You are right Brady. There is no "one size fits all" approach in training and everything is contextual. Now that I have retired from an active job and have no hurry to reach office, I was training in zone 2-3 (spending sufficient time) for Ultra marathon of 50k in hills in North India. While I finished that on 23rd November, the volume of training helped me to transition to a 53-minute 10 k in a race, back in Mumbai at sea level, though I haven't done any interval or tempo runs in the last 3 months.
Thank you Brady! I was hoping someone would finally write this exact post. I have been following these debates for years now thinking: “but you are talking about completely different goals and circumstances!”
Very pragmatic. I guess a lot of recreational athletes fall in the area between the two contexts (say 5-6 hours). Does sound like we would benefit from doing more than 20% hard efforts?
Hard and fast rules are tough. I think above 5–6 hours per week of aerobic exercise, 80/20 starts to make sense. Below it, maybe slightly hedge toward more intensity.
Note that 80/20 is typically referring to number of sessions per week, not hours.
The average person has a set of goals for exercise that tend to be some combination of increasing athletic ability, promoting health, burning calories and losing weight, or feeling good.
The last one is subjective and can be approached many ways, but more often than not coaches and experts are frustrated at these studies because they’re slop. There’s a tremendous amount of low-quality research out there, and it’s not helpful for the average person (who, again, tends to have specific exercise goals) when influencers promote this stuff.
V02Max training is perhaps the purest example of this.
This is great information and so important for people AND trainers to know their clients and their goals. I see so many personal trainers absolutely applying carnage to older and out of shape clients. And they never come back.
As an aging runner, I’d love to see more information about the changes in heart rate and VO2 max.
What an important post! I hope it goes viral like you started off saying happens to the "new study" social media posts (although unfortunately, as a nuanced message, it might not be what people run to share).
I really appreciate the point that regular folks looking for health and longevity will appreciate the pitch for more intense workouts because they're not stacking the hours necessary to get the full benefit from lower intensity.
This week I posted a similar type of argument in favor of measuring time, and maybe distance while running, and focusing less on speed. If we're not trying to win any records or run any marathons, it can be counterproductive to get bent out of shape about how slow we are. The most important thing is to get out there and run, because any run will be excellent vigorous exercise.
Thank you for such a tremendously written newsletter about ‘training’ that I had been struggling with personally. The differing content I would read and listen to didn’t seem always compatible, but it actually is and that’s what you clarified.
You are right Brady. There is no "one size fits all" approach in training and everything is contextual. Now that I have retired from an active job and have no hurry to reach office, I was training in zone 2-3 (spending sufficient time) for Ultra marathon of 50k in hills in North India. While I finished that on 23rd November, the volume of training helped me to transition to a 53-minute 10 k in a race, back in Mumbai at sea level, though I haven't done any interval or tempo runs in the last 3 months.
Thank you Brady! I was hoping someone would finally write this exact post. I have been following these debates for years now thinking: “but you are talking about completely different goals and circumstances!”
This clearheaded post was badly needed. Thanks!
Very pragmatic. I guess a lot of recreational athletes fall in the area between the two contexts (say 5-6 hours). Does sound like we would benefit from doing more than 20% hard efforts?
Hard and fast rules are tough. I think above 5–6 hours per week of aerobic exercise, 80/20 starts to make sense. Below it, maybe slightly hedge toward more intensity.
Note that 80/20 is typically referring to number of sessions per week, not hours.
The average person has a set of goals for exercise that tend to be some combination of increasing athletic ability, promoting health, burning calories and losing weight, or feeling good.
The last one is subjective and can be approached many ways, but more often than not coaches and experts are frustrated at these studies because they’re slop. There’s a tremendous amount of low-quality research out there, and it’s not helpful for the average person (who, again, tends to have specific exercise goals) when influencers promote this stuff.
V02Max training is perhaps the purest example of this.
This is great information and so important for people AND trainers to know their clients and their goals. I see so many personal trainers absolutely applying carnage to older and out of shape clients. And they never come back.
As an aging runner, I’d love to see more information about the changes in heart rate and VO2 max.
What an important post! I hope it goes viral like you started off saying happens to the "new study" social media posts (although unfortunately, as a nuanced message, it might not be what people run to share).
I really appreciate the point that regular folks looking for health and longevity will appreciate the pitch for more intense workouts because they're not stacking the hours necessary to get the full benefit from lower intensity.
This week I posted a similar type of argument in favor of measuring time, and maybe distance while running, and focusing less on speed. If we're not trying to win any records or run any marathons, it can be counterproductive to get bent out of shape about how slow we are. The most important thing is to get out there and run, because any run will be excellent vigorous exercise.
Here's the full post: https://thehealthyjew.substack.com/p/what-matters-in-running-speed-distance
What do you think?
Thank you for such a tremendously written newsletter about ‘training’ that I had been struggling with personally. The differing content I would read and listen to didn’t seem always compatible, but it actually is and that’s what you clarified.