Downhill Resistance Training for the Uphill Skier

In the last week, the thing on this site that I thought would trigger vigorous discussion was the picture of folding trekking poles–does anybody here remember the many pages of energy and electrons expended on the debate about folding trekking poles? I’m not sure the “training debate” will approach the level of fervor and controversy generated by that discussion, or other threads about issues great and small that have taken place in these pages, such as whether or not to use ski tethers, or the complexities of global warming, but it has the potential to go the distance. In that spirit, I offer the following.

There are many good points in the posts above, such as, a) People are individual, b) Training can’t be precisely formulated, c) The greatest danger is to believe one knows the truth, and d) Training advice changes over time. These points are very reasonable, of course. However, they are also somewhat irrelevant. Just because they are obviously true, doesn’t mean that the training advice offered by the OP and subsequent commentators is advised, even in a general sense beyond, “Go out and do some exercise,” which is hardly a worthy subject of an article (although perhaps the most important truth in all this.). Additionally, buried within these comments is one very important point related to epistemology that is quite dangerous, I believe. I’ll focus on that, and then return to training (the beauty of Wildsnow–it arcs gracefully from ski poles to epistemology, as it traces winding curves through snowfields of intellectual delight).

In one of the comments, somebody wrote, “I always cringe a bit when people bring science into the training equation. Not that it’s not legit, it is, but because people are so different and even science is not perfect. If it were, progression would cease. In my life, the science has changed drastically!”

I think this reflects a deep miss-understanding of science that is all too common these days, and contributes to a great many problems in the world. Science does not purport to know or tell the truth. It never has, and it never will, and no responsible scientist would make this claim. The only thing science can tell us is the most reasonable thing to believe based on our current knowledge, understanding, and evidence, with the assumption that this will most certainly develop further or change dramatically in the future. The statement that a perfect science would lead to stasis is false–a perfect science would lead to a continual improvement of human knowledge and capacity. The fact that science always changes can absolutely not be used to reject whatever the findings of science may be at any one time, and we should not cringe when people bring science into the equation. Rejecting science based on the fact that it continually changes is a convenient way to ignore findings that don’t mesh with one’s personal belief system, which is obviously a dangerous trend in society. Should we be ever-vigilant and suspicious of new ideas? Yes. Should we continually experiment? Yes. Suspicion and experimentation are part of the foundation of science. But should we cling to the false idea that science and scientists purport to know the truth, or reject science because it changes over time, or place science on the same level as other belief systems because of it’s limitations? Absolutely not. Good good training science would absolutely recognize the variability of individual response, and the great deal we do not know about human performance, but it would also offer the most reasonable training advice we have, and should therefore be welcome.

With a scientific viewpoint, what do I object to in the training advice offered above? If my understanding of current general principles of training that have proved successful for a wide variety of athletes at all levels is correct, going for a run before strength training is not ideal. Why not? Unless that run is nothing more than a very light 15-20 minute warm up, then you would arrive at a strength training session somewhat fatigued, and would therefore not be able to do the strength workout as effectively, and thereby extract the maximum benefit from that session, as you would otherwise. Moreover, you would mix the signals you are sending to your body–aerobic stimulus and strength training stimulus. The adaptations specific to those two stimuli can work at cross-purposes, so you would not derive the aerobic or recovery benefit from a 30 minute run that you otherwise would, nor would you derive the maximal strength training benefit. It would make more sense to do the 30 minute run at one point in the day, for example, in the morning, then recover, and then do the strength training in the afternoon. Or, if you absolutely had to combine the two, it would make more sense to do the strength training first (because to get real benefit you need to be fresh) and then go for an easy run to recover, but you would then run the risk of not allowing yourself to recover adequately from strength training. If you are pressed for time, the best would probably just be to have strength days and running days, and not mix the two, which (not coincidentally) is how many athletes train. It’s tempting to combine the two–it certainly seems to simulate real-world efforts–but it’s not good training.

Likewise, the sprint workout mentioned above, like so many high intensity workouts, interval programs, Cross Fit stuff, and so on, that are so popular these days, mixes and muddles training. High intensity aerobic training has a strength component. And strength training has an aerobic component. And mixing the two, in specific ways at specific times, for particular athletes at particular points in their progression, can be advantageous. But most people, who are not complete beginners nor elite athletes, are better served with a steady diet of low intensity endurance training, supplemented by strength training. If you think you have the deep, multiple-year, low-intensity endurance foundation to benefit from sprint training or intervals–Great! You would be advised to get some metabolic testing done to confirm that is true, and progress accordingly. But for most people, advising intervals or sprint training is problematic. The adaptations to high intensity training can reduce endurance capacity. As above, for most people, that time would be better spent doing low-intensity endurance work. And jumping into high intensity training is a recipe for over training and injury, especially for older athletes with families, careers, and limited time (I fall into this category). The same applies to the one-hour speed training described above. I think that would be counter-productive for most people. Don’t get me wrong–pushing hard is fun, and it feels good to get the body moving. The best thing about these kinds of workouts is that they get people moving and exercising. But doing the right training at the right time is part of the disciple of training.

So that’s where I’m coming from. Science is real and should always be welcome. All movement and exercise is good. Productive training follows clear general principles. Mixing aerobic and strength training can be problematic. Prescribing high-intensity workouts for most people can have negative consequences.

opps, I meant to say “incorrectly” characterized above.

Thanks Lou :). When arguing about things like folding ski poles, tele tech vs. pin tech, and how best to train for sliding downhill, it helps to leaven the gravity with a bit of literary flair–as you well know. I LOVE the new content, but I do miss your musings!

Glad this post is still going. Mike–I appreciate your answers about training. Your results speak for themselves. Respect. Your training regimes have obviously been honed from many productive years of hard work. Obviously they work for you, and as you said training is so individualized that an approach based on experimentation is good advice. About diet and fat adaptation, some thoughts. For many years, I laughed at the popular LCHF diet fad, but I found my way to it for personal reasons. I got injured, and my activity level dropped. I wanted to promote healing, and not gain weight during my recovery. I realized that for years I was not eating enough protein–I’m not talking about crazy amounts, I just wasn’t meeting recommended guidelines for somebody of my activity level and size. So I started eating more protein, an, to offset those additional calories I had to cut calories somewhere else. I already eat very little fat, and so I began to restrict low nutrition carbs. I haven’t eaten rice, pasta, or other other such foods for over a year, despite being a former carb lover. I have not stopped eating bread–I love good, dark, whole wheat bread. I have no problem with carbs–they were just the first to go when I decided to adjust overall calories for more protein. Another aspect is taste at altitude. I struggle to find foods that my body wants to eat at altitude. Pure sugary carb snacks (typical energy bar) just start to be unpalatable to me when I am climbing or camping in the mountains. The foods with somewhat higher fat/protein (like a protein bar) are often more tasty, so for that reason alone I eat more of them, and thus stay fueled and maintain my reserves. Again, this is a roundabout route to a lower carb and higher protein diet. Regarding fasting, my understanding is that the food you need to eat for exercise largely depends on the intensity level you are maintaining relative to your maximum. At lower intensities you can go for hours with fats. At higher intensities you will need to fuel regularly with sugars to maintain blood sugar/preserve glycogen/prevent yourself from bonking. Fasted training helps encourage your body body to use fats for as long as possible at lower intensities before shifting more to carbs, and perhaps with regular fasted training you can increase the intensity threshold of when you body will shift to more carbs. But at higher intensities you will still need sugars. Even in highly trained endurance athletes, I’m not sure these rules don’t apply; if they are working at low intensity (for them) they can rely on mostly fats, and if they are working at high intensity (for them) they will need to fuel with sugars. Does this seem right? I’ve never experimented with fasted training, beyond the ups and downs that come with any long commitment to endurance sports.

Thanks Robert for the comments. I’ve heard more than once from the research folks via podcast that athletes in the 10-20 hour/week training range are inherently in fasted states (training without full muscle glycogen replenishment), exactly as you point out thus it is just part of the stimulus. UA in their articles specifically suggests that the fasted workouts are valuable for the ~6-10 hour crowd. Totally agree on the Keto cult challenge of nuanced argument. In various interviews Laurent Bannock has hosted, he repeatedly highlights that the definition of LCHF is problematic, and that aside from the performance argumentation, adherence to keto is very challenging for many people. Also that a non-keto lower carb intake is probably a good thing and can be achieved without all sorts of extreme effort and calculation.