Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are for training for approaches for alpine rock climbs. In the Alps, generally 2 hours is the max approach time for rock climbs, and anything longer most people stay in huts. A common idea is that it's impossible to have too much zone 2 training, but how applicable is this idea in this context? Where days consist of hiking uphill (realistically 90% of routes are 1000m or less elevation gain), then using climbing strength for a number of pitches, then walking down again. What's the point at which spending more time training your aerobic capacity is just a waste of time? (well, with the context of certain goals). Curious for people's takes on this.
I almost wrote something about that in my post...yeah definitely just the happiness bonus of running and hiking is something to consider. But I was pondering this question more in a "economical" sense.
I mean I think the answer is "as much as you reasonably can." The cut off is when training aerobic base interferes with either your life or your ability to the parts of the sport you enjoy.
But "generally" (and this is very general) you probably won't get too much benefit training more than a few hundred hours of aerobics a year. 300-400 is probably the sweet spot for most people, just in terms of what's possible and what will make you pretty fit.
Mixed thoughts on the matter. For approaches yeah, my personal "fit enough" benchmark is 1000m with a pack in around two hours reasonably comfortably, i.e. without being too wasted to climb afterwards.
But there's also the question of keeping it together on long/exposed/scrambly descents - you don't always abseil straight back down the route - in which case I think all day aerobic conditioning is an important contribution to not fucking up in technically easy but high consequences situations when you're tired.
1000m of elevation in 2h with a pack? If so, I clearly need to start running... I'm at 350 m/hour with 18kg pack rn...
The key modifier here is probably the "about" two hours. I'm happy if I manage 1k in two hours and change on a good day and a decent trail. Reality looks often different, and that's where it's good to have some buffer.
That's true, and with a heavy pack, it's not possible to go really fast. I prefer to have buffer and finish earlier than what I thought than the contrary.
Although I see that lots of people tend to underestimate their times when sharing their expeditions.
Yeah, I'm totally with you on this. Especially with the buffer in planning. Never regretted it to plan conservatively. I also don't worry about comparing my performance to others, the one with the most fun wins :)
Sounds great, that's also in line with what I'm aiming for. Generally, that's 1000 m relatively comfortable, to have some reserve in the tank if things go sideways. That number gets then fine-tuned by route, depending on how technical or elaborate approach, descent and potential bail-out-alternatives are. Fitness is key to stay sharp, and that's a big factor in risk assessment.
It’s different for everyone. If all you ever want to do are rock climbs with a 2 hour or less approach then you don’t need to be as fit as someone doing 4000m multiple day ski traverses without the use of huts.
I was trying to think about it in the realistic sense. Yeah it's cool be able to do mega ski traverses, but I guess for 90% of people 90% of their activities have only a couple hours of aerobic activity per day, and big traverses are extreme outliers. Is it worth it spending an extra 100 hours training aerobic activity in order to not be fucked for the day after a big traverse?
Yea, that’s why it depends on the individual and what they want to do. Also depends on the region. Pnw America approaches are commonly much longer than just a couple hours. One of the most popular hard to reach alpine rock areas is 30km roundtrip and is usually done in a day. Obviously no huts here either.
Like everything in the mountains the answer imo is “it depends”.
Instinctively I would say that you would be better of focusing tour hours on climbing technique. But there is a lot to say about having both physical and mental margins when days get (way) longer then expected. So eventually its a balancing act, try and adjust I would say.
Sorry for the useless answer.
Anecdotal input here. I work a desk job in a place with a long winter, even though I tour and ice climb I'm definitely not as active and inevitably gain a decent chunk of weight. Last year, I was focused heavily on hiking in the spring/early summer since I had plans to do a big mountaineering objective with a buddy, and less focused on rock. But because I was doing more cardio than ever, I was much leaner. I was climbing the hardest I ever have despite not climbing nearly as much. I climbed my previous years project within a coupo sessions.
This year, my nagging overuse injury in my leg hasn't let up and Ive basically just been climbing. Definitely not climbing as strongly despite climbing much more.
You say that people stay in huts, but do YOU stay in huts?
1000m in 2h with 8/10kg is very reasonable, improving it by a significant time (like 30 minutes) would require too much training, compared to just waking up 30 minutes before. Unless you double your speed (1000m in 1h with a pack in easy Z2 would probably put you in elite athlete territory), the time saving isn't huge.
Personally, I enjoy training and I thus train, but can't say exactlywhat my chill approach with a pack speed is, it's probably in the 500/600 m/h range. I've done 3000m in 4h in October with a running vest, just to give an idea.
No, I'm too poor
Well then if you do go above a 1000m of elevation, it definitely makes sense to train more.
I would say that the diminishing returns point is when you think that you can do the approach somewhat comfortably. Ideally keep it under 3h (which is a very long time for an approach IMO, I always underestimate how long 3h are :D)
Not a serious alpinist, but in my opinion basically never. Being aerobically fit is one of the greatest things you can do from a safety/enjoyment/health aspect.