My experience with Mike Foote’s Big Vert plan from Uphill Athlete

Why I tried it

To get ready for ultras with
lots of climbing, specifically, the Ultra Montseny I did on 10 April,
which ended up being 78km with over 4700m+, and an ultra I’m doing this
October (100km with 6600m+).

I’d also read Training for the Uphill Athlete and wanted to try out a plan with this type of training: with a focus on strength and elevation gain.

Starting point

My recent history before starting the plan:

• mainly training on the flat with at the most two runs a week on the trails
• had done a couple of ultras with a moderate amount of climbing (both around 65 km with about 2500m+). I did the last one in 2019 (my last race, actually). I’d gotten muscle cramps in both these races. This is one of the reasons I wanted to try a more strength- instead of a running-focused approach: to beat the cramps!
• had good aerobic base after consistent, just-trying-not-to-get-injured training for a few years

Caveats

I did 19 weeks of the plan in the lead-up to the race, but I:

• did only two out of the nearly weekly hill sprint sessions
• did a lot of but not all the prescribed ME (muscular endurance) workouts
• did only two Z3 workouts (plus two on the bike)
• didn’t do either of the mid-week long runs
• did less vert each week than prescribed according to goal race
• ignored a lot of the days off as I like to run nearly every day
• did long runs that were probably shorter than prescribed according to goal race

Why the deviations from the plan?

My body couldn’t handle everything in the plan.

This kind of training was new for me, and I had to adapt it on the fly owing to niggles, especially in my calves, Achilles and feet.

However, I didn’t feel overly tired or fatigued and any stage. This kind of training actually felt quite easy. This made it frustrating that the niggles didn’t let me do more.

Even so, I trained consistently, having at the most one day off from running here and there owing to niggles.

To adapt the plan to my niggles, I mainly just cut the length of runs and skipped the more intense stuff (i.e. hill sprints and Z3 runs) as needed.

Training done (excluding the last week and the race: 18 weeks)

• average weekly elevation gain: 1772m+ (total: 31,896m+)
  
• average weekly time run/hiked: 7hr 31min (135hr 18min)
  
• average weekly distance run/hiked: 55.8km (1004.4km)
  
• average weekly total
  training time: 11hr 2min (running, strength, isometrics and cross-training)
  
• longest run (by time):
  4hr 6min on 6/3/21
• longest run (by distance): 27.4 km on 20/2/21 (36% of race distance)
  
• biggest run (by elevation gain): 1531m+ on 6/3/21 (35% of race elevation gain)

Result: it made me stronger but slower, at least on the flat

 

1. It got me used to this kind of training (lots of vert and strength work)

I went from averaging just over 1200m+ a week to around 1900m+. And I can now easily do 2500m+ a week.

Next stop, 3000m+ a week!

2. No muscular problems or cramps during the race

The plan made me strong enough to handle all the climbing and descending without a hint of muscle cramping during the 13 plus hours of the race, whereas I had gotten cramps in the previous two ultras I’d done.

However, conditions were ideal for running this time, so maybe it wasn’t the training but just the weather.

Even so, this race was twice as long in time and elevation gain as those other ultras, so the training probably did have something to do with it.

3. I got slower on the flat

Here’s the comparison between an AeT test (using the Uphill Athlete drift test) I did at the start of the plan and one I did after my goal race:

	Date	Test time	Avg pace	Avg Hr 1st 1/4	Avg Hr 1st 1/2	Avg Hr	Avg pwr	Pa:hr	Pw:hr	EF
1	3/12/20	60′	5:04	145	145	145	253	1.33%	1.44%	1.74
2	24/04/21	60′	5:11	151	151	152	247	3.33%	2.57%	1.63

I did have a headwind for the last 40′ of test 2. But even so, I was clearly less efficient in the second test, going slower at a higher average heart rate. In neither case does it look like I’m was at my AeT threshold (probably 155 now).

I half expected this slowing down.

After all, I went from running mostly on the flat (at mostly easy paces) to running on the flat only for recovery runs.

Also, I was definitely not, and aren’t now, aerobically deficient, so just staying in zone 1 on hilly terrain (which I did most of the time) was not going to help me on the flat as it might if I’d been untrained.

So I got worse at something I wasn’t doing. Logical, I suppose. Although I did hope that the downhill running might keep my efficient on the flat. Alas, it wasn’t the case.

4. Did I get faster climbing?

I don’t know. I will redo my AnT test to see if I’ve gotten faster over that course.

But the AnT test might not be a valid indicator of what I probably got more efficient at on this plan.

The AnT test, at least on the course I did it on, is a measure of running uphill at threshold pace, whereas my recent training has probably got me better at moving uphill on steeper slopes at an aerobic pace.

I’ll retest anyway.

What’s next?

I’m going to do the plan again in preparation for a 100km ultra with 6600m+ in October (Ultra Pirineu). 

This time, I’ll up the weekly vertical gain (hopefully averaging over 2500m+ with weeks of over 3000 m+) and add in the hill sprints and Z3 if I can.

I’ll think about adding in a Z2 run on the flat each week or so. See if I can arrest that efficiency slide.

UPDATE 05/07/21: Caveats to whether I really got slower

Some time after writing this post, I realised using the AeT test I mention above might be flawed for testing whether I got slower for three reasons.

First, I had breakfast and coffee before this test whereas all the previous tests had been done fasted. This surely meant that my HR was higher than if I’d done it like all the others: i.e. fasted.

Second, it might not be a fair comparison as I was comparing doing the test after not having run in this way for over four months with the last test of this type I’d done after having done four or five of them. I’d had practice and had clearly gotten better at this type of run, which does seem to get my fitter. Perhaps I’m suited to it or it’s because I hardly ever run in zone 2 so there are lots of benefits to be gained.

Third, in none of the tests prior to or this last one had I found my AeT: I’d always aimed to low. So the comparison was always going to be speculative.

Either way, I’m pretty sure I got slower and less efficient on the flat. So I’m still going to (and have in fact) add in some flat Z2 training. It seems to get me fitter and running faster on the flat. And this is useful even for events with lots of vert.