Scott Johnson & Steve House on non-gym training & heart zone training:

[*zap*]

 

[Josey Wales]

Interesting video...thanks for posting.

 

[whereisfredbeckey]

Agree - thanks for sharing. Have you tried any of the Uphill Athlete programs? Or, any from either of Steve House's books?

 

[*zap*]

Not actual programs but follow the concepts. New Alpinism is a very good book.

 

[FishTacos]

This is pretty interesting, thanks for sharing. I listened closely starting around the 21 minute mark when they were talking about aerobic capacity. I played college football and that meant getting strong and explosive. It's odd trying to reshape into something that performs well in the mountains. I'll have to dig into these guys some more.

 

[Will_m]

What I find so interesting is how sharply it contrasts what the popular opinion is now on training for mountain activities. Look at literally every “mountain” training program and it’s devoid of long slow stuff. Some people even considering running a total waste.

 

[P Carter]

What I find so interesting is how sharply it contrasts what the popular opinion is now on training for mountain activities. Look at literally every “mountain” training program and it’s devoid of long slow stuff. Some people even considering running a total waste.

These guys really know what they’re talking about. Many others are looking for shortcuts, or programs that people will do because they’re “hardcore” rather than based on the body of existing training evidence. Kinda like camo being made to attract the hunter. Workout plans tailored to attract those that aren’t working out but want to be a “mountain athlete.” (Note: This is just my take, not an objective statement.)

The new alpinism book has a chapter on the follies of training for endurance without an aerobic base, based off the author’s experience trying. Aerobic training is not sexy, it’s long, slow, and not instagram-worthy but (IMO) a good part of conditioning, both in general and for moving in the mountains.

Edit: I also really liked the book because it took aspects of things I’ve read in various places and objectively looked at how to fit everything together. Most other stuff I’ve read seemed to get “tribal” and come down on a side of running only (Maffetone etc) no strength or strength only, no endurance (many folks on here). These guys combine the two, carefully say what they’re recommending, why, and where it comes from, sprinkled with real-world experience. A worthwhile read.

 

[CoffeeGoat]

I normally do mostly short crossfit workouts, generally just because that's how much time I have and it covers done aerobic and strength. But during the Colorado quarantine I spent a lot of time running, up to about an hour, and while it was boring as all get out, when u got back to the gym I saw improvement in some areas. I was weaker but I could hold a pace much better. I guess I should keep doing some running in the side..

 

[*zap*]

They are basing this on a few concepts, which I believe are:

Once you kick in a majority of atp production via glycolysis you are @ a heart rate that is unsustainable for very long.

In order to utilize primarily lipolysis you need to keep a lower heart rate, under your aerobic threshold. In order to increase your ability to produce more atp faster using lipolysis you need to do LISS.

In order to keep under your aerobic threshold and get maximum performance you need to raise your aerobic threshold. Two marathon runners are in a race, both are running very hard and keeping under their aerobic threshold. One finishes near the top of the pack and one finishes near the lower end of the pack......one of the reasons is the runner who has a faster time has a higher aerobic threshold thus can run faster for long durations.

They say the best way to raise the aerobic threshold is from below, long duration, frequent and low intensity exercise where you reach steady state (oxygen supply for atp production is equal to oxygen demand).

They also encourage high heart rate level exercise for certain people based on the level of their aerobic and anaerobic threshold and the amount of bpm difference between the two levels.

No quick fixes here, very frequent and long sessions for many, many months.....definitely not a 12 week and ready for the mountains program.

 

[Poser]

I’d think that specific to hunting, replacing the aerobic threshold “zone 2” running with hiking with a pack would be more applicable. I’d say that when I’m doing scouting trips, I spend a good bit of time doing just that as I’m usually “booking it” on the on trail segments -basically hiking as fast as I can with a pack on just to be efficient with time. Minimalist alpine climbing tends to be a lighter, often a considerably lighter affair than hunting and, often, climbers are training aerobic base for skinning which, depending on where you live or what time of year it is, running is as close as you’re going to get to replicating that particular activity. That being said, skinning does usually involve an overall slower pace than running, so one has to pull the reigns back on running tempo to prepare for it.

I’d also note that Mark Twight’s book “Extreme Alpinism” from 1999 (contemporary and partner of house) eschews running as direct training for alpinism short of an initial phase of coming off the couch or training the body to rely on fat for energy source. One would also consider that volume of running tends to make one weaker, often considerably, and evaluate whether or not the tradeoff is worth it. If anyone is looking for justification for running as the sole or primary driver for mountain fitness, I don’t think you’ll find that validation here. House says, “strength is the foundation of endurance more than endurance is the foundation for strength”

 

[P Carter]

^ True, but they very clearly advocate for a long period of endurance-based training (while maintaining strength work as well), with the method of endurance training less important than actually doing it. (With the exception of biking, which they say is better than nothing but clearly inferior to running or hiking.)

An endurance base built by hiking, I think, may be marginally superior than one built by running, but it seems that the delta between the two is minuscule compared to the delta between a “pure strength, no endurance” routine and an “endurance and strength” routine.

I.e., arguing between running vs hiking is irrelevant in the big scheme, the real difference comes between developing a sufficient aerobic base vs not developing a sufficient aerobic base.

In the book they talk about the importance is strength, as poser notes. No doubt about it. That much Is very clear, and was very helpful to me.

But they also note that they most frequently encounter folks that are aerobically deficient (and thus constrained by aerobic capacity) rather than strength deficient. (For the mountaineering application.) That’s consistent with the running literature I’ve read. (Most folks are aerobically constrained...while it’s fun to argue the merits of tempo runs vs intervals etc the real performance limiter is in aerobic base.)

Their observation seems in line with a lot of the “plans” discussed around here, which don’t appear to contemplate development of an aerobic base.

No matter how you cut it, their approach advocates that both aerobic base and strength training are crucial. I would venture a guess to say that they want someone as aerobically fit as possible and as strong as possible, with the overall limiting factor as 1) genetics and 2) capacity to traint.

In my opinion, that is really valuable and has certainly changed my approach to things. Plus it’s fun to think about.

 

[Poser]

I’d say that my observations are the opposite: big aerobic bases are a dime a dozen. Plenty of people around that trail run, Mtn bike, skin up mountains, some of them are even my partners for such endeavors (with the exception of running because **** running ) and I wouldn’t even consider them a elk packout worthy partner because they lack sufficient strength to carry such loads.

Now, depending upon where you live, that ratio may change dramatically, but, yes, if you want to pursue performance in the mountains, you’ll need a mix of both, however, I’ll argue that since hunting is inherently heavy -heavier than any other comparable mountain activity, strength needs a priority that you may not see in other pursuits. Also, climbers are going to be inherently more concerned with strength to weight ratios where hunting is going to retain a “it takes mass to move mass” factor since the weight can be so extreme. (For anyone reading, please don’t counter with some inflated example about weighing 300 lbs, you’re smart enough to interpret this statement reasonably).

The short of it is, the ideal “uphill” elk hunter is going to be bigger and stronger than the ideal XC Mtn biker, trail runner, ski mountaineer, alpine climber etc

 

[P Carter]

^ But that ideal uphill elk hunter will still require an adequate aerobic base, correct or no? (I suppose it’s not “require,” perhaps...because hunting isn’t really that hard. Maybe the right way to say it would be, it would still behoove a big uphill elk hunter to have an adequate aerobic base.) If you’re advocating bigger, that’s fine I suppose, but is it “bigger given a fully developed aerobic base”, or “bigger to the detriment of a fully developed aerobic base.” If it’s the latter, I wold disagree and so would the uphill athlete folks.

If it’s the former, there does not appear to be a reason to rule out running other than an emotional or irrational dislike of the activity.

My observation is that many “hunting plan” or “strength oriented” folks seem to mostly or entirely disregard the importance of an aerobic base. I deduce that is because 1) it’s not sexy or sellable, and 2) some people have what appears to me to be an irrational and unjustified “screw running” attitude, the basis of which I can’t discern.

Anyway,
good discussion, I think I’ve said what I have to say on the matter.

 

[Poser]

Aerobic base? Absolutely.

The reason that I don’t like running as a form of direct training for something other than running is because lots of running LSD volume will result in the body adapting to becoming more efficient for running, much to the detriment of the posterior chain, which is critical for carrying heavy loads. If you are a professional runner, then that’s an acceptable tradeoff. For everyone else, a balance with strength is practical, warranted and justified, but, as we can observe in the real world, many people who “run” only desire to run and their definition of “fitness” is more running.

 

[*zap*]

The 'concepts' these folks endorse are really applicable to many different endeavors but in order to do that you need to understand those concepts pretty well.

Low Intensity Steady State cardio done almost daily and gradually for longer and longer periods of time should not interfere with specific strength training for the activity you are training toward. Gradually raising your aerobic capacity over time will benefit you in many ways and as you near your 'event' you can do anaerobic muscular endurance training for your specific needs. Periodization training, which they also endorse, is really something else to look into especially for strength but also good for aerobic/anaerobic because you really cannot be pushing 100% constantly other than long low intensity sessions which are not very debilitating. I would think that low intensity trail hiking/rucking would be the thing for hunters to focus on rather than running, especially on uphill/downhill as much as possible.....just watch your heart rate and pace accordingly for the most part....but a hike/ruck every once in a while @ a higher heart rate will not hurt to much if you delegate enough rest to recover, especially if you have raised your aerobic threshold up over time......

To train like this you really need to do a aerobic and anaerobic threshold test so you know where you are at.

Basically aerobic threshold is a heart rate at which you can still carry on a conversation.....anaerobic is a heart rate that you can keep maintained for 30 to 60 minutes depending on your fitness level.

You can also do a heart rate drift test to verify your aerobic threshold. I think these tests are best done on a treadmill or stairmaster because you can keep the pace exactly the same for the duration.

 

[JohnB]

I'll start with the major caveats that I'm pretty new to hunting and also not the fittest person in the world. I think that half of the arguement for cardio/endurance vs strength are how people view their hunting.

Poser you seem to be more focused upon training for the successful pack out while P Carter is looking at more of an endurance approach for the hunting process rather than the pack out. It seems to me that neither is wrong, but instead just shows the difference in how things are viewed?

 

[P Carter]

I'll start with the major caveats that I'm pretty new to hunting and also not the fittest person in the world. I think that half of the arguement for cardio/endurance vs strength are how people view their hunting.

Poser you seem to be more focused upon training for the successful pack out while P Carter is looking at more of an endurance approach for the hunting process rather than the pack out. It seems to me that neither is wrong, but instead just shows the difference in how things are viewed?

Yes, a lot of this is just navel gazing also. I like to to think about and discuss this stuff. But very few folks in real life like to. I run for a wide variety of reasons, one of which is to build and maintain the ability to move swiftly and confidently in the mountains for days at a time. So long as I can handle a pack out—which I can—I’m happy. I see no need to bulk up for that.

 

[Poser]

I'll start with the major caveats that I'm pretty new to hunting and also not the fittest person in the world. I think that half of the arguement for cardio/endurance vs strength are how people view their hunting.

Poser you seem to be more focused upon training for the successful pack out while P Carter is looking at more of an endurance approach for the hunting process rather than the pack out. It seems to me that neither is wrong, but instead just shows the difference in how things are viewed?

I don’t approach it that way so much. When it comes to the packouts, sure I’m relying on having a strong body to pack 120 lbs or whatever but even day to day backpack hunting is still “heavy.” You go into the backcountry for 8–10 days of hunting and you’re likley going in with 60 lbs minimum. 70-80 lbs is not uncommon at all for backcountry hunts of that length. Alpine climbers are often sub 30 lbs packs. At the Steve House level, you’re likley sub 20 lbs. There is a huge difference between performance with a 18 lbs pack and a 60 lbs pack. Furthermore, alpine style climbs are often single effort pushes. Again, at the Steve House level, these guys are sometimes pushing 30-40 hours in single, continuous efforts. Sometimes there is a bivy involved, but even that’s usually just a handful of hours. When you start applying the tenants of “uphill athlete” to sports like SkiMo, again, it’s easily transferable as It is a comparatively lightweight aerobic endurance affair with emphasis on a strength to weight ratio. A SkiMo pack is often sub 10 lbs. “ultralight” hunting is hard pressed to crack the absolute heaviest pack weights that relative endurance mountain athletes ever shoulder. It’s just heavier all of the time and sometimes it gets extremely heavy, therefore you should (ideally) be stronger than what is prescribed here.

Edit: I’ll also add that at this high end of performance alpine climbing, the team of 2 only carries one backpack, they climb in blocks of leads, usually 4-5 pitches at a time with the 2nd jugging lines with the backpack and even then the pack only weight 20 lbs or so.

 

[Clarktar]

I’d think that specific to hunting, replacing the aerobic threshold “zone 2” running with hiking with a pack would be more applicable. I’d say that when I’m doing scouting trips, I spend a good bit of time doing just that as I’m usually “booking it” on the on trail segments -basically hiking as fast as I can with a pack on just to be efficient with time. Minimalist alpine climbing tends to be a lighter, often a considerably lighter affair than hunting and, often, climbers are training aerobic base for skinning which, depending on where you live or what time of year it is, running is as close as you’re going to get to replicating that particular activity. That being said, skinning does usually involve an overall slower pace than running, so one has to pull the reigns back on running tempo to prepare for it.

I’d also note that Mark Twight’s book “Extreme Alpinism” from 1999 (contemporary and partner of house) eschews running as direct training for alpinism short of an initial phase of coming off the couch or training the body to rely on fat for energy source. One would also consider that volume of running tends to make one weaker, often considerably, and evaluate whether or not the tradeoff is worth it. If anyone is looking for justification for running as the sole or primary driver for mountain fitness, I don’t think you’ll find that validation here. House says, “strength is the foundation of endurance more than endurance is the foundation for strength”

I have to agree about swapping pack hiking for running. A good read is some articles by Mike prevost.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[FishTacos]

On the running vs pack hiking debate, are there any resources around wear and tear? Does running cause more wear and tear than weighted pack hiking? If there was a clear winner in the damage done to your body or if there were bigger set backs in recovery in one or the other, that would be interesting to know.