Discussion: Training Methodology

Matthias has touched on something I have been thinking over and over in the second half of 2002. Essentially, the question is, given x amount of hours to train, what should the allocation of time be to maximize one's O-speed? Should one do mostly threshold-type runs (3:45–4:10/km for most of us reasonably fit males), or should one
get a base of long, slow runs and build up on it with less frequent, but directed speedwork?

There seems to be an accepted answer to the question for distance runners, and it is the latter rather than the former if x is not too small. The reasoning, and the research behind it, is more complex than Zatopek's one-liners. I am in the process of reading a ton on the subject, and will report the summary eventually, with references. Now is a particularly bad time for me to write a lot, so hold on. Note however, that the goals of runners aren't quite the same as those of orienteers.

There is an aside, not directly related to the question of the proper intensity mix, that I was going to mention. There's one aspect of training that I am a firm believer into, and that is specificity. Why does something make a good training activity?

(1) Because you feel tired after doing it?
(2) Because it feels good to do it?
(3) Because it is hard to do?

The answer, of course, is "none of the above"; a good training activity is one that helps one improve one's orienteering performance. I'm not quite qualified to comment on O-technique training, so I'll restrict myself to the physical part. "Foot"-O is a running-based activity. Certain non-running activities may help one develop a better running speed, but most of them are not as effective on a time basis as pure running. I.e. if you spend an hour swimming, for example, you get a smaller payoff than from an hour of running.

Certain things help one develop an aerobic base just as well as running; however, O-speed is a complex product (more complex than "pure" running speed) of several factors, which include the aerobic capacity, lactic/anaerobic threshold, where in relation to the threshold one can comfortably navigate, and, seemingly most importantly, the biomechanical efficiency in the terrain at navigation speed. Where non-running activities fail most miserably is the last part. In particular, health-club activities seem to have been invented to maximize one's energy expenditure while minimizing the perceived effort. What you want as a runner and an orienteer is somewhat opposite: to move as fast as possible while spending as little energy as possible.

I wanted to write this piece a lot better, because there's a lot to say, and I will sometimes. But if this provokes an interesting discussion, so be it.

I would like to add a couple of things to this discussion, mostly relayed from my memory of Australian coaches’ advice. I’m not trying to say that the following is necessarily right, just to point out that at least some successful orienteers have a different emphasis in training from the thrust of Vlad’s comments. Summary: don't just run.

First, as Vlad rightly notices, you need an aerobic base to orienteer. If you get tired running 10km on the road you are not going to be in good shape after 10km in the forest. Enough said.

However, as Vlad also rightly notices, orienteering is not distance running. Here's a quote from the 'strength and conditioning' coach who works with my state orienteering elite squad in Australia (writing in the Australian Orienteer in September): '...Orienteering has traditionally been regarded as an endurance sport for runners who navigate, so why should we develop strength for orienteering? ... (T)o concentrate solely on aerobic endurance fitness is to neglect the physical demands imposed by ... running through terrain ... steep hills, rock terrain, mud, creeks, rivers, long grass and dense vegetation. The result at the end of the day - given competent map-reading, good decision making, and adequate aerobic capacity - will be determined by the ability of an individual to overcome and endure muscular fatigue.'

(continuing to paraphrase...) So why isn’t terrain training enough? Answer: 1. risks of overuse and acute injuries. 2. hard to monitor buildup of strength. The current Australian solution is a strength program that starts with a base phase at the beginning of the off-season (November-December), a strength phase, and then a speed and power phase. The earlier phases involve resistance training (say, 2-3 sets of 12-15 reps to start with), the later ones involve a lot more bounding, agility and balance exercises (the better orienteers can leap from a standing start on a box of height 90cm, which is pretty impressive when you see it done). There are 2-3 sessions per week in all but competition periods.

In addition, many Oz elites are also doing either or both of pilates and yoga (1-2 sessions a week) plus either swimming or bike cross-training.

The addition of this type of training to the program has come with substantial reductions in running distances for some (those who were doing 80 miles of running a week may now be under 40 except in the base phase). It worsens their distance running performance but not, apparently, orienteering performances, judging by Australian results over the last couple of years. Note: 40 miles a week is still a lot more than most are doing in the US, but it isn’t an awful lot. Of that, not much is low-intensity base stuff (except in the base phase, of course).

I should perhaps note that Australia has started to emphasize short and medium distance races over classic; some of this training philosophy is geared to that (in the most recent World Cup series, all 5 of the Australian men elected not to run the classic in Hungary in favor of being rested for the two sprint events that preceded and followed it). Still, results in longer races haven’t been too bad either (our biggest sprint specialist was also 12th at this year’s Blodslitet, for example)

Evidence that it works? I can only offer you the fact that Australian results over the last couple of years haven’t been too shabby… but as an economist, I have a voice in my head that mutters ‘correlation not causation’ and ‘sample size’ at me when I write that. The Australians think they are ahead of many of the European teams that train in a ‘more hours good’ fashion and are getting better results because of it. It would be hard to offer a proof either way without the kind of scientific studies that probably won’t ever be forthcoming for orienteering (at least directly).

And of course, if you only have 4 hours a week to devote to training, this discussion may be moot anyway if your goal is to be an elite orienteer. Until you have at least 8 and probably more hours to devote, you aren’t going to be going very far, but the 15-20 hour weeks swimmers and marathon runners put in may not be optimal for orienteering.

Both of you ,Vlad and Will brought to disscution verry interesting aspects of what I call (and others in the part of the world that I am originaly) HIGH PERFORMANCE , but also I have noticed over the years that I lived here in USA that unfortunately is verry little interes for that or maybe others are interested but can't find the time to devote enough time to this verry important aspect of the sport if anybody is trying to be world level competitive.

Actually, I think you'll find that the bulk of U.S. world-class athletes are very interested in this type of training. They just aren't particularly interested in orienteering.

Vlad referred to something I wrote in my training log, and that is that for the last 3 months, I am training fewer hours than before but at a higher intensity, and I am finding that overall this seems to make me faster. So the question I had was, might it be better to do less volume but at a higher intensity than more volume but at a lower intensity. Ideally more volume and higher intensity would be best but due to tiredness I am assuming this would not work. That's where Zatopek came in who said, "I always train fast because I want to learn how to run fast. Why should I train slow, I already know how to run slow".

I guess one thing that I am coming around to believing strongly in is that every training session should have a specific purpose. So, it is better in my view to do one hour of hard running and one day's rest, than two days in a row of one hour slow, even if that would be twice the distance. Or, instead of doing a slow "recovery" run to get some distance in when you're tired, you might as well take a day's rest and train hard again the next day. (Note that I am not counting slow long runs here, they do serve a definite purpose and should be done!)

Or of course it could just be that I am getting faster now because as I am training less, the heavy training from before has a chance to "come through" so lots of slow/fast training is worth it after all..

One last anecdote on the running vs x-training subject is that the Austrian team have definitely also switched to doing less running and more x-training, like hill walking (with big steps up a steep hill), jumping up stairs and the like...but on the other hand the French team, as far as I know, do close to 100% of their training as orienteering (ie in the forest, with control flags). And they're not unsuccessful either..

"Hill walking, with big steps up a steep hill" deserves more respect than being lumped in with "cross training" for orienteering. If the hill is steep enough (far too steep to run) and the effort strong enough (if in doubt, check your *~?%*! heart monitor) this is very relevant for orienteering on hills or soft Nordic type forests, which means almost everywhere. It clearly satisfies the criteria of purpose and specificity, by working on critical limiting factors related to range of motion and power. It is also a way to train in forest footing and vegetation, with very low risk of injury, at least on the way up :-). I can attest that doing this on the steepest face of Mt Misery (next to DVOA's Valley Forge- Mt. Joy map) is is quite possible to go well into the anaerobic zone. And most people have better available hills. Bottom line, if it is relevant, do it right, and call it real training.

Now for the other 90% of "cross training"... I am afraid to get started, but how about... Lets keep in mind that the purpose of cross training is injury prevention and psychological relief for *the athlete who is already working close to their limits* of directly relevant training. How many North American orienteers does this really pertain to?! I'm hoping maybe 1- 5?, but I couldn't name them with any confidence. Is this really worth talking about? Far more important to talk and do technical/map training.

Sure, I could name a select few activities that I believe have marginal relevance for O (some leg and torso exercises), but most are irrelevant diversions, and some are flat out counterproductive (swimming, completely different muscle function- better to relax in a hot tub), but I'm afraid debating this will generate more heat than light. In lieu of scientific data or studies, which usually don't exist, how about some common sense honesty about the relevance these other activities. Keep in mind specific muscle groups, the exact! type of movement and whether it is this done under similar endurance conditions. Sure, do some other things for fun if you have the time, or for once- in- a- lifetime opportunities like high school sports, but please don't kid yourself that you are training for orienteering. It sets a bad example for readers of this website.

By the way Will H, these comments come from somebody who does weight lifting, for non- O reasons, and has had long term respect for Austrailian orienteering (should be the model for the US), but not when they borrow "feel good" trends from the Los Angeles, CA, USA state of mind. ;-)

Eeric B., I am sure that the world class athlettes in U.S are doing what you were saying ,but I was actualy refering to orienteers, as a world level competitors, so if they are not particulary interested in orienteeting, that meens that they don't even fit, in what the subject of this disscution thread is all about,wich is specific high quality trining, for the top U.S orienteers and as Eric W. pointed out somewhat, that training for world class level, for orienteering competitions, is going to be substantialy diferent than only training for some type of ruunnig.Also Vlad and Will H. pointed that out also.

When I was training in Norway, one of the biggest things that my coach would emphasize was ability to run in the terrain. Of course the higher your anaerobic capacity is, the more potential you have to run fast in any terrain, but unless you spend a good amount of your training in good competition terrain you will not be able to compete with the best when it comes around to the races. The Norwegians that I trained with, some of whom were on the Norwegian Junior Team, spent most of their training time in the woods. Other than that, we would do intense hill training. But the entire time I was there we never did any road training except for a little bit of conditioning on a break during travel.

I can do a standing leap onto a 94 cm box (I just went downstairs to the loading dock and checked: 94.6 cm). I think it's more a matter of technique and flexibility than strength; I'm age 41 and do essentially zero training of any kind. On the other hand, I do an awful lot of orienteering, so maybe it's working for me in reverse -- my orienteering *is* my training. Just completed the year yesterday with a new PR: 1155 controls for 2002.

Yes, Mihai, I got your drift. My point was that you can't expect club level competitors to be all that interested in world class training programs. It's just too hard for people who have other considerations in their lives. Most amateurs do a fair job of incorporating some of the elite ideas into their training, but that's not at all the same thing as embarking on an elite program.

Mr. Weyman's point about cross training warrants further examination. If any US Orienteer is training at close to their limits, they're certainly keeping it a secret. The paltry 5-10 hour weeks we see on attack point could be handled by most fit 50-year-olds. Now, don't everybody get offended, these programs are entirely appropriate for the club level competitor (myself included - I rarely break 10 hours), I just don't think anybody's getting burned out.

However, I think that cross training has value beyond the relief that Eric suggests. First of all, while an elite 25-year-old may well be up to the rigors of 12-15 hours a week in the woods, the rest of us are not. I find that I hold up pretty well to 6-7 hours a week of terrain training, but much more than that leaves me with a bunch of minor, but nagging injuries. By cross training, I can raise my total to 10 hours and still give my body the chance to heal.

Second, the most important muscle is the heart. You can't train your heart every day with running because the skeletal muscles don't recover fast enough. By cross training you can get in more good heart workouts and still be fresh for you terrain sessions.

Finally, while we may not be near our physiological or psychological limits, most of us are very near our practical limits. Job, family, etc. all pull on our time. It takes about an hour round trip for me to get to good terrain, longer if I go during rush hour after work. Thus, I'm not comparing the value of a 1 hour terrain workout to a 1 hour bike ride - I'm looking at the value of a 1 hour terrain workout and a 2 hour bike ride. So compared, the advantage of the terrain workout is less obvious. On easy days, it hadly makes sense to drive all the way to a park for a half hour jog through the woods, yet a half hour "easy jog round the hood" loosens muscles and expedites recovery. I'm finding that the value of these active rest workouts becomes more apparent as you get older.

Grant B, Tom Q, and Robbie W were sub-31 10K runners BEFORE they got deeply involved with training at Scandinavian clubs, based on what I heard from Grant in 1998. In their circumstances, it may have well been beneficial for them to re-direct their activity mix in a certain way. The aerobic capacity didn't go away, and they got better at terrain efficiency, whether that was a correlcation or a causative effect.

However, I simply do not see how one can develop a mid-70's VO_2_max from 2–3 sessions of resistance training and agility and balance.

On last Vlad's comment: biking or swimming can
bring VO2-max up, but that is not my point: specific training can be done just in last couple of month before races to bring you up to O-shape - running x-country with or without a map. I would say that there is no one formula for everybody, and that what makes it fun. Setting ROGAINE as a priority event requires some sacrifices on speed: I tested it and proved it several years in a row in late 90s: all my spring speed training went down the tubes, significantly down every year when I and Bernie were doing a lot of super long run – hikes every weekend getting ready for ROGAINES and Hudson Highlander. I would loose up to 10-15% of my speed, and only regained it back after 3 to 4 weeks of speed training. One would question necessity of a 4-6 hour runs, but we discovered a lot about our body behavior, you can not get on a 2-3 hr run: food, hydration and electrolyte balance tactics for our team were build during that testing – training.

Eric B. ,you are perfectly right pointing out that , as I mentioned briefely in my first intervention in this thread, that the (coting you) ,are probably "limited" to most of us.And regarding cross training I don't do practicaly any,if at all,actualy what I do for getting in shape this days ,I can barely call TRAINING ,but on ocassion I put in some good physical work outs, most of the time trying to do something close to what I will do when running a orienteering race (pace, terrain ,climb,obstacles).To bad I do not have enough time(Due to my job scheduale and character) to realy train for real, wich is my near future goal.Anyhow I am 41 ,I am actualy doing pretty good in competition against the U.S. elite orienteers and with out any cross trainig (or regular training for that matter) I do not have or had serios problem with injuries or my performance in orienteering and I really can,t explain why since it looks that most everybody does.And I will add that when I was training back in ROMANIA(last time 11 years ago) for International World Class orienteering races,or only training , I don't remeber doing a whole lot ,if any cross training, except for playing soccer,where actualy I' v got all my serious injuries(2 or 3 in 20 years).

In my last comment the last part of the 2 nd. line it was supposed to be worded out this way: that the (coting you) "practical limits",are......