|
andrewbanandrew
Jan 8, 2008, 6:08 PM
Post #1 of 17
(1934 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 441
|
I'm not exactly the most cardiovascularly fit climber but I would like to begin alpine climbing this spring.
The trouble is that in the Cascades most everything has a reasonably long approach, so I'd like to condition for that.
I am guessing that the best way to condition for approaches is to hike more, but for the weekdays if I get sick of the stairmaster I wanted to know if cycling, swimming, or running fitness will translate to hiking fitness.
I suspect that the cardiovascular benefits will, but the muscular power won't. True?
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Jan 8, 2008, 6:25 PM
Post #2 of 17
(1916 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
IMO, the type of fitness you get from cycling, swimming, and running will certainly help with hiking, despite the fact that the "translation" may not be 100%.
For example, I can't run more than 20 miles a week without feeling too sore to climb. I like cycling because I can train every day for hours at a time and avoid the wear and tear on my joints. Ultimately, I've found that while the fitness "translation" from cycling to hiking is less-than-perfect, I can get into such good shape (i.e. several hours of output at elevated heart rates doesn't phase me), that it's more than worthwhile. So nowadays, I prefer to do my cardiovascular training on a bike.
At any rate, you'll need to figure out something to change your routine. A full winter of stairmaster only!? You'll go insane.
|
|
|
|
|
itstoearly
Jan 8, 2008, 6:41 PM
Post #3 of 17
(1895 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2005
Posts: 166
|
Although you may not be using the same muscles for your training exercises, you are still conditioning your heart and lungs, which will help you a great deal.
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Jan 8, 2008, 6:47 PM
Post #4 of 17
(1889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
your on the right track - cardio is the main concern and close behind is power. swimming, biking (road and mtn), running and hiking - in that order - IMO - for cardio.
off road running, hiking - with increasing amounts of weight in the pack, mtn biking all good for power.
use common sence - start light and on the flats then gradually increase pace and weight and decrease time - slowly.
track your efforts - write down distance, time, weather, weight on a given course and watch yourself improve.
i did these things before going to do some 14'ers and they still kicked my ass. coming from the thick air in the coastal region and going to 14,000 in three days was tough.
there's alot of genetics involved as well. some folks just can't do it no matter what or at least have it harder then others.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jan 8, 2008, 6:56 PM
Post #5 of 17
(1881 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
I'd recommend biking. I got into it a couple years ago and was really surprised at how much I enjoy it. You can go for a long time and cover a lot of ground. Plus, it's something you can open your garage and do. You can go solo or with friends. It's a lot easier on your body than running (running more than a few miles hurts me!)
The downsides is that you basically ahve to go for an hour or 90 minute minimum for it to be worth it. Three hour or longer rides are the best. You still need nice weather (unless you get a trainer, I don't have one) and it costs a lot more and is a less efficient way to get in shape than running.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jan 8, 2008, 7:02 PM
Post #6 of 17
(1873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
shimani's thinking is definitely along the right lines.
There is room for both GENERAL aerobic fitness activities as well as SPECIFIC aerobic fitness activities. Anything that improves your body's ability to uptake and utilize oxygen will transfer to some degree to improving your hiking fitness. The more specific the kind of activity, however, the more directly it will improve (esp. wrt the muscular endurance gained within the specific motor patterns of the muscle groups needed--like quads, glutes, low back, etc. for long, uphill hiking). Yet general aerobic training is far from useless as it keeps you mentally fresher and trains all muscle groups in a more balanced way for other activities in your daily life.
I use the Stepmill at the gym (instead of Stairmaster) for very approach-specific training and it has kicked butt getting me in shape for those uphill slogs. But I also attend cycling classes anywhere from 2x/mo to 1x/wk for something different and often use ellipticals or high incline treadmill walking, too. Typically, I do intervals on all activities utilizing different levels of % VO2max as my "sprint" work.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jan 8, 2008, 7:13 PM
Post #7 of 17
(1863 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
andrewbanandrew wrote: I suspect that the cardiovascular benefits will, but the muscular power won't. True?
Forgot to add--almost all general aerobic exercise involves using large muscle groups in a rhythmic fashion. Interval training of any form should help elevate your lactate threshold (a good thing when you need to turn on the juice for super steep or intense portions of approach); however, it's possible activities like cycling may do more for you than stuff like swimming since quads and glutes and low back are recruited in a more similar pattern of movement.
For true power training, this is where the weights come in. I utilize weight training and low level plyos even for marathon runners for power.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Jan 8, 2008, 8:14 PM
Post #8 of 17
(1826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Intervals are indeed valuable. But you also need to condition your body for long, brutal slogs so you need endurance workouts too.
BTW the term "lactate threshold" is as archaic as "fat burning zone." Lactate is not a limiting factor in performance, nor does it cause fatigue. At best, lactate levels in the blood slightly correspond to other things going on in the body. But it's an indirect measure and not as accurate as once thought.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jan 8, 2008, 8:40 PM
Post #9 of 17
(1804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: Intervals are indeed valuable. But you also need to condition your body for long, brutal slogs so you need endurance workouts too.
I've seen the best results with intervals, personally, with some shorter (read: less than 1 hour) endurance work here and there mixed in. In my experience, not too many people will get on a machine in the gym and perform "long, brutal" slogs akin to hours of work unless they are endurance runners bound in by winter or something.
In reply to: BTW the term "lactate threshold" is as archaic as "fat burning zone." Lactate is not a limiting factor in performance, nor does it cause fatigue. At best, lactate levels in the blood slightly correspond to other things going on in the body. But it's an indirect measure and not as accurate as once thought.
Anaerobic threshold, then. Happy?
What exactly do you consider "archaic"? Science that emerged only a few years ago ain't exactly archaic nor even accepted as "indisputable".....
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Jan 8, 2008, 9:06 PM
Post #10 of 17
(1777 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Agree about the intervals for inside stuff as effective and time efficient. But cycling, as someone else suggested, is great for longer sessions, which is one of the things the OP asked about. Running too but it's harder on the body.
AT is better but it really isn't even a threshold but more of a range and it's never all anaerobic. The whole concept of lactate being evil has been on the way out for a while now. But it will be a myth that dies hard just like FBZ, dehydration causes cramps, and a whole bunch of other old theories.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jan 8, 2008, 9:27 PM
Post #11 of 17
(1754 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: AT is better but it really isn't even a threshold but more of a range and it's never all anaerobic. The whole concept of lactate being evil has been on the way out for a while now. But it will be a myth that dies hard just like FBZ, dehydration causes cramps, and a whole bunch of other old theories.
AT actually isn't even the same as LT, really, but whatever. It's totally off topic!
I think you are writing the obituary for lactate's exact role far too soon and with far too simple a view on it all. Of course we have known for years that lactate is a fuel loved by things like the heart muscle among others, but at the same time it does play a role in lowering muscle pH which does affect mechanical action, not to mention this "evidence" has only studied what happens on individual rat muscles in a dish (well, probably they're suspended in some kind of solution, ha ha).
http://www.utmj.org/issues/84.1/Lactic.pdf
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/...tent/full/289/3/R902
Since we are def off topic, you can pm me if you like. 
|
|
|
|
|
paintrain
Jan 8, 2008, 10:10 PM
Post #12 of 17
(1729 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 184
|
There is no replacing doing the real thing.
Being generally cardio fit no matter what your method of masochism you choose helps. You will get sore as all get out if you only bike and run, then hike 12 miles in and out with gear to an alpine climb. But you will get there and back.
The big thing IMO is conditioning your body to a long day of physical output. Biking is good because you can operate at a lower aerobic output for a longer period of time which better mimics what you will end up with in the hills (unless you are really gunning). Running will help condition your knees. I wouldn't opt for swimming, unless you have bad knees.
Learn how to eat for a long day (you won't do well living on goo). And make sure you get out there and do the real thing on the weekends.
PT
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Jan 8, 2008, 10:57 PM
Post #13 of 17
(1703 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
andrewbanandrew wrote: I'm not exactly the most cardiovascularly fit climber but I would like to begin alpine climbing this spring. The trouble is that in the Cascades most everything has a reasonably long approach, so I'd like to condition for that. I am guessing that the best way to condition for approaches is to hike more, but for the weekdays if I get sick of the stairmaster I wanted to know if cycling, swimming, or running fitness will translate to hiking fitness. I suspect that the cardiovascular benefits will, but the muscular power won't. True?
Historically, the best way for ME has been to make a quick burn at the trailhead, put the head down and move. Before I know it, I've arrived at the destination.
|
|
|
|
|
builttospill
Jan 9, 2008, 12:24 AM
Post #14 of 17
(1660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2004
Posts: 814
|
Doesn't seem to have happened on this thread yet, but don't listen to the folks who will inevitably tell you that aerobic fitness outside of hiking is not important. It seems to happen every time.
I hate it when I go on trips with people who didn't think aerobic fitness was important. They may be able to climb harder than I can, but they're not as quick on the actual technical sections and they sure as hell lag on the uphill slog, even if I haven't done much hiking or alpine stuff prior to the trip (I mostly run). The difference alone was enough to convince me to keep running and doing other aerobic stuff, even if I didn't think it had a solid scientific foundation to justify it.
Seriously....huge difference between my friends that are out in the mountains once a week for long days and call it good, versus my schedule of not climbing much but running daily.
|
|
|
|
|
andrewbanandrew
Jan 9, 2008, 1:42 AM
Post #15 of 17
(1625 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 441
|
I think I'm going to start swimming first because it's accessible and different so it's at least interesting for now. I'm also damn tired after just 30 minutes of it (though that may just be poor form...either way, my heart and lungs are getting a work out).
I used to bike competitively for a short time and I do really enjoy it but i think squeezing the brake lever is aggravating my torn A4 pulley, so that's out.
I guess I'll pickup running and the stepmill too
|
|
|
|
|
hhelbein
Jan 9, 2008, 2:04 AM
Post #16 of 17
(1613 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2007
Posts: 112
|
You all just motivated me to put in an hour on a step machine with a pack. Good workout, despite the weird looks from my neighbors.
-hch
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jan 9, 2008, 5:30 PM
Post #17 of 17
(1530 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
andrewbanandrew wrote: I think I'm going to start swimming first because it's accessible and different so it's at least interesting for now. I'm also damn tired after just 30 minutes of it (though that may just be poor form...either way, my heart and lungs are getting a work out).
Even in highly trained swimmers and runners, I believe data shows that maximal swimming creates a larger peak oxygen demand than maximal running (even uphill treadmill running). Water is far denser than air to move through; perhaps this plays a part in it.
You can also choose many different swimming strokes to mix up and curb your body's natural response to become more efficient; running, however, is a pretty straightforward repetitive motion with less variables to manipulate for variety. It's a good choice for a cross training option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
