This is such a great episode and now has me questioning everything and I have so many more questions. I really want to do a deep dive on this and in particular for highly trained/experience amateur runners.
I drank the Zone 2 juice for years (and I still do from all the people like Dr. Peter Attia, Phil Maffetone, Matt Fitzgerald, etc.) but the amount of respected run coaches that are so angry at this is interesting. More to come - watch this space! (Also posted this as a restack)
Thanks Daren! It’s a very nuanced discussion and I hope the conversation didn’t come off as “don’t do zone 2.” The divide seems to be what to prescribe for gen pop vs. the highly trained athlete.
If the beneficial adaptations come from training in zone 3 and above, why do elites do so much training at zone 2 and below? wouldn’t they be better off swapping it for resting?
I think this comment is where the hardcore amateur athletes (me!) get confused and spend too much time doing zone 2. We see the pros with all their time and resources, and we want to mimic them. But it sounds like we should possibly have a totally different approach to zone-based/intensity-based training for goals like 5k-marathons.
The issue is that I did zone 2 for so long after having a weak aerobic base in my 20s that heavily limited my 800m potential, and I've seen some amazing gains across the board in health and fitness markers for the last 14 years. So, to discount zone 2 and the benefits I've gotten is pretty silly, but the fact that Kristi can't find evidence that zone 2 increases mitochondria and there are no studies showing this, is wild.
Again, I'm still trying to formulate a hypothesis, but I'm intrigued and annoyed all at the same time by this. That's a good thing.
Great interview! I am of the opinion that - as you alluded - there’s too many undefined Zone “protocols”. There’s 3 Zone models, 5 Zone, 7 Zone, and more. What would be considered Zone 2 in a three Zone model may be VASTLY different from Zone 2 in a seven Zone model; or not! It all depends on how things are defined. There needs to be a consensus for researchers as to which model is to be considered “standard” for research purposes, and what parameters define the Zones being discussed/investigated.
Is the exercise science community at a point of ‘settled science’ on the best practices for training for endurance sports?
The general physiology and skeletal muscle bioenergetics structures and processes seem to fairly well understood. How to stimulate them for adaptation and training effects seem to be understood. Why is there debate or conflicting studies at this point?
Good question Bill. I agree that - from a molecular POV - we understand what causes certain adaptations and how best to train for them.
Here's why there's a debate (IMO) - we're talking about two different goals. Coaches arguing with people in the longevity/general health space about the "best way to train." There's bound to be disagreement even though I'd argue we're tilting at windmills.
Thanks! This study and your talk really explains everything so well. I have been thinking about this for a while now: Is this intensity distribution simply an artifact? And we should really be careful with prescribing this distribution to the general public.
This is such a great episode and now has me questioning everything and I have so many more questions. I really want to do a deep dive on this and in particular for highly trained/experience amateur runners.
I drank the Zone 2 juice for years (and I still do from all the people like Dr. Peter Attia, Phil Maffetone, Matt Fitzgerald, etc.) but the amount of respected run coaches that are so angry at this is interesting. More to come - watch this space! (Also posted this as a restack)
Thanks Daren! It’s a very nuanced discussion and I hope the conversation didn’t come off as “don’t do zone 2.” The divide seems to be what to prescribe for gen pop vs. the highly trained athlete.
If the beneficial adaptations come from training in zone 3 and above, why do elites do so much training at zone 2 and below? wouldn’t they be better off swapping it for resting?
Great question. I don’t think they’d be better off resting because there ARE benefits to the lower-intensity training.
I think this comment is where the hardcore amateur athletes (me!) get confused and spend too much time doing zone 2. We see the pros with all their time and resources, and we want to mimic them. But it sounds like we should possibly have a totally different approach to zone-based/intensity-based training for goals like 5k-marathons.
The issue is that I did zone 2 for so long after having a weak aerobic base in my 20s that heavily limited my 800m potential, and I've seen some amazing gains across the board in health and fitness markers for the last 14 years. So, to discount zone 2 and the benefits I've gotten is pretty silly, but the fact that Kristi can't find evidence that zone 2 increases mitochondria and there are no studies showing this, is wild.
Again, I'm still trying to formulate a hypothesis, but I'm intrigued and annoyed all at the same time by this. That's a good thing.
Great interview! I am of the opinion that - as you alluded - there’s too many undefined Zone “protocols”. There’s 3 Zone models, 5 Zone, 7 Zone, and more. What would be considered Zone 2 in a three Zone model may be VASTLY different from Zone 2 in a seven Zone model; or not! It all depends on how things are defined. There needs to be a consensus for researchers as to which model is to be considered “standard” for research purposes, and what parameters define the Zones being discussed/investigated.
Excellent ! I’ve been a hesitant/suspicious follower of the Z2 and 80/20 push, so this ameliorated some of my worries about pushing the boundaries.
Is the exercise science community at a point of ‘settled science’ on the best practices for training for endurance sports?
The general physiology and skeletal muscle bioenergetics structures and processes seem to fairly well understood. How to stimulate them for adaptation and training effects seem to be understood. Why is there debate or conflicting studies at this point?
Good question Bill. I agree that - from a molecular POV - we understand what causes certain adaptations and how best to train for them.
Here's why there's a debate (IMO) - we're talking about two different goals. Coaches arguing with people in the longevity/general health space about the "best way to train." There's bound to be disagreement even though I'd argue we're tilting at windmills.
Thanks! This study and your talk really explains everything so well. I have been thinking about this for a while now: Is this intensity distribution simply an artifact? And we should really be careful with prescribing this distribution to the general public.