Birkebeiner strategy?

Hi everyone,

I just signed up for the Norwegian Bikrebeiner in March. I have never
done any arranged ski event. My skiing has been mostly freestyle, but
this year I have been doing about 50% classic. I do not really know how
I rate compared to other folks, but I do know that at 100kg, my
performance on climbs is not very good. A few times I have been skiing
(classic) with some cycling buddies, and I can't keep up with them
enough to even see how far behind I am! The have all be skiing since
they could walk, whle I started as an adult, so I like to belive
technique has something to do with it. I can hang with these guys on a
bike, but I think the steeper inclines one finds out skiing are more
decisive than any small hills out on the road.

Anyway, I am excited about the Birkebeiner and am busy preparing myself
mentally. The big question is what sort of pace should I attempt, and
what sort of time should I expect? If I have some idea of my expected
time I can better prepare mentally for the level of exertion. The 89km
MTB version of the Birkebeiner takes me a little over 4 hours. What
does that sort of translate into for the ski version?

Considering all the climbing, my 100kg will certainly mean it will take
me a while. Any suggestions? I do lots of long distance bike race/rides
(250km+) so I am no stranger to suffering. The question is what level
of exertion? I have lots of experience on a bike with regulating my
speed and exertion level, but it is much more difficult for me on
classic XC skis. Any tips?

Thanks!

Joseph

Hi Joseph,

Having done the race three times, let me make a couple of suggestions.
Maybe I'm underestimating your pace, but I'd
assume you'd need something over 5 hours out there.
So, with your experience on the bike,
you probably have a good idea of what the right level of exertion would
be for that.
Even better than guessing, bring along your heart-rate monitor
and use it to keep from starting too fast.

The climbs really aren't steep at all, they just go on forever, so
that might be better for you, from what you say. At least,
at 100kg., the 3.5kg. pack you carry will be a more negligible
percentage than for some.
Do at least one long ski with that pack (loaded), more to make sure
there's no
chafing or similar problem. It's too light, and the descents
are too easy, for the pack to be a big problem in technical skiing.

I'm jealous, but maybe next year for me, when I'm at the
bottom of my age category (and, unfortunately, so is Ola
Kvaale---Terje will know to what I refer!)

Best, Peter

Peter H. wrote:
Hi Joseph,

Having done the race three times, let me make a couple of suggestions.
Maybe I'm underestimating your pace, but I'd
assume you'd need something over 5 hours out there.
So, with your experience on the bike,
you probably have a good idea of what the right level of exertion would
be for that.
Even better than guessing, bring along your heart-rate monitor
and use it to keep from starting too fast.

The climbs really aren't steep at all, they just go on forever, so
that might be better for you, from what you say. At least,
at 100kg., the 3.5kg. pack you carry will be a more negligible
percentage than for some.
Do at least one long ski with that pack (loaded), more to make sure
there's no
chafing or similar problem. It's too light, and the descents
are too easy, for the pack to be a big problem in technical skiing.

I'm jealous, but maybe next year for me, when I'm at the
bottom of my age category (and, unfortunately, so is Ola
Kvaale---Terje will know to what I refer!)

Best, Peter

I have gone out a few times with the pack and it works fine. It's the
same one that I used for the bike version. As I understand it, the bike
version descents are much more technical (not very!) and I had no
problems there. And it is quite true that 3.5kg for me is minimal.

Long slight inclines might just suit me well. I don't have good leg
speed so my max speed without poling isn't very high. Poling speed is
ok, but I have a heavy upper body so I think poling is not very
efficient for me. An incline that requires a somewhat slow but long
stride would suit me perfectly. If it is steep, my weight starts
becoming a big problem.

I'm 35, right at the bottom of my class, but I don't think that will
help me any! :-)

I haven't used my HRM while skiing. Where I ski is quite hilly in
terrain, with essentially no flat sections, so the effort level varies
in the extreme, so I haven't bothered, figuring it would just show max
all the time. My max HR on a bike is about 190. I can maintain 185 for
short periods, but for a 5 hour bike ride I'd like to keep the max
below 165. Do you think these numbers would apply ok to skiing? I have
many, many km on the bike to attest to these HR values, but how do they
apply to skiing?

Joseph

I haven't used my HRM while skiing. Where I ski is quite hilly in
terrain, with essentially no flat sections, so the effort level varies
in the extreme, so I haven't bothered, figuring it would just show max
all the time. My max HR on a bike is about 190. I can maintain 185 for
short periods, but for a 5 hour bike ride I'd like to keep the max
below 165. Do you think these numbers would apply ok to skiing? I have
many, many km on the bike to attest to these HR values, but how do they
apply to skiing?


Not so sure that bike HR's and the Birkeinbeinerrennet course HR's translate
so well. For one at the start like you be at 170 just 'cause you'll be
psyched.

My advice is just go out and ski it and see how you feel before looking at
your HR. Your HR will take an hour to settle. By then you'll be well on your
way to the first plateau. It's up there that you can get a fix on how you
feel.

The grades are not bad, but as you know, they go on forever. I am your
weight and have similar training backround. LSD. In general, once you're
settled in skiing at "AT" or marathon ace pace of 165 BPM makes sense on the
up grades and flats.

I do think that the pack adds to the effort.

As long as you dodn't go out too hard you'll be fine. I used to get behind a
real old skier someone 40+ years than I am. I figure anyone who has skied
marathons for 50 years knows how to pace themselves, and if they're near me
then they are good pacers. This ploy would not work at Birkeinbeinerrennet,
but now with new starting system it should.

Have fun.

Gary Jacobson
Rosendale, NY

After looking at the times for the corresponding bike event
(and you're about half my age!), my 5 hour estimate is probably
unduly pessimistic. But it does depend a lot on conditions.
I see no reason why the HR numbers you give for cycling shouldn't
apply to a ski race, if upper body fitness is okay. But Gary is
right to say that it takes a while for the HR to settle in, maybe more
like 10 minutes for me than an hour.

Best, Peter

Peter H. wrote:
After looking at the times for the corresponding bike event
(and you're about half my age!), my 5 hour estimate is probably
unduly pessimistic. But it does depend a lot on conditions.
I see no reason why the HR numbers you give for cycling shouldn't
apply to a ski race, if upper body fitness is okay. But Gary is
right to say that it takes a while for the HR to settle in, maybe more
like 10 minutes for me than an hour.

Best, Peter

I think the 5 hour may be pretty acurate. I am a much better cyclist
than skier. But we'll see!

Today I wore my HRM while skiing. 1.5 hours classic then 1.5 hours
freestyle. Going along at a very comfortable pace classic I was about
140. Pushing it 150. At 160 I was fried. I could not maintain 160 for
anyting but very short burst up short steep hills. At 160 my shoulders
and thighs burned most, but it felt like oxygen was the weak link. I
was gasping. Strange. While going freestyle, I almost couldn't get my
HR below 150. I felt I had a smooth continuum up to 170. Above 170 was
only possible for short bursts. On the bike my timetrial zone is about
175.

I guess I need to calibrate myself!

At 140 classic I am at the threshold of breathing through my mouth. I
can force myself to breathe through my nose, but it feels strained. At
150 I was right at the level where I needed to pay attention to keeping
the exertion level up, otherwise it would sink a bit.

Joseph

I've read (and felt) that classic skiing averages 10 beats/min lower than
skating.
Not as many "big" muscle groups involved.

Would that explain a classic marathon as feeling relatively "easy" when
compared to a skate marathon?

JK


wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter H. wrote:
After looking at the times for the corresponding bike event
(and you're about half my age!), my 5 hour estimate is probably
unduly pessimistic. But it does depend a lot on conditions.
I see no reason why the HR numbers you give for cycling shouldn't
apply to a ski race, if upper body fitness is okay. But Gary is
right to say that it takes a while for the HR to settle in, maybe more
like 10 minutes for me than an hour.

Best, Peter

I think the 5 hour may be pretty acurate. I am a much better cyclist
than skier. But we'll see!

Today I wore my HRM while skiing. 1.5 hours classic then 1.5 hours
freestyle. Going along at a very comfortable pace classic I was about
140. Pushing it 150. At 160 I was fried. I could not maintain 160 for
anyting but very short burst up short steep hills. At 160 my shoulders
and thighs burned most, but it felt like oxygen was the weak link. I
was gasping. Strange. While going freestyle, I almost couldn't get my
HR below 150. I felt I had a smooth continuum up to 170. Above 170 was
only possible for short bursts. On the bike my timetrial zone is about
175.

I guess I need to calibrate myself!

At 140 classic I am at the threshold of breathing through my mouth. I
can force myself to breathe through my nose, but it feels strained. At
150 I was right at the level where I needed to pay attention to keeping
the exertion level up, otherwise it would sink a bit.

Joseph

32 degrees wrote:
I've read (and felt) that classic skiing averages 10 beats/min lower than
skating.
Not as many "big" muscle groups involved.

Would that explain a classic marathon as feeling relatively "easy" when
compared to a skate marathon?

JK


The thing I don't get is why cycling which uses even fewer muscles gets
my HR even higher. Or is this just some anomaly specific to me and my
level of trainig/technique/whatever?

I suppose it is that HR more or less tracks power generation, and
classic (at least for me with my slow leg speed) is only able to
transfer a given amount, while skating allows for larger power
transmission. The higher HR and presumably power on a bike must have to
do with the higher cadence and frequency of large muscle contraction
per given time.

I have always thought of skating as similar to riding a bike using only
the big chainwheel, while classic is similar to using only the small
chainwheel. In general skating seems harder because you are going
faster, except in circumstances (steep hills) where you are unable to
"gear down" and it seems hard because it is inefficient (relatively).

Joseph

wrote:
32 degrees wrote:
I've read (and felt) that classic skiing averages 10 beats/min lower than
skating.
Not as many "big" muscle groups involved.

Would that explain a classic marathon as feeling relatively "easy" when
compared to a skate marathon?

JK


The thing I don't get is why cycling which uses even fewer muscles gets
my HR even higher. Or is this just some anomaly specific to me and my
level of trainig/technique/whatever?

This is almost certainly a result of specific training:

It is extremely hard to maintain an optimal distribution of effort
between major muscle groups, if you haven't done a lot of event-specific
training.

I know that I can maintain a (significantly) higher avearge heart rate
when running orienteering events than in any other activity, even
regular running. :-)

I.e. you get good doing what you do a lot of. I've seen 10,000 hours
mentioned as the usual level needed to develop expertise.

Terje

--
-
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

From IOC's book Cross Country Skiing: Increased lactate production in
skating probably due to use of upper body and greater leg muscle
contractions. In V1, poling moves to approximately 60% of effort. Women
and young skiers especially have greater upper body limitations in
skating relative to diagonal striding. Skating rhythm is also more
intense on hills. Skating V02max is lower on hills than diagonal
striding or treadmill walking with poles for men and women. Points to
diagonal striding being better for improving oxygen uptake, esp. on
snow. That's a conclusion the Soviet team found in the 1980s when
they split the team in training methods - half 2/3 classic and
vice-versa - and the Germans have been using this year off and on
snow.

Gene



"32 degrees" wrote:

I've read (and felt) that classic skiing averages 10 beats/min lower
than skating.
Not as many "big" muscle groups involved.

Would that explain a classic marathon as feeling relatively "easy"
when compared to a skate marathon?

JK


wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter H. wrote:
After looking at the times for the corresponding bike event
(and you're about half my age!), my 5 hour estimate is probably
unduly pessimistic. But it does depend a lot on conditions.
I see no reason why the HR numbers you give for cycling shouldn't
apply to a ski race, if upper body fitness is okay. But Gary is
right to say that it takes a while for the HR to settle in, maybe
more like 10 minutes for me than an hour.

Best, Peter

I think the 5 hour may be pretty acurate. I am a much better cyclist
than skier. But we'll see!

Today I wore my HRM while skiing. 1.5 hours classic then 1.5 hours
freestyle. Going along at a very comfortable pace classic I was
about
140. Pushing it 150. At 160 I was fried. I could not maintain 160
for anyting but very short burst up short steep hills. At 160 my
shoulders and thighs burned most, but it felt like oxygen was the
weak link. I was gasping. Strange. While going freestyle, I almost
couldn't get my HR below 150. I felt I had a smooth continuum up to
170. Above 170 was only possible for short bursts. On the bike my
timetrial zone is about
175.

I guess I need to calibrate myself!

At 140 classic I am at the threshold of breathing through my mouth.
I can force myself to breathe through my nose, but it feels
strained. At 150 I was right at the level where I needed to pay
attention to keeping the exertion level up, otherwise it would sink
a bit.

Joseph