– The Backcountry Ski Touring Blog
  • Avalanches
  • Gear Reviews
    • Ski Reviews
    • Boot Reviews
    • Binding Reviews
    • Snowboard Splitboard
    • Book Reviews
    • Avalanche Beacon Reviews
    • Airbag Backpacks
    • Backcountry Electronics
    • Misc Gear Reviews
  • Podcast
  • Tips & Tricks
    • Ski Touring Basics
    • Boot Fitting
    • Fitness & Health
    • Gear Mods
  • Trip Reports
    • Fourteeners
    • Huts – Cabins – Lodges
    • Denali McKinley
    • 8,000 Meter Skiing
  • Stories
    • History
    • Humor
    • Land Use Issues
    • Evergreen Ski Touring
    • Poetry
  • Resources
    • All Posts Listed
    • 100 Recent Comments
    • Backcountry Skiing & Ski Touring Webcams
    • Ski Weights Comparison
    • Archives of WildSnow.com
    • Authors Page
    • Ski Touring Bindings
      • Trab TR2 Index and FAQ
      • Salomon Guardian & Tracker
      • Naxo Backcountry Skiing Bindings – Info Index
      • Silvretta Pure Backcountry Skiing Bindings – Info Index
      • Marker F10-12 Duke Baron
      • G3 Onyx Ski Binding FAQ
      • G3 ION Ski Touring Binding
      • Fritschi Backcountry Skiing Bindings – Info Index
      • Fritschi Diamir Frame Bindings Mount DIY
      • Fritschi Diamir Bindings FAQ
      • Fritschi Tecton FAQ
      • Atomic Salomon Backland MTN
      • Dynafit Tri-Step Binding 2001-2003
      • Naxo randonnee alpine touring AT ski binding FAQ
      • Dynafit Skiing Bindings – Info Index
      • Dynafit Binding Frequently Asked Questions FAQ
      • Dynafit Beast 16 FAQ Review 1
      • Dynafit Beast 16 FAQ Page Two
    • History
      • Ski Touring Binding Museum
      • Trooper Traverse Intro & Index
      • Randonnee Ski Touring “AT” ski gear — What is Hip?
      • Chronology
    • Backcountry Skiing Core Glossary
    • Gear Review Policy & Disclosures

– The Backcountry Ski Touring Blog

Banner
  • Avalanches
  • Gear Reviews
    • Ski Reviews
    • Boot Reviews
    • Binding Reviews
    • Snowboard Splitboard
    • Book Reviews
    • Avalanche Beacon Reviews
    • Airbag Backpacks
    • Backcountry Electronics
    • Misc Gear Reviews
  • Podcast
  • Tips & Tricks
    • Ski Touring Basics
    • Boot Fitting
    • Fitness & Health
    • Gear Mods
  • Trip Reports
    • Fourteeners
    • Huts – Cabins – Lodges
    • Denali McKinley
    • 8,000 Meter Skiing
  • Stories
    • History
    • Humor
    • Land Use Issues
    • Evergreen Ski Touring
    • Poetry
  • Resources
    • All Posts Listed
    • 100 Recent Comments
    • Backcountry Skiing & Ski Touring Webcams
    • Ski Weights Comparison
    • Archives of WildSnow.com
    • Authors Page
    • Ski Touring Bindings
      • Trab TR2 Index and FAQ
      • Salomon Guardian & Tracker
      • Naxo Backcountry Skiing Bindings – Info Index
      • Silvretta Pure Backcountry Skiing Bindings – Info Index
      • Marker F10-12 Duke Baron
      • G3 Onyx Ski Binding FAQ
      • G3 ION Ski Touring Binding
      • Fritschi Backcountry Skiing Bindings – Info Index
      • Fritschi Diamir Frame Bindings Mount DIY
      • Fritschi Diamir Bindings FAQ
      • Fritschi Tecton FAQ
      • Atomic Salomon Backland MTN
      • Dynafit Tri-Step Binding 2001-2003
      • Naxo randonnee alpine touring AT ski binding FAQ
      • Dynafit Skiing Bindings – Info Index
      • Dynafit Binding Frequently Asked Questions FAQ
      • Dynafit Beast 16 FAQ Review 1
      • Dynafit Beast 16 FAQ Page Two
    • History
      • Ski Touring Binding Museum
      • Trooper Traverse Intro & Index
      • Randonnee Ski Touring “AT” ski gear — What is Hip?
      • Chronology
    • Backcountry Skiing Core Glossary
    • Gear Review Policy & Disclosures
   

Downhill Resistance Training for the Uphill Skier

by Mike Marolt October 2, 2019
written by Mike Marolt October 2, 2019
There is no better feeling than reaching the top with “gas in the tank” to ski back down.

There is no better feeling than reaching the top with “gas in the tank” to ski back down. Photo: Steve Marolt

How resistance training can strengthen downhill skiing

It’s that time of year when people are looking ahead towards ski season, and often I get emails and messages asking me: “what are you doing to get in shape for the ski season?” The reality is, the best way to get in shape for skiing is actually skiing. So regardless of what you do before you click into your bindings, remember when the snow flies, you need to break into the season slowly. In the meantime, however, there are things you can do that will greatly increase and expedite your ability to regain that mid-season form. The main ingredient? Resistance training.

For AT skiing and ski mountaineering, there is an obvious need to push for endurance. You have to be able to climb up to get to the skiing. The good news is that most uphill athletes effectively convert from season to season whether skiing to biking or trail running, hiking etc. Especially in mountain communities, endurance training is more a way of life than training. It’s part of our culture. I shudder to refer to it as training at all. So I won’t bore you with that. What I do want to discuss is the actual “training” needed to round out an uphill athlete’s winter ambition — to ski down after an enduring climb.

Some physiology of skiing

At age 54, after some 30 years of climbing for my own skiing, the ramifications of my pursuits are often painfully obvious. Not to get too technical, but when a skier inclines at a mere 30%, an average moderate speed turn, the combination of gravity and body weight creates up to 1.5 G’s, or rather his or her weight plus half of it again. The faster you go and the higher you jump, the more pressure you create. There’s nothing you can do to eliminate this pressure, but the sensation of it all is what many psychologists suggest makes skiing desirable in the first place. But with the addictive sensation of skiing comes wear and tear on your body. Bluntly put, the human body has not evolved to be a skier.

The G force of skiing is inherent

The G force of skiing is inherent. Photo: Steve Marolt

The body does however have mechanisms in place to accommodate it; our muscles, tendons, cartilage, and bones work together to “even the load,” if you will. But the issue for AT skiing is that after a significant effort to reach the top of a slope you want to ski, often the critical component of the system, your muscles, become extremely fatigued, leaving the tendons, cartilage, and bones to take up the load. It gets worse. With prolonged endurance training alone, the mass of all components is lost. This is why endurance runners are so thin, and why after the Tour De France athletes have to watch their steps, literally, with broken bones being a common injury due to excessive bone density loss. But even by the day, for ski mountaineering, what seems like an “easier way” to descend, on skis compared to walking, actually becomes a monumental task after hours of climbing. Tired muscles subject you to sloppy unsatisfying skiing at best, and injury at worst to bones and tendons that rely on muscles to take the brunt of the load. So the idea is not to eliminate endurance, but to enhance it. The key is resistance training.

How resistance training fits in

Disclaimer: I’m not a physical therapist or professional trainer so I won’t pretend I have the answers or suggest a regimented routine. What I do have is a few decades of ski mountaineering that included seemingly endless training with also seemingly endless experimenting. Coupled with many hundreds if not thousands of days climbing and skiing, the overall gist of what I have discovered is that “training” can be and should become part of the AT skiing lifestyle. I honestly believe that what success I’ve achieved in the backcountry can be attributed to forcing myself — gasp — to including regular and consistent trips to the weight room.

The downside perceived by many endurance athletes is that adding resistance training detracts from the ability to say run up Aspen Mountain in less than 40 minutes. And that is a fair assessment. Resistance training builds muscle which adds weight to your body which slows down an endurance athlete. For AT skiing and especially ski mountaineering, however, we are dealing with a sport that includes both a need for power and endurance. As I said before, skiing requires the human body to deal with forces that are simply not normal.

For me, and again, I am not professing to be an expert, what I have found is that while I never forgo resistance training in my weekly routine, for the few months before ski season, I definitely concentrate my gym workouts to be slightly more intensive towards overall power and strength training. During the summer I generally ride my mountain bike for two days, trail run for two days, and hit the gym two days with one day to rest. During the fall when the weather gets mucky, I put the bike away and add another day in the gym eliminating a bit of endurance training. By around turkey day, I am a few pounds heavier than during the summer, my endurance is not what it was in July, but my power and endurance are in key shape to take on skiing. Then, when the snow flies and I can click into my skis, I am ready to ski into shape.

This is fairly generic, but with purpose. People come in all shapes and forms, and also have different goals for their skiing. So you have to figure out what is best for you. Talk to trainers. Read books. Talk to other people with similar desires. Age is also a critical factor. At my age, I can no longer squat under a barbell with enormous weight or much weight at all. My body simply can’t take the torque of heavy weight lifting. But I can do a variety of TRX and rubber band work as well as body weight repetitions (e.g. one leg squats and jumps etc.) and have found great success.

There is also a plethora of classes professional trainers offer as “Ski Conditioning.” I’m not much for classes, but many people rave about the success of these. The key is to make training enjoyable so you want to do it. It’s tough to sacrifice a beautiful fall afternoon to go inside to a gym, I get it, but if you can bite the bullet, the sacrifice becomes addictive. I look forward to my gym workouts. And there is no rule you can’t do both. Go for a half hour run and end in the gym. Along those lines, before you hit the resistance training, it is always advisable to warm up for 20 or 30 minutes with aerobic training. That warm up is key. Not only does it prevent potential injury from cold resistance workouts, but with a solid warm up, it allows for a short and super intense resistance training session or less time inside.

The fatigue from a long, high climb can completely deplete you without resistance training.

The fatigue from a long, high climb can completely deplete you without resistance training. Photo: Steve Marolt

Another thing I have experimented with the past several years is a dreaded sprint routine. One day a week, before I do a resistance routine, I do this 20 minute routine: 6 minutes easy warm up on a tread mill, then a minute sprint followed by a minute to recover, and then repeat 7 times with a warm down. If you just can’t bring yourself to resistance training, a sprint workout is almost as effective. The sprint aspect is a form of resistance training, but physiologically, it also increases your body’s production of growth hormones, which adds power to your entire body. Especially as I have aged, this workout one day per week has become critical for overall power and endurance. It’s not fun, but the results are pretty amazing.

You can make it as regimented or relaxed as you want, but the key is to do it — resistance training for a minimum of three days per week in the months before you ski. The good news: skiing after a long climb with a solid resistance program makes all the difference in the world. Personally, the last few years I’ve tended to forget about the resistance training compared to the high of being able to travel up a mountain as if floating. But I paid the price with abysmal skiing on the descent. Tired legs made the love of skiing almost agony at times. I chalked it up to age. But recently, I added more intensive resistance training back to my routine with methods more appropriate for my age. It has made a tremendous difference allowing me to enjoy why so many people earn their turns — to ski.

Editor’s note: There are as many recipes for developing downhill fitness as flavors in a grocery cereal aisle. For another take on this topic, check out this strength training article from Training the Uphill Athlete.

Mike Marolt is a USA National Ski and Snowboard Hall of Famer. He has spent the last 30 years climbing and skiing with his identical twin brother Steve and lifelong friend Jim Gile on expeditions to over 50 peaks in the 5000 meter to 8000 meter arena. He has produced several films on his expeditions and will release a book on skiing the high peaks this fall. Check out the recent Totally Deep Podcast featuring Mike and Steve.

29 comments
1
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
previous post
Pre-season Checklist — Ski Touring Gear Upkeep
next post
La Sportiva Skorpius CR — First Look Review

29 comments

AaronT October 2, 2019 - 10:51 am

I am sold on resistance training of a variety of methods as super critical to my yearly performance but also to my long term health (especially as a mid 40s dad no longer in my prime) . Full disclosure I am fanboy of UA (Uphill Athlete) as their guidance has changed my fitness and general well being for the better. Referencing their material here is not meant to distract from your helpful article.

Avoiding muscle bulk development is a big theme of theirs, with their recommendations moving through (or combining in some instances) resistance training stages of: transition/pre-hab (addressing any fundamental deficiencies), general strength (building basic capacity and soft tissue strength to enable subsequent workouts), max strength (neuro-muscular focused) and ultimately muscular endurance (more metabolic focused). All of these studiously avoid reps to failure (hypertrophy) to avoid building muscle mass detrimental to long duration mountain endurance pursuits. This article gives a great short and simple overview with lniks to more detailed ME workouts. FWIW I have found the max strength work extremely helpful.

https://www.uphillathlete.com/kis-strength/

Bruno October 2, 2019 - 12:03 pm

I’ll second the recommendation to check out UA if you would like information about training. The general message in this article–strength training is great for endurance athletes–is absolutely true, but some of the specific prescriptions, such as going for a run before strength training, or the sprint routine, do not align with best practices for optimal training for the great majority of athletes, and are probably inefficient and perhaps detrimental to building either endurance or strength, to the best of my knowledge. Physical activity is always great–indoors, outdoors, and so on. Moving is better than not moving. Get out there and exercise! But if you want to move with purpose, there are probably more effective ways to build strength and endurance than those described here, and I say that with all due respect for the evident success and obvious lifelong accomplishments of the author.

XXX_er October 2, 2019 - 12:31 pm

I had a big goal to attain and I didn’t know whom to ask so I e-mailed a famous Rando type cuz he must know right ?

Buddy said ” Al, train to know you can do it, once you know it will be easy and do speed work, 1hr skinning sessions as fast as you can ”

The speed work did make me wicked fast, like having an extra gear over the average ski tourer (which has lapsed) but I was never sure I could make it till I did

Bruno October 2, 2019 - 12:50 pm

I’m going to be the voice of “training police” here, and I might get criticized for that, but I respect Wildsnow as a source for quality information, so I’m going to stick to calling out what I think is limited or inaccurate. I’m not an expert, but I’ve put in the time to learn the basics, and what I’m hearing in the post from XXX_ER, and in the original article, as I commented above, really does seem to perpetuate a lot of widely disseminated training myths that are not grounded in good science or best practice. Roughly, as the source cited by XXX_ER suggested, a huge part of physical training is mental training–you train and prepare the mind at the same time that you train the body. But the idea that back country skiers (or any athletes) should prepare for big goals by going out and doing 1 hour speed work as fast as possible is deeply flawed, and for many athletes could seriously set them back. By all means, don’t take my word for it: like the first person who posted here suggested, go over to Uphill Athlete for quality information, or read some reputable training texts for running, cross country skiing, cycling, and so on, and apply that to your own sport. The best voices in the field are not promoting Gospels or novel Kool aid, they are delivering proven, evidence-based practices to build endurance and strength. It takes time, but it works.

Aaron Trowbridge October 2, 2019 - 1:49 pm

Xxx and I happen to live in the same town and I have shared my polite opinion in the past that the advice Mr x shared with Xxx was sandbagged and not in the context of the insane aerobic base Mr x happened to have (world elite level). Think hundreds of days of 10,000′ days 🙂

XXX_er October 2, 2019 - 1:58 pm

In a short email reply famous Rando guy said to go somewhere beyond the next level ski a bunch and do speed work.
Famous Rando guy is famous enough to not have a real job, he just skis so its obviously worked for him
and it worked for not famous me, of course … ymmv

Robert Cooper October 2, 2019 - 2:59 pm

From someone who has attempted a variety of sports and training plans, I don’t think there is anything detrimental written in this article. I have also read UA and think its an amazing resource. It would be great to open a training manual and to take every word as gospel. Unfortunately training is like nutrition. It is highly individualized and can’t be prescribed.
If you really want to get specific there are chapters in the UA that uncover myths of training that were perpetuated by proclaimed professionals and coaches. Its great that they took these myths on, but I would remind the reader that in 10 or 20 years someone will write a book debunking the gospel of the UA and all of its fans and it will be onto the next manual. If everyone spoke more like Mike, with less certainty and more openness for different methods, it would save everyone a lot of stress of worrying about if they were doing it “right”. I guess that tone doesn’t sell books or coaching though.

Manasseh October 2, 2019 - 2:53 pm

Funny story, XXX_er, and brings up a good point in this discussion as a whole. There’s certainly a lot of conflicting information about training out there. Some is just plain wrong, but a lot of it does work for different people. It would be convenient for the perfect recipe to exist (especially if it suited everyone’s time constraints equally), but we’ve all got different bodies and different goals. A lot of folks seem to benefit from resistance training sprinkled into endurance training. Does that delegitimize info offered in UA or vice versa? I don’t believe so. Just adds to the options of things to try as we’re all trying to perfect our own recipes.

Rod Marshall October 2, 2019 - 3:10 pm

Training? Do some.
Follow a guru or go your own way. What works for subject A will probably work for subject B but might not give the same results.
Sports scientists love to measure stuff so they can prove “it” works. Just be careful who they’re measuring and against what criteria.
I read a great piece on the “best” interval training only to read in the small print the test subjects were obese women in the forties! As I’m not an obese 40something female those may not be the “best” intervals for me but they’d probably still have some effect.
Although in general the sports scientists tend to be studying how to get that extra 1% out of the top 1% in their chosen field, which isn’t me either.
So if Mike got some benefit from sprint workouts and xxxer reports that 1 hour sufferfests were a winner then they were.
You may argue that the time may have been better spent doing something else, or argue they’re out there experimenting, finding out for themselves. Neither are suggesting that was their only training.
Personally, if like me (and Mike) you’re over fifty then I recommend you read”Faster after 50″ by Joe Friel. Not ski specific, more aimed at aging endurance athletes. Without wishing to spoil it for you, he recommends adding resistance training, interval training, eating more protein and getting more rest.
For ski specific strength workouts I’d point you to programs from Mountain Athlete.
Ultimately I think the “best” training program is the one you’ll actually follow.

Aaron Trowbridge October 2, 2019 - 6:09 pm

There is some good and timeless advice out there. Lift heavy things. Move in lots of different ways. Run/hike /ski lots, some of it hard.

Mike Marolt October 2, 2019 - 3:18 pm

Bruno, I didn’t say you need to do speed workouts for an hour. It’s actually a routine developed by the UCLA track team and it’s called the “20 minute sprinter’s workout”. And you are correct, it’s not for everyone. Some people don’t respond to that concept or to training science the same way. In my career, the bible was Mark Twight’s method. I started with that all in. But given I work 40 hours a week, have kids, there was no way it was going to work for me. I would find myself at the end of the week too tired to sleep, literally. So I backed off. Even there, sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t. But what did work was the general theme of stages, power, then endurance then power and endurance. I experimented for a few years and figured out what parts worked and what didn’t for the specific goals I had. The point is, the worst thing you can do is believe that the science is exact. It’s not.What works for me, a 54 year old ski mountaineer may not work for a 25 year old doing the same ( or even for my identical twin brother. Our workouts are entirely different. ) And within the sport there are different goals. The protocol for a skimo racer is far from the perfect routine for the ski mountaineer that is going to be putting in long days for weeks at a clip. You’d never dream of deprivation training for a skimo competition, nor would any manual or program suggest it’s a good thing in general. But for ski mountaineering, based on my experience, you have to get used to carrying a liter or two max for a 17 hour or longer day because you simply can’t carry it or rather I can’t. Not many skimo racers can do that without training for it. 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! One good example is the science of high altitude. I’ts legit in general, but for a variety of reasons the protocol simply doesn’t mesh with my personal experience of going to altitude and how I have learned to thrive up high. Well, after tests, the science wasn’t wrong, but it didn’t apply to me. I am genetically different. That’s an entirely different story I don’t need to expand on here, but point being, the science didn’t apply to me personally. I’m not the only person to be a bit different. So to the article, you need to read, talk, and experiment. Experimenting with training takes time. To your point that just moving is critical, I totally agree. If you can’t get to a gym, do something anything. And finally, yes, the training is hugely mental. Before you get to a race or a peak or take on a goal, if you’ve done the work with your training, you can stand confident. The mountain is either going to let you climb and ski or it won’t despite your best effort sometimes.. There is no worse feeling then standing there unprepared. And after the goal, regardless of whether you attained it, if you did the work, trained to the best of your ability, the final tally boils down to luck. Training helps achieve your goals even when you don’t achieve them. And finally, to my over all point, and again, i am not an expert, resistance training is important.

Crazy Horse October 5, 2019 - 8:39 pm

Hi Mike,
I know this post is about the science of training for the uphill, but once you’ve done the uphill you still have to do the downhill. And both are more difficult if your downhill technique puts inordinate stress on your knees. When I look at the photo of you performing a mid radius turn from the standpoint of an alpine skier and old racer several things jump out. You are trying to drive the outside ski by forcing your knee inside of your hip, and that involves blocking your hip to transfer rotation to the knee. But it isn’t working because the edge of the front part of the outside ski isn’t engaged as can be seen from the fact that it isn’t throwing any snow. Most of your weight is on the inside ski, along with the tail of the outside ski.
Even with a spectacular level of conditioning and some strength training as well, poor downhill technique puts the knees and hips at unnecessary risk. There is a reason why so many of my friends who have been lifelong skiers are having knee and hip replacements at 60-70.

When I encounter similar technical problems with people trying reach the next level in their skiing I find that many if not most are struggling to overcome poor biodynamic alignment in their equipment setup. Not surprising, concerning that off the shelf bindings can have as much as 7 degrees positive to 20 degrees negative ramp angle, canting is typically ignored even though it can make edge engagement nearly impossible, and harsh cuff alignment may make the boot act like a Corvette with no shock absorbers. And in the AT world the drive for weight savings makes it very difficult to design a boot that allows the kind of precision control that makes the downhill a dance rather than a thrash.

Professional Runner October 2, 2019 - 3:56 pm

Training is so individualized and the founders at UA are a mountaineer and a swimmer- neither are Mike Marolt. Uphill Athlete is a one coaching philosophy it is not the Bible. Many consider themselves uphill endurance athletes and the term is not coined by any specific identity. There is a lot of truth in phasing in strength to support your base endurance. I’m sure that we can agree that all athletes training/racing in the mountains will each have a unique background, and can agree that endurance background and consistent “movement” trumps strength training and speed…But in a well trained endurance athletes phasing in appropriate individualized strength and speed training will support the endurance athletes in surpassing a plateau- taking their training to the next level. The strength training will also aid in preventing injuries.

With that said, I agree with Rod when he says “Sports scientists love to measure stuff so they can prove “it” works. Just be careful who they’re measuring and against what criteria”.
Also this article published by Wild Snow is a great article by Mike Marolt whose resume speaks for himself, a USA National Ski and Snowboard Hall of Famer. He has spent the last 30 YEARS climbing and skiing with his identical twin brother Steve and lifelong friend Jim Gile on expeditions to over 50 peaks in the 5000 meter to 8000 meter arena.

So perhaps we just simply need to respect the skier in this article and gleam valuable information from his personal experience.

Bruno October 2, 2019 - 5:31 pm

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.

Mike Marolt October 2, 2019 - 6:21 pm

Good response! And I’m a fan of the science as you are. What I meant is sure use the tech and knowledge available but don’t let it rule. If the science says you should do something and you try it and it doesn’t net a good result or you just hate doing the protocol based on the science, it’s not going to net much. Along those lines, I don’t even like to refer to all this as training. We climb and ski for fun and getting ready for that fun should be…fun. Sometimes the science turns fun into training. But yes as a basis the science is great for the do’s and more important the don’t’s. In other words yes do resistance training because science says it’s good, but play around and experiment and find what works and what is doable for a consistent routine.

Robert Cooper October 2, 2019 - 6:06 pm

“Prescribing high-intensity workouts for most people can have negative consequences” You are clearly blending theories here. I believe Mike from the article is recommending 7 minutes of higher intensity exercise to be done once a week. This is not advocating high-intensity workouts as described in the UA. Recommending experimenting with this and seeing how your body feels is 100% sound advice and can be done safely without paying for a metabolic test.

Pepper October 2, 2019 - 9:50 pm

Agree 100% with your comments as exemplified in my being.

Rod Marshall October 3, 2019 - 3:30 am

For the record I believe in science.
It may just be the semantics of how different coaches interpret it and then the emphasis they put on different aspects. I found this an interesting piece on the UAs latest tome:

https://itsallaboutthevertical.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/training-for-the-uphill-athlete-review-a-new-milestone-in-quality-and-thoroughness-in-a-training-guide-for-the-endurance-athlete/

I like the Mountain Athlete stuff but it’s obvious Rob Shaul is approaching it from the perspective of a strength and conditioning coach rather than an endurance coach. This doesn’t mean it’s less valuable!

Clearly no one(here) is saying just go out and do intervals. The advice will always come to add them at some stage in the pursuit of improved performance, at any age.

Personally I start with what I did last year and ask myself if I was happy with how it went. Don’t do the same thing over again and expect different results!

Ski touring/mountaineering is, I would suggest, a hybrid activity. That gives you plenty of leeway and scope to experiment. It has elements of endurance, usually under load. Strength and “power” in respect of resisting gravity, skill and balance (the actual skiing!) Try and do a bit of each.
I realise I may be straying into the realms of vagueness but the specific advice must be diferent based on training history (or lack of), age, relative skill level etc… the list could be endless.
Bring on the snow!

Scott S. Allen October 3, 2019 - 12:59 pm

Rod,
Thanks for the link to article on “itsallaboutthevertical” I have read both of House’s & Johnston’s titles and appreciate a critical, scientific eye on their work that nonetheless applauds their general efforts. Since many commenters above seem to be training well past their 50’s, here is another resource for us gray-haired warriors: https://www.velopress.com/fast-50-ageless-athlete/

Mike,
Your title & theme for this post arrived at a good moment in my pre-season training since I have identified my downhill skiing muscles as weaker than my uphill endurance. Cheers to a call for resistance this winter and a great season for all!

AaronT October 3, 2019 - 1:05 pm

Thanks Rod for that link, very interesting to see his positive and critical review. In particular the criticism on their treatment of fat adaptation. I have left comments (copied below) for him on that review as I’d like to explore that angle more. Full disclosure: I am 100% amateur but am fascinated by this stuff and tend to geek out on it. I may have the science on this totally characterized.
—–
UA is pretty clear they do not buy into the LCHF/Keto approach. Their buy-in aligns along periodized approaches to fasted workouts to increase stimulus of mitochondria biogenesis and resulting increased shift towards more fat utilization at relative higher intensities or duration. Their approach is detailed much better in these blog articles vs. the book:
https://www.uphillathlete.com/tips-for-fasted-training/
https://www.uphillathlete.com/maximize-fat-adaptation/
https://www.uphillathlete.com/nutrition-fat-adaptation/

My take is that UA is on the right ground here blending what is currently known by science and has been observed by coaches and athletes while avoiding the keto bandwagon.

From the podcasts I have listened to with Louise Burke and Mike Nelson etc. (e.g. Science of Ultra, Sigma Nutrition, Guru Performance) this approach of periodized approaches to fasted training to maintain metabolic flexibility of CH while enhancing fat utilization seems to hold big promise and the right balance point in contrast to the keto approach. Burkes Project SuperNova interview on Sigma Nutrition was pretty interesting and highlights for me how studies focused on LCHF might not pick up on the periodized/fasted flexibility angle and how the studies definition of endurance event is at the extreme low end of what UA audience considers endurance (e.g. 2-3hrs vs 5-24 hrs), and at the relative lower paces/intensities of super long duration and high vertical where inherent paces provide more scope of benefit for utilizing fat substrates.
——

Mike Marolt October 3, 2019 - 10:24 pm

Interesting on fat. We started depravation training decades ago to get used to long days up high where you simply can’t carry much food and water. And ironically, compares to when we raced ultra mt bike races and bonking was a huge issue, I nor any of my partners have ever bonked even remotely at high (above 17,000 feet). I don’t know the medical term but it’s as if your body goes into survival mode up high and starts to metabolize fat as a power source. And btw, what Steve House is or has been doing on the subject is in my view, especially for the climbing aspect the most advanced. His site is great and the books super interesting and well done. He’s got the s pence AND experience to really be the go-to for athletes looking to do it right.

AaronT October 3, 2019 - 1:06 pm

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

Lou Dawson 2 October 6, 2019 - 7:37 am

Bruno, thanks for this, brought a smile to my morning: “the beauty of Wildsnow–it arcs gracefully from ski poles to epistemology, as it traces winding curves through snowfields of intellectual delight”

Bruno Schull October 6, 2019 - 10:24 am

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!

Robert October 6, 2019 - 7:21 pm

Hi Arront,

I ended up over here trying to see what WildSnow is about after a bunch of referrals to my site. Your comment never appeared at itsallaboutthevertical for some reason.

As it concerns the fat adaptation thing, the issue I had with Johnston (and let’s be clear, Johnston is writing 99% of the the stuff for UA) in Training for the Uphill Athlete, is that he used a study that tried to look at habitual diet (LFHC vs. CHO based) to support an argument about using lots of aerobic training to elicit fat adaptation. Using data where the purturbants are dissimilar is a no-no in science. Apples and oranges.

The fasting thing seems a bit contrived for me as, being a life-long endurance athlete (approaching 50 years of continuous endurance training), so-called “fasting” was/is a natural part of training for endurance sport. Prior to the days of the “candy bars” approach to fueling we have now where athletes seem to be unable to go for as little as 30 minutes without some sort of sugar, we fueled with whatever we could get our hands on that was portable. Much of this was actual food- bananas, various other fruits, ham and cheese sandwiches, nuts, etc. We often ran out of fuel and, I guess, participated in “fasted” training. This continues for me today as I rarely eat anything for aerobic endurance training sessions less than three hours and then only very little.

I agree that the whole fat adaptation thing is more nuanced as Burke, et al. have repeatedly asserted. But when you are up against a “cult’ LCHF movement, there is no winning, particularly when it comes to the pseudo-science of nutrition.

btw, your group here at WildSnow may be interested in some posts that my wife and I are putting out for the masters cross country skiing community (at thefastmaster.wordpress.com) . It’s basic stuff but, based in interactions with some of the backcountry people here in the Sun Valley area, much of what we do for cross country skiing training will apply to AT and SkiMo, particularly the strength training. Johnston’s strength training coverage in both Training for the New Alpinism and Training for the Uphill Athlete are stout and well worth a read. Our next post is on the subject of strength training.

Bruno Schull October 6, 2019 - 10:00 pm

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.

Rod Marshall October 7, 2019 - 6:52 am

Robert,
Thanks for the link to “Brave Enough”, not sure how I missed it.
Looks like my reading was about spot on, I’ve 3 out of 4 on your recommended list.
Regards

AaronT October 7, 2019 - 9:47 am

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.

Robert October 7, 2019 - 2:40 pm

Hi Rod, Arront, and Bruno,

Rod,
Sounds like we are on the same “page”!

Bruno,

I think you have the folklore on “fasted training” correct. I would suggest looking into the literature on the subject and critically reviewing the publications that supposedly support the theory. I think you will find the literature woefully weak when viewed from a proper scientific perspective. The field of nutrition is plagued by poorly designed studies, reliance on self-reported data (the weakest of all data types), unsupported conclusive statements, and essentially no replication. Yes, it is hard to do science when the number of confounding variables is large as it is when doing studies of humans, and I entirely appreciate the challenge; but that does not give license to make unsupported statements and mis-lead those who are looking for guidance. It’s a quite lamentable situation.

Arront,

Agree on the intent of the UA crowd but I have difficulty with those that point to Volek’s work on LCHF diet as an example of a method to attain high “fat adaptation.” The work is incomplete at best and the fact that such work gets published in peer-reviewed journals is endemic to a low-quality field of study. Not to be too negative, but clearly those in the field of nutrition are not doing much about the situation and it’s incumbent on the rest of us to say something. You might be interested to look into the work of Ioannidis on the broader concerns with much of the published research in the life sciences. a couple of links (one on nutrition and one on apparently corrupt research): https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/08/24/john-ioannidis-aims-his-bazooka-nutrition-science-13357 , and https://stanfordmag.org/contents/something-doesn-t-add-up

Agree on the lower carb thing, but again it is likely to be very individual. Just in our household we have some big differences- I’m low carb naturally and have to work to get sufficient calories in to support 15-20h of intensive training per week. My wife is an admitted “big eater” and high carb engine. We both train at similar levels for the same endurance sports and regularly compete at high levels. This has been the case since we met over 40 years ago. Her enzymatic profile is different than mine. You won’t see much data on enzymatic profiles of participants in nutrition studies, yet it is a critical variable in interpretation of much of the data. This is just one point… the list goes on.

Thanks for the reference to Laurent Bannock, I look forward to listening!

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments

  • Ian M. on Making Turns and Skintracks at Bluebird Backcountry
  • Jim Milstein on Food for Thought: On Slopes Above 25 Degrees, THINK
  • Sather on Food for Thought: On Slopes Above 25 Degrees, THINK
  • Ethan Ayer on Light(ish) & Robust — 2021/22 Fischer Transalp First Look
  • Andy Mason on A Tale of Two Gloves — BD Crew & OR Carbide – Review

Gear Reviews

  • Skis From the Future — 2021/22 Is All About the Freeride

    February 11, 2021
  • An Education on the Ephemeral Glide — Bases, Wax and DPS Phantom

    February 4, 2021
  • A Carbon Fibre Freeride Boot? — Pierre Gignoux Mountain Review

    February 1, 2021

Trip Reports

  • Celebrating the Low Danger, Low Angle Ski Tour

    February 16, 2021
  • Cooke City in Photos — Montana Trip Report

    January 29, 2021
  • Six Who Dared — Elk Mountains Traverse & Richard Compton Tribute

    January 7, 2021

Totally Deep Podcast

  • Griffin Post Stays Home — Totally Deep Podcast 83

    January 10, 2021
  • Risky Business — Zahan Billimoria on Solving for Z

    December 14, 2020
  • Totally Deep Podcast 81 — CAIC Director Ethan Greene

    December 9, 2020

Tips & Tricks

  • Warm Toes for Cold Smoke — Tips To Keep Your Feet Toasty

    February 8, 2021
  • The Five Pillars of Skintrack Wisdom

    December 17, 2020
  • 10 Essential Mistakes for the Backcountry Ski Touring Beginner

    December 2, 2020

Ski Touring Stories

  • Envisioning a Friendly, Busier Backcountry — Shaun Deutschlander Q&A

    January 18, 2021
  • Giving Myself the Gift of Backcountry

    January 15, 2021
  • Six Who Dared — Elk Mountains Traverse & Richard Compton Tribute

    January 7, 2021

Newsletter Sign-Up

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • About Lou Dawson
  • Authors Page
  • About
  • Contact
  • Copyright & Legal
  • Website Security

@2020 - All Rights Reserved. Designed and Developed by WildSnow


Back To Top

Read alsox

Making Turns and Skintracks at Bluebird...

February 24, 2021

Food for Thought: On Slopes Above...

February 22, 2021

Light(ish) & Robust — 2021/22 Fischer...

February 18, 2021