In the last year we have seen how you have begun to compete in disciplines outside the mountain, such as the 10km en route or trying to beat the 24 -hour record on the track. What has been your impression after such an atypical year? What performance/training factors do you think they discern more between competing in the mountains or doing it on the route/track?

My impression is that I have learned a lot! By changing training you discover different adaptations, also different problems, and you ask yourself how and why to make loads. It has helped me to improve the mountain despite doing less (I suppose that after 15 years of a very similar training, introducing a different stress has "aroused" adaptations that have served me to improve, especially in tests as a vertical kilometer). In addition, I have lost some muscle in my legs and therefore weight.
Although both in the mountain and in plain it is to run, there are many differences. Without entering more techniques where the difference is abysmal, in Mountain Cardio's work is much greater, and muscle level is very varied and quite a lot of strength (eccentric lowering and rising from twins and buttocks force, especially). In plain, I would say that the cardio from a certain level matters little, but there is a very important job at the muscle level, of force in the back, itchios above all, already level of reactivity, in twins ... basically I would say that for Improving in the mountain cardio and vo ₂ , and for plain muscle adaptations.

When one looks at the tables published on the Internet on the highest maximum oxygen consumption (VO _2Max ) registered in athletes, a fact of yours (~ 90 ml/kg/min) always appears among the first positions. In a previous interview, Dr. Iñigo San Millán, head of performance in the UAE Team Emirates cycling team, told us that he tells the VO _2Max as a performance predictor, and instead the lactate does. What importance do you give in your preparation to this and other "laboratory" markers? Do you evaluate them regularly?

The VO _2Max says little without context: having a great engine, but not having muscle adaptations or not knowing how to use this oxygen that we absorb efficiently. As for lactate, it is undoubtedly a good more specific indicator. Above all, it will indicate how adapted an athlete is to an activity and its levels. This is why it is also important to look at lactates in the specific discipline of the athlete, because otherwise he will deceive us a lot. The data always tell us something (VO ₂ , lactates, pulsations, saturation or ₂ ...), but in my opinion you have to be careful and put them in the temporal and individual context to be able to interpret what they are telling us. I try to measure them in effort tests or when I do any training test to look at something concrete, and you can tell me at what point I am in the preparation, what I must focus more on the training etc., but in the day to day I do it to the 100% for sensations or rhythms (horizontal or vertical speed).

We have also seen how in your preparation for the 24 -hour record on the track you have begun to "train" nutrition. What role have you given in previous years to nutrition (for example, in ascent to Everest or in previous races), and what role do you currently give it? What variables do you think they are the most relevant?

Very little at first, but more and more. I remember once at the Giir di Mont that I forgot to put the alarm The race! In general I never ate training and in races ate when he was hungry or noticed the downturn, perhaps 1 gel every hour or hour and a half. In climbing it is complicated, because in Alpine style you carry all the material of the expedition, and therefore you cannot carry much and also because at height you forget to eat, but I began to give importance to how to look for a good relationship between the 2 And, in races, a couple of years ago, from guidelines that I saw in Marathonians and last year following the studio of Aitor Viribay and his group I started trying to eat more for some training and in the Races, and I noticed that energy levels are much more stable for all the time.

The role of carbohydrates is essential in performance. Despite its importance, your discipline is characterized by a large number of training hours in which sometimes you may not have access to the amount of supplementation necessary to replace glycogen/glucose deposits that ensure optimal performance in the last sections (or yes). What strategy do you usually follow regarding nutritional intake and hydrates contribution before and during each output? And also in relation to this question, how do you value the strategies of training low (low availability of carbohydrates) for improving performance in ultra-resistance sports? 

I think there are two things: one, to train low in hydrates to train the metabolism to this situation, because it may be that in an ascent or a long challenge you are 20h without being able to eat and need energy, and if your body is capable and accustomed I see this as a great security tool. In general, in all the training that I do in Long Mountain at low rhythms and media I do not carry food, this can be out of 5 or 10h. On the other hand, to perform fast, you have to be able to process the hydrates well and for this you have to train it, which is why in the most medium-fast training I have food. For example, I can try to eat before going to train and then take a gel every hour or every 40 ′. In races you will have avituallamientos every little and there is no safety problem of the high mountain, and that is why you have to train nutritionally to be able to absorb the maximum of carbohydrates without having discomfort.

Most mountain runners focus their training on volume and more volume. What would you say that they are the fundamental pillars on which the performance in this sport is based? What importance do you give to strength training or high intensity training (HIIT), less popular in mountain corridors? How do you organize, in general features, your training planning (eg “type” organization for a week, and/or for a season)?

Let's see, I really like the volume, not because I think it is necessary to improve performance, but because I mentally need to spend many hours in the mountain to be well psychologically. But I am also a defender that volume must be made, at least 80% of the training must be at low rhythms, this is necessary for cardiovascular capabilities, the VO _2Max , the mechanical and muscle adaptations and, for the technique, on the technique, on All speaking of sports such as skimo or mountain races where there is a technical part (Make Maria, know how to interpret the snow or ankle game to put your foot as you want in the snow skiing or foot running depending on the type of terrain ...) and for this they need hours. Then, once we have this, it is no longer so necessary, and I think that then goes for individual tastes, possibilities or adaptations. Once we have the base you have to put the speed and this is with HIIT and what is known as tempo, which will allow us to go faster. In a typical week in a specific period, for example, I put 1-2 days tempo, and 2 days of Hiit. Regarding strength training, I am very lazy, I don't like anything and I just do a little for the CORE or prevent injuries and, since I have not needed it at the moment I have preferred to use this time to make a rise more during training for example .

Height training has gained great popularity in recent years, but since not all athletes can afford to make stays at height, normobaric hypoxia has emerged as an alternative potential. What opinion do you have about normobaric hypoxia for the preparation of competitions at height, or in which more close “at sea level” is made? Do you use these strategies?

I have tried it and for sea level tests I think it serves little. In high -level athletes that have been at this level for many years and when it is difficult to create a large stress with normal training it can be useful, not so much because of hypoxia itself, but by the fact of doing something a little harder.
To create adaptations, either to acclimatize at a height or so that there are significant changes in the body, many hours are needed. The intermittent hypoxia training really does not understand, or is it the same as training enduring the air, for example? But to create adaptations you have to pass about 200 or 300h in height, there begins to be significant changes. Spend a month in a shelter in the Alps to 4000m or training in Nepal between 4000 and 5000m (or higher) it will create interesting adaptations, or if you are able to do this in a camera too, but it is a long time! Upon returning from an expedition, the cardiovascular capabilities are brutal, you have been a month where the lowest point were about 5000m and doing many hours at a very low pace, but with a great metabolic effort, and if you have not burned yourself, as well as You have surely lost a little weight, you can fly. But it is also very easy to burn, go from effort because only being awake, even sleeping requires effort, and you have to monitor this point a lot because if you can't take several months to recover.

In relation to this last issue, we have historically seen how the main objective of acclimatations in height prior to promotions to summits such as Everest was the increase in the amount of red blood cells. Knowing that hematocrit values ​​above 47-48% can increase the risk of freezing, what are in your opinion the physiological parameters that may have a greater relationship with the improvement of performance and height adaptation? In this sense, in your double ascension to Everest, how did you value the level of adaptation and how did you raise the times of stay in each base camp? How do you think that acclimatization processes prior to rapid ascents could be improved?

Yes, historically adaptations with hematocrit were measured, which is not very indicative because dehydration will also give high values ​​and, as you say, the densest the blood the more risk of freezing there is, and many people take aspirin or vasodilators stronger To compensate, what in the long term is a nonsense and ethically very debatable short term. In addition, a high hematocrit is telling us that our body is acclimatizing but that it is not yet. Once acclimatized, our hematocrit must return to normal values ​​because this extra does not need to compensate for the lack of acclimatization. To give an example, when you go to a new height, the first compensation is momentary, it is to breathe more, at 24 hours we will start producing more red blood cells, which lasts about 7 days. At 3 weeks we will see adaptations to enzyme levels to improve oxygen penetration/absorption in the muscle. And when our body has made all these adaptations, you can no longer acclimatize at this given at this point and our values ​​will be stable and, therefore, we will be more efficient.
For an expedition to a high peak we know that up to about 6000-6500m we can acclimatize "to live", but from there we will be in a height where we will always lose something, where we cannot live indeterminately. I am a supporter of acclimatizing very well at this point, to lead a "normal life", be able to run etc., here and then make up during the day, to play large heights, 7500, 8000, or 8200m to activate answers and Mechanisms in the body, but without spending a lot of time and going down to sleep to recover well. This in my opinion allows you to acclimatize in the height, but not wear much and be able to do much more activity during an expedition. On the other hand, you have to be physically a little well to be able to make a rise and fall from 6000 to 8000m for example in a short time and not be very tired, because if you are physically and technically, you are not, this method of acclimatization is dangerous since You have no infrastructure in the mountain to rest.

In health and performance there is a field that is not taken into account and that is usually taboo theme but that is transcendental, mental or psychological state. In a world such as high performance, where the pressure of achieving objectives added to sponsors and social networks can be overwhelming, have you carried out psychological "training" or meditation strategies with the aim of improving performance and focusing objectives or simply be healthier?

It is true that it is a bit taboo but I also believe that it is increasingly accepted, from treating derived psychological problems such as anorexia, bulimia or anxiety with psychologists, or for a positive reinforcement with mental trainers, etc. In the end the key is to be in a good balance and this, although it seems easy, is not. The athlete's work (apart from visibility, networks, press ...) is to render. And this means that what you do is mold your body to perform, that is, your work is yourself, and this is so 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and for many years. You cannot take weekends or a vacation or have a working time and free time. Because when you are sleeping it is also work in the sense that it is part of the training process. And when everything goes well, the results accompany, everything is easier. But when something goes wrong (an injury, worse results of what you expect, bad days, internal or external pressure, that people are examining you and commenting on everything you do ...) you are looking for solutions but many times you eat your head, And do what you do this has an impact on your work, for example, drink alcohol or take a sweet or go with friends ... Well, it is very easy to find how to reverse these actions so that they do not impact your performance and it is Easy to start having problems like the ones I commented. In the end each one has its weaknesses and consists of finding a balance, which is not easy to find. It is normally found by trial-error. In my case, excess sociabilization is what causes me anxiety, and in sport where in events and a large part of our work with media etc., it is to be in contact with people because it is difficult to isolate themselves, and it has taken me years until you find the good balance between time of silence and social time to be able to train and render sustainably. And I have found it in a form of meditation, with mountain activities, but also learning and reading a lot of psychology and philosophy.

Your double ascent to Everest without supplementary oxygen and in record time is seen by many as one of your greatest feats. What do you think has been one of your greatest sporting challenges at a technical and physiological level? Which one is the next one in mind?

At the activity level, climbing Everest without oxygen in this century is no feat. At a technical or exploration level, either. More than a feat, for me it was an activity in which I learned a lot, first that I was able to climb at this point, then how to solve problems that occur there when you are alone, and then how the body reacts when you make a very long effort and in a lot of height just after another effort that had also been very long and in a lot of height. This has given me clues of how to prepare other activities and, above all, I have opened the window of possibilities to things to try. There are many ideas, you have to find the time to do them!

Thank you very much for this pleasant conversation and we wish you the best of luck for the future.