Training commentary on Pikes

• This is going on in the comment thread, but I wanted to bring it to the front of the blog ... note, all of these guys seem to know how to suffer ... refer to the pictures.  Or maybe that means they don't know how to treat themselves?  ;)
  
  I LOVE THIS CONVERSATION!   If I get more stuff buried in the comments, I will bring it to front here ...
  
• My summary ... everyone training for a marathon as difficult and as varied as Pikes needs to consider how they want to attack it.  In nearly all cases, everyone needs to consider how long they will train, how much up they will do, how much speed they will do, how much altitude work they will get in and how much descent work they will get in.  Frankly - I need all of it.  Someone else may need more of one element over another.
  
• From Lucho ... G- My thoughts on training for Pikes (which I'm sure we'll discuss much more in depth) is t o avoid running steady climbs too often, I'll focus more on 'shocking' my legs with undulations. Anytime you do a very long climb (or any one type of movement) your muscles fatigue and they start to shut down. By providing a variety of terrain you more effectively stimulate the muscles. Even with the very long single climb at Pikes I believe that by training this way I will be stronger. My main focus- as I have told you- will be the descent. My experience at Ironman tells me that this is the most common weakness and is an aspect of fitness often over looked. When you start to die on a climb you lose less time (by percentage) than you do when you die on a descent.. the speeds are much different! The difference between walking on a climb and running is only ~30" per mile? But on a descent it could be 2'-3' per mile.. Just my own personal theory born of the Ironman. We'll see!
• My response:  Tim - great comment! Thanks.
  First, I have come to similar conclusions regarding overall training - but these conclusions are not applicable for everyone!
  In a nutshell, I suggest a mix of training that includes climbing, road running, speed, long running, downhill running and altitude. What that mix is for a person depends on their strengths, weaknesses, history, and what progresses their training the most.
  After the 06 Ascent, I could not believe how much I had to walk in that race! As a result, I shifted my training to be more climb oriented. Lots of those climbs were done with a mantra, "DO NOT WALK." I got a lot stronger on climbs but all those gut busting "runs" at 15 minutes a mile made me SLOWER. When it came time to run sub sixes, it was a much bigger challenge. And with that as my top end, my ability to run 8s at 10000 feet were also challenged.
  Now - there are some that get huge benefits from near exclusive climbing. It is hard to argue with the success of Scott Elliott - he has won the Ascent EIGHT times. People look at his training, which has included doing Bear Peak 100 times over 100 days and shake their heads. He has stayed at Barr Camp for a month leading up to the race and just run the upper portion of the Ascent every day in that lead up.
  Part of the reason why I love this race is that it creates a different dynamic to the marathon. There are hill climbs, flatter sections, altitude, downhills, heat, cold, distance, trails with people, road ... we all need to find ways to work on our weaknesses and exploit our strengths to the greatest degree!
  All that said (so much for the nutshell) - I agree that you can lose more time from a percentage perspective on the down versus the up. The difference between walking and running can be as little as 1 second a mile - I have passed people who were running while I was walking. But it can also be HUGE. I have seen folks go from a very quick run to a walk that looks like a saunter. In other words - when someone needs to walk in a race - damn it, it is still a race!
  There is a cross over point where walking is more effective than running. For most of us, this is somewhere between 3 and 4 miles and hour. At this cross over, walking becomes very hard at the higher speed, and running is actually wasting more energy at the lower speed. Being able to shift back and forth on the climb is a good habit for most to get.
  Justin - I am curious on your take on Lucho's take - given you had a great down, particularly when compared to your up - last year.
  My mix of training will be a combination of distance, hills, speed, altitude, and downhill running ...
  All this to say ... I will do runs that are longer climbs (runs up Sunshine Canyon ... Flagstaff Road ... the Decalibron ... Grays and Torres). That development is necessary for me to be as prepared as I can physically AND mentally.
  Sorry - long reply, and a lot out of context of your comment. Will you do the Barr Trail race?
• Justin's response:

  Tim, GZ, I disagree with what you've said on the Pikes training. I assume we're strictly talking marathon here.
  I think the climb is the way to go. You're going to be climbing for 2/3 of the race and only going down for 1/3 and there are bigger time gains to be had out of running a strong climb vs. a fast down.
  I trained last year almost exclusively for the climb because I felt like I could run a great downhill already. Dave ran the down in 1:23, Matt in 1:25, me in 1:28 and I feel like I could've been around 1:25 without the stops. That's what I'm looking for this year. Whenever I'd run a mountainous trail in training, I'd take the descent super easy. Running hard downhill is usually what would cause prolonged soreness for me and by slacking on the descent, I could hit the mountains on back to back days.
  Here's why I think the climb is key though - the guy that finished ahead of me last year put at least 5 minutes on me in the last 3 miles up. Assuming most people up front in the race can run 6:30s or so down on the marathon course, it's not realistic to think that I could make 5 minutes up on anyone going down. If they're running 6:30s, I'd have to run 5:00s to make up that time over the same distance and no one is going to do that. The difference between running up and walking up may be very slight as you both said, but the difference between running well up and running poorly up (or walking) can be easily be 2 minutes/mile (i.e., the last 3 miles up for me, the only point up where I started mixing in walking).
  Another example, I was with Bryan D at Barr Camp, halfway up the mountain. He ran the descent 1 minute faster than me, but finished some 10 minutes ahead. He made about 9 minutes up on me from Barr Camp to the summit. I like to think I can run the descent 2-3 minutes faster, but when the descent only takes up 1/3 of the total time in the race, it doesn't mean that much if you're already 10 minutes behind at the halfway point. No matter how fast you are down, you're just not going to make that time up. It's the same scenario between Dave and Matt. The race between those two is over at the halfway point.
  Train hard for the descent and you can take a few minutes off your time. Train hard for the climb and you can take 10+ minutes off your time.

• My response: Great points Justin! FWIW - your descent is markedly better than your ascent. I think it shows a need to a.) continue to get better on the climbs and b.) possible an improvement at altitude (given the concern in the last three miles).
  I think if a person blows up on the descent however, they can increase their descent time A LOT. Again, there is no single answer here but an example is Matt's 92 Marathon - a 2:05 Ascent, but a 1:38 down. From what I have read, that is because MC blew through the aide stations low, pushed through to the top and then blew up on the down (of course in MC fashion, he came back next year and ran 75 down after a 2:01 ascent!)
  The way you prepare could be very different than how Scott Elliott prepares than how Lucho prepares than how I prepare. Generally, I see five components:
  1.) Distance (this is a marathon but it is going to take even the best at least 3.5 hours - the average finish is over six hours with the Ascent in 4.3 hours).
  2.) Up - the damn thing goes up 7800 feet.
  3.) Speed - it is a race. There are flatter sections (5% grade). If you want to run this thing fast, rather than just finish it, you got to train fast.
  4.) Altitude - things are different above Barr Camp. Things get really different above the A frame and treeline
  5.) Down. You have to come back down 7800 feet.
  Does Justin need to prepare a ton for the down? Probably not. In fact, comparatively - you and I are probably equally matched on the up (at least last year) but you kill me on the down (and so I need more work there). 
• Matt Copeland:  It's hard to beat Justin's reasoning, but you're right about each his own. Either way, one has to diversify.
• Lucho: Maybe I'm not seeing how hard the climb is? What the hell do I know!!!? I've never run it. I think both comments will be something I dwell on. I think it will come down to finding where my strengths are (maybe the uphill from years of cycling?) and working on my weakness. Thanks a to n for the comments!!
• Brett ... TL - 13% average grade I think over 13.3 miles. It is  relentless. A calf killer, not quad killer. Even fast people take 3 hours. Think 3 solid hours of up
• Justin ... 

  Reread my comment, just so I don't sound like too much of a  wus, I want to clarify - it was only in the last mile up that I mixed walking in! Thankfully Scott was on the summit yelling at me to run, so it was only a few brief weak moments.
  Lucho, as for how hard the climb is, it's not hard to "run" the whole way up. You could grind it out easily enough. But to really run well up, that's what hard. I always thought I could  run hills as well as anyone, but you just don't really realize how good some of those guys are at climbing until you race them. A lot of people joke about being passed by little old men in their first mountain races, but it's true. Another way to look at how hard it may be, just think about how high your HR has been on the hills running around your house - the climb up is like that for 2:45.

• Me: 

  More stuff to ponder ...
  To the newbie, it is often said that the Ascent will take at least your flatland marathon time, and in many cases it will take that plus 50%! 
  I think the flatland time is a fair guess. Justin - you ran 2:41 at Colfax last year? And 2:46 on the Ascent? Pretty close.
  But ... if you are a good climber, there is no doubt you can run the Ascent faster than your flatland marathon time. Again, looking at the top of the spectrum, Matt ran a 2:01 Ascent (in route to a round trip win / record)(with the last three miles being in 34!) but has a best flatland marathon of 2:18 (which might be a bit slow considering he ran a 65 half if I remember correctly). Scott E ran a 2:06 Ascent - pretty certain that would not be the marathon time he ran!
  Now those are two guys who focused on climbing alot! They also got to know the course crazy well, but that is probably a different story.
  Tim ... that means, you could expect a 2:30 climb given your marathon PR. That is a total shot in the dark though. Last year I saw a 2:20 guy come back to me above treeline (he was not a climber, and the weather was a bit of an issue). But it could also mean, that if you could climb, you might be able to pop something much quicker!
  More details on the climb ... it is never crazy (say 20%) steep, but it does get (for short sections) up to 15%. It averages 11.5% on whole, for a 7800 foot plus gain over 13+ miles. If you can get on the course, you will learn a lot. The Barr Trail race is a great way to get recon for the lower half. A separate trip for the upper half is a really good idea if you can swing it but ... it is a bit ridiculous to drive 200 miles RT to run 10.
  Descent ... yes, it is a function of fitness ... but ... it also a function of how crazy you can push yourself on the down. Matt's pace calculator gives a lot of variance on what to expect for a down. See:http://skyrunner.com/pace.htm

  Last night I listened to the Jack Daniels interview - here: http://www.athleticscoaching.ca/UserFiles/Media/Audio%20Files/TCACC%20Interview%20Collection%2008/Jack%20Daniels%20Interview.mp3
  He repeated a variety of times that he believed ultimately a huge key to success was the athlete's happiness. For example - If you happen to be happy at altitude, then altitude will work for you. If you are not, then it probably won't.
  This seems so evident but it is something we conflict on all the time. We, all as psuedo scientists, are looking for the best training to achieve the maximal results in the least amount of time and effort. There are certainly some base principles that are applicable for all of us, but when it gets to the details of how to most effectively stress an athlete - the details vary from athlete to athlete. Some benefit from uphill running, some altitude, some more distance, some core work, etc.
  This is not only a function of the uniqueness of our physiology but also the even greater unique elements in our BRAIN. You have to have belief in the training, and how you are g etting there. And it has to be rewarding or enjoyable.
  In regards to this topic on Pikes, I think of my buddy Jeff Valliere. I am convinced that Jeff could break 2:30 on the Ascent if he did speed work. I am convinced of this because of how I see Jeff ease up steep grades at velocities that leave me gasping. I have said if Pikes were half as long and twice as steep - he'd be its champ.
  Jeff balks at the speed work. He'd rather go play on 14ers or 13ers or some other peak with his wife and his dog. That is what he enjoys. Running in circles on a track, or even doing hill repeats seems absolutely unrewarding to him. I can't fault him - in fact he probably has a better vision of what this ought to be than most of us who focus on this as a competition. That is probably a conversation for an other day.
  The point: while not all roads lead to Rome, there are many that do. We each need to find the one that works for us