Scott Semple

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 1,180 total)
  • Keymaster
    Scott Semple on · in reply to: Training stairs #43818

    For a drift test, you’ll want to go at least an hour because the duration is part of the stress.

    If you had a 6% drift in 30′, then the drift over the hour would likely be higher. Start the next one at ~150 and see what happens.

    To avoid traffic issues a track may be the best bet.

    Scott Semple on · in reply to: AeT Test via Heart Rate Drift #43817

    A custom plan is always an option, but so is repeating a training plan and modifying the loads. Training plans can be re-used indefinitely if you scale the load to your fitness at the time.

    Scott Semple on · in reply to: Muscular strength vs muscular endurance #43816

    :thumbsup !

    Scott Semple on · in reply to: Cycling Transfering #43777


    I went for a 2 mile run at about a pace of 12-minute miles. When I was done My knees were so sore that I could walk upstairs. So in my case, cycling is a great way for me to push my endurance, cardio, and get that volume w/ still being functional the next day. Saturday I did a 62-mile ride and felt great during and after. Which makes the 2-mile run sidelining me is frustrating.

    I totally agree. What it also says to me is that you need to gradually increase your running volume. Being able to run isn’t an on/off switch. You have to build into it. Unless there is a mechanical issue, it takes a lot of miles to build up a resistance to running.


    For weight loss, I would bike more than anything and, equally important, not over-compensate with food. For all of the reasons mentioned above, you’ll be able to put in a hella lot more hours on a bike. And weight loss is only about input versus output. (The MTBers you mention may be suffering from the common delusion that their activity level gives them permission to “eat whatever they want”.)


    …but you are applying cross-country training principles to skimo training.
    You basically say that for skimo – Bjoergen’s training approach (who trained for cross-country) is better than Bonnet’s, Gaston’s, etc. (who train for skimo). Even though they are world-class elite with exceptional results in skimo competition.

    No, I’m applying endurance training principles to an endurance sport. I’m saying that we should look to mature endurance sports for programming advice over immature sports. (XC versus skimo training is decades different.) Judging only by results is outcome bias. Picking a few select athletes is cherry-picking. Judging by the process, the number of times it’s been applied, and the results is much more likely to get to the ideal method.

    Winning doesn’t mean that a method was the best choice. If I train for a year and Gaston eats donuts, he will still beat me. Does that mean you’re going to take the year off and eat donuts because “hey, it worked for him!”?

    Have you tried ski touring with high-level mtb bike athlete?

    Yes. And I race against one in particular. And he kicks my ass. Always will. Does that mean his training is the ideal choice? Am I now the universal training standard benchmark? I’m flattered that you think so.

    The bottom line is that small sample anecdotal evidence is meaningless. You have to take a process and apply it over a large sample of subjects over several years and see what happens. Confirmation and outcome bias won’t get you nearer the truth, they get you further away.

    I really don’t see why this is such a big deal for people. It’s one of two things:

    A. “I value performance over participation, so I’ll train using the best practices of a mature sport;”


    B. “I value participation over performance—i.e. fun—so I’ll train any damn way I please;”

    AND (actually there’s a third):

    C. “I want to have my excuses lined up in advance, so I’m not going to train at all.”

    Scott Semple on · in reply to: AeT Test via Heart Rate Drift #43774

    I’d see 165 at one moment, another it would be 160.

    That sounds settled to me. It’s best to think of HR in 5-bpm “buckets”. Anything less than that is false precision IMO.

    Based on your tests, I think you can use: 175 for AnT HR; and 160 for AeT HR. (I would ignore the detour test and go by the Pa:HR of the second test.)

    With less than a 10% gap between thresholds (175 / 160 = 1.094), Z2 training will probably feel more fatiguing. As it does, you’ll want to shift more of your volume to Z1 (<= 145).

    Scott Semple on · in reply to: Heart Rate Drift Tests without a watch? #43773

    Good point. It makes sense that a Garmin device, for example, would have more accurate information and/or calculations than an Apple device. The former is a GPS-focused company.

    Scott Semple on · in reply to: Cycling Transfering #43748

    I’m positive that running is probably best option out there BUT, it comes with a big cost of stress for the body.


    Those charts doesn’t proove much imo.

    For one person, no. But I think it’s safe to assume that that same breakdown is applied to all top-level Norwegian skiers, perhaps the whole country, and they dominate XC.

    Marit Bjoergen did a lot of LI volume what translated to better results.

    Yes, and just as important, her training was as specific as possible.

    There is almost no vertical elevation, no downhill skiing. It’s similar to running on flat ground.

    Then you haven’t done much ski touring with high-level XC skiers.

    You said that my example is not good because they are skimo superstars and what they do doesn’t mean it’s good for me, while your example of training approach is Marit Bjoergen who is cross-country superstar – completely different discipline

    You misunderstood. The sample-of-one super-star factor is irrelevant in both cases. I used the Bjoergen charts because they’re indicative of the Norwegian program that has been applied to thousands of XC skiers with superb results. (I can send more from other Norwegian skiers if you like.) In contrast, comparing that pool of data to “so-and-so rides a bike” is laughable.

    Skimo is more similar to mountain running, and mountain running is an excellent tool for training skimo. BUT, it comes with huge cost when you have to go downhill.

    Agreed. And running downhill is not specific to skiing downhill, but it is still more specific than biking downhill, especially one road bike. (MTB would have more of a downhill leg load.) I suspect an ideal training approach would be running uphill and then doing dynamic squats in the gondola ride down.

    At present I use mountain running mainly for high intensity training, while in the meantime I score lots of additional low intensity volume by biking. And this approach brings for me better results comparing to the previous years when I was focused mainly on running and roller skiing.

    There are too many other factors to make that conclusion. Maybe your prior programming could have been better. Maybe you were running too fast, etc.

    You’re making the same (mental) mistake as Bonnet with:

    “I want to bike instead, so where’s the evidence I need to support that? There it is!”

    That about sums it up! #SCIENCE!

    NEXT QUESTION: Why do so many people ask a variant of, “Can I perform just as well if I bike for [my_weight_bearing_goal] instead of running?” while no one ever asks, “Can I train as a runner for my bike race?”

    ANSWER: Because they’re not asking about training with only performance in mind. They’re asking about training while also having fun. Conflating the two is just confirmation bias.

    Scott Semple on · in reply to: Training stairs #43728

    You definitely want to be recovered for the anaerobic test. For the aerobic test, “it depends”. To get the best results, it’s probably best to be recovered for both.

    Scott Semple on · in reply to: Denali 2021. Anyone interested #43706

    Where do you live? Is there a local climbing club where you can get to know other like-minded climbers? You probably more likely to find a good match if you can get out climbing with someone a lot before your goal trip.

    Scott Semple on · in reply to: Heart Rate Drift Tests without a watch? #43705

    Also, you do not need a “fancy” watch.

    The features to look for are:

    1. An HRM (via chest strap, not a wrist monitor);
    2. GPS;
    3. Custom workouts;
    4. Barometer (if you think you might use it for navigation).

    After those, it’s all just (expensive) bells and whistles.

    Scott Semple on · in reply to: Heart Rate Drift Tests without a watch? #43698

    What Owen said!

    Scott Semple on · in reply to: Nasal Breathing for AeT Training #43692

    Lactose or lactate? 🙂

    A lactate meter could be an option, but it might be cumbersome. Usually, lactate is measured and then calibrated with a pace, power, or heart rate. And then the athlete trains by pace, power, or heart rate.

    You could use a lactate meter while you’re training, but you’d have to stop to sample. That’s not a negative training-wise—they would be short stops—but you’d have to decide if it’s worthwhile.

    Scott Semple on · in reply to: AeT Test, discrepancy RPE/Breathing/Lactate #43691

    Super! Good work.

    This may be of interest:

    How ‘Trainable’ Is VO2 Max Really? – A Case Study

    Scott Semple on · in reply to: Which is more effective for base training #43680

    What Rachel said!

    Scott Semple on · in reply to: Cycling Transfering #43676

    Makes sense.

    My hope is that the Aerobic and mental aspect of slogging on a bike will have some transfer to hiking and running. Thoughts?

    I don’t have enough cycling experience to say. (I’m just getting started with it.) But a friend who is a competitive MTBer says he hates running with his wife because it kills his legs. He almost never runs though.

    Perhaps the others in this thread can comment.

Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 1,180 total)