important to note, that except in some extreme cases (such as loss of limb), muscle fibers aren't ever created due to training stimuli. We can only adapt the muscle fibers we have to store the mitochondria, store fat, and increase capillary growth around them.

I'm quoting an old post of mine taken from a buddy's medical school physiology text book.

It sounds like you're saying it's only a slow twitch or fast twitch issue? Which is a genetic predisposition that varies form person to person is it not? Wouldn't we be targeting the muscle fibers we want to target instead of turning them into the kind we want? I don't think we can turn a slow twitch into a fast twitch... right?

While there are pure "slow twitch" and pure "fast twitch" muscles, there are fibers that are "in between" (often referred to as "fast oxidative") and have been shown to be adaptable to stimulus given. In addition, it is shown that "fast twitch" muscles can be adapted to operate as "slow twitch." This is a simplified way of explaining it....

below is some text from a human physiology text book.

as a result of such training, some fast glycotic fibers are effectively converted to fast oxidative fibers. (However, because exercise does not alter the type of myosin present in muscle fibers, slow-twitch fibers remain slow and fast-twitch fibers remain fast.) Change include increases in the size and number of mitochondria within the fibers, and an increase in the number capillaries surrounding the fibers. In addition, the average diameter of the fibers decreases, which facilitates the movement of oxygen into the cells but also decreases the cells' force-generating capacity.

20170223_182809_001_resized.jpg

3) fueling needs during "long days." when I am a top my game, I can go 18+ hours without eating and not bonking. I had a partner who couldn't give up the heavy lifting and he ate like a horse every 45 mins.

regarding "speed play" or incorporating some "faster runs" into one's training program. Jan Olbrecht (who's training strategies have been incorporated by USA swimming and our dominance in the world stage) said he has noticed no detrimental effects with a single weekly training event at a faster pace. That is caveated with a decent aerobic base and appropriate warm up and cool down to gobble up the lactate. I incorporated it for a few months and found no change. Olbrecht uses very frequent lactate testing and has strict periodization programs (usually 4-6 weeks) which he'll then adjust the next period based on lactate testing and the prior program.

I have yet to see anything go against Twight's TINSTAAFL piece. I could be convinced with true science, but it just doesn't seem intuitive to me. I have yet to fully grasp the "Boring" aspect either. I move over the trail faster than "hiking". So if slow jogging is boring, what is hiking? Also, I watched the HIIT masters (aka cross fitters) on TV for about 2 mins once. I couldn't grasp how flipping a tire over repeatedly or jumping on the same box was more exciting than jogging on a trail, but different strokes for different folks I guess.

I still stand by my original statement in this thread. The BEST thing someone can do for their hiking is lots of sple jogging. It doesn't make other methods "bad", just not as good.

[Bean]

So if slow jogging is boring, what is hiking?

Also boring.

But at least you aren’t shuffling along like a zombie.