There is training for health and physical fitness. Yes, absolutely get a bigger bang / vigorous minute of work.
Then there is training for performance…an endurance competition, PR in 5K, mountain race, triathlon… and the extremes in ultra-endurance sports. From a CV-metabolic-cognitive health perspective, there is a ceiling effect, and even associated risks at extreme levels.
People need to decide WHY are they training? And what environments do they need and choose to move in, with competence and confidence?
As a Coach, I layer on levels of ROBUSTNESS based on the demands and risks of the sport, adventure, competition, etc.
Training for healthy longevity, to be all-around fit to move in relatively low risk, predictable environments at controlled speeds is NOT the same as training for a mountain race at high altitudes with loose scree in exposed technical terrain!
I’m in somewhat of a quandary right now; I can’t do any cardio due to some kind of Gluteal Tendinopathy ongoing for over a year. I used to indoor cycle for zone 2 and 5 but now have the issue that any running, rucking, ski erg, incline walking, rowing all flare up my injury. I want a healthy heart but am simply unable to get one right now.
From my interpretation, their VPA category sounded like more base/z2 efforts, which we all know is beneficial. In my mind when I hear the word “vigorous” I always think threshold workouts or above. Either way, data still holds, need to up the intensity to experience more adaptations.
I was thinking the same—but then in the essay he mentions getting close to max heart rate as a recommendation, which is much more strenuous than a zone two run.
You are both correct—VPA as defined in this study is a lot less “vigorous” than we typically define it when thinking about training. That being said I don’t think the recommendation to go more vigorous than zone 2 at least once per week lacks evidence! It’s always funny how different studies choose to define these terms but very important to note, as you point out.
This was a timely post. I have a foot issue I’m dealing with so I had to curtail my rucking and running and supplement with HIIT sessions using sandbags and kettlebells between my twice-weekly resistance training.
Unlike an hour or rucking, these HIIT sessions are usually 20-25 minutes and I’m gassed. The amount of time I’m spending exercising per week has gone down but the intensity feels much higher (which I know is subjective).
The other thought I had reading this is if done right, all our days should ideally be a mix of LPA, MPA and HPA. I don’t know how to convey that from a policy perspective. We’re so much an all or nothing society, always looking for the next hack or optimization. As you and others have written, we’ve made “exercise” this separate thing from our day to day that it’s an extra thing people must do instead of something that’s part of their lives.
I live in a very hilly area, hoping walking up them equates to vigorous. Some hills take 15-20 minutes each. I have a love and hate relationship with hills. How do older people ie 50s 60s 70s 80s...get around ageing (sarcopenia and cardiovascular fitness) doing high intensity? Perhaps more RT is than the bigger activity to benefit and help us get older. Thankyou.
It’s never too late. Madonna Hanna began sprinting at 57 and went on to become a national champion sprinter at 71. John Hurd began sprinting at 61 and won 156 gold medals in the Senior Games. I read he started with vigorous walking.
But my favorite inspiration is Ed Whitlock, who took up running in his 40s and at 73 set a world record for a marathon at 2:54:48. He was only 73.
Yes - hills (probably) count as vigorous! I think doing something *daily* (or near daily) and never letting yourself go too long without training is key to prevent muscle loss and fitness decline. Most people fall off a cliff because they just stop. Once you're past 50, it's hard to get back.
There is training for health and physical fitness. Yes, absolutely get a bigger bang / vigorous minute of work.
Then there is training for performance…an endurance competition, PR in 5K, mountain race, triathlon… and the extremes in ultra-endurance sports. From a CV-metabolic-cognitive health perspective, there is a ceiling effect, and even associated risks at extreme levels.
People need to decide WHY are they training? And what environments do they need and choose to move in, with competence and confidence?
As a Coach, I layer on levels of ROBUSTNESS based on the demands and risks of the sport, adventure, competition, etc.
Training for healthy longevity, to be all-around fit to move in relatively low risk, predictable environments at controlled speeds is NOT the same as training for a mountain race at high altitudes with loose scree in exposed technical terrain!
👍🏔
I’m in somewhat of a quandary right now; I can’t do any cardio due to some kind of Gluteal Tendinopathy ongoing for over a year. I used to indoor cycle for zone 2 and 5 but now have the issue that any running, rucking, ski erg, incline walking, rowing all flare up my injury. I want a healthy heart but am simply unable to get one right now.
Can you swim, water exercise, deep water run? Have you tried the Arc trainer, kind of like an Elliptical, for now?!
Good luck! 👍🏔
Sorry to hear that Matthew! This is when the sauna may be a valuable tool.
From my interpretation, their VPA category sounded like more base/z2 efforts, which we all know is beneficial. In my mind when I hear the word “vigorous” I always think threshold workouts or above. Either way, data still holds, need to up the intensity to experience more adaptations.
I was thinking the same—but then in the essay he mentions getting close to max heart rate as a recommendation, which is much more strenuous than a zone two run.
You are both correct—VPA as defined in this study is a lot less “vigorous” than we typically define it when thinking about training. That being said I don’t think the recommendation to go more vigorous than zone 2 at least once per week lacks evidence! It’s always funny how different studies choose to define these terms but very important to note, as you point out.
Thanks for reading!
For sure. Zone 2 for aerobic, zone 4/5 for anaerobic and VO2max training :)
How is MPA v VPA defined in terms of specific heart rate levels?
If one were to put a HR range on their definition, it would likely be 55–75% of MHR. Think zone 2 intensity.
That being said, I’m not sure the implications change much—perhaps the dose-response patterns.
Fair enough. If ‘VPA’ is 65% though.. a lot easier to rack up hours at Zone 2 v. Threshold
Not in this study—they categorized it based “acceleration” or basically movement intensity from the wearable.
Massively different if VPA is 65% HR v 85%*
What’s a reasonable guess? The implications are massively different
This was a timely post. I have a foot issue I’m dealing with so I had to curtail my rucking and running and supplement with HIIT sessions using sandbags and kettlebells between my twice-weekly resistance training.
Unlike an hour or rucking, these HIIT sessions are usually 20-25 minutes and I’m gassed. The amount of time I’m spending exercising per week has gone down but the intensity feels much higher (which I know is subjective).
The other thought I had reading this is if done right, all our days should ideally be a mix of LPA, MPA and HPA. I don’t know how to convey that from a policy perspective. We’re so much an all or nothing society, always looking for the next hack or optimization. As you and others have written, we’ve made “exercise” this separate thing from our day to day that it’s an extra thing people must do instead of something that’s part of their lives.
Well said! I completely agree most days should have some high intensity in them + a LOT of low-intensity movement.
I live in a very hilly area, hoping walking up them equates to vigorous. Some hills take 15-20 minutes each. I have a love and hate relationship with hills. How do older people ie 50s 60s 70s 80s...get around ageing (sarcopenia and cardiovascular fitness) doing high intensity? Perhaps more RT is than the bigger activity to benefit and help us get older. Thankyou.
It’s never too late. Madonna Hanna began sprinting at 57 and went on to become a national champion sprinter at 71. John Hurd began sprinting at 61 and won 156 gold medals in the Senior Games. I read he started with vigorous walking.
But my favorite inspiration is Ed Whitlock, who took up running in his 40s and at 73 set a world record for a marathon at 2:54:48. He was only 73.
Yes - hills (probably) count as vigorous! I think doing something *daily* (or near daily) and never letting yourself go too long without training is key to prevent muscle loss and fitness decline. Most people fall off a cliff because they just stop. Once you're past 50, it's hard to get back.