There's also value in spending some time in zone 5 [1]: this is where the heart is really trained as a muscle, and where the cardiovascular system is pushed to its limit (the famous vo2max: increasing vo2max is done in zone 5, for ex. with HIIT [2]).
Zone 2 is all about giving the mitochondries a chance to get better at providing a steady energy flow over a long time, mainly by optimizing for burning fat as fuel instead of glucose, avoiding lactate accumulation during the process [3].
In between, in zones 3 & 4, you get a little of both those ends of the spectrum, it's still helpful to a degree, but it's not really optimized: that why it's deemed preferable to spend the bulk of your training time in either your zone 2 or zone 5.
The ideal composition of a training period seems like 90% zone 2 and 10% zone 5, and going for more than 1h of zone 5 per week seems not that interesting. Also, mixing zone 2 and zone 5 in the same training session is not ideal, it's better to stay focused on one thing at at time.
A lot of pop-celebrity-educator types like Attia or Stephen Seiler say that. Then you look at how the professionals train and you see pyramidal distribution almost universally. Something like 85% below first lactate threshold, 12% in "sweet spot" and 3% in "zone 5".
I've spent a lot of time reading a lot about opinions and then looking at logs of professional athletes [1] (in cycling as I am most interested in that). My conclusion is that training comes down to:
1)do a lot of volume, the more the better
2)do some "hard stuff" - if those are hard intervals, longer "sweet spot" intervals or a a mix of those (like 5 minutes at threshold and then 15 seconds sprint, repeat n times) matters little
3)at pro level do some training specific to what you are going to do a lot in racing
1)is by far the most important and the most reliable predictor of overall fitness
[2]https://www.youtube.com/@sportscientist - Stephen Seiler's youtube channel; he has done work on analyzing how pro athletes train but his conclusions are very simplified and it seems made to sell "polarized" training idea. When you look at the details in the data no one trains like that, the final distribution is almost always pyramidal, not polarized
From my experience about jogging (=regular running for your health, without a specific sport goal):
- get good shoes! this is probably the only piece of equipment you need (with a wind/rain jacket). Go to a shop when you can get advice. For me, flat soles is the way to go but I know there is debate on that question. Change them after 1000km at max (I've seen 500 km recommendation)
- follow the advice above zone 2 / zone 5 training. If unsure, slow down !
- avoid pain as much as possible otherwise your body will associate pain and run and you end up giving up (maybe not today, not tomorrow but one day for sure)
- buy a jumping rope and practice (you'll be amazed on the resulting spring effect while running)
- prefer solo session (group sessions are good if you want to talk but the most important thing is to run at your very own pace). you are better with some music or interesting podcasts
- vary the routes as much as possible. Even if you have only one route, start it from time to time on the other direction. There is no better training than on a route you don't know. Always running the same route is part of the reason you may quit.
- start your chronometer at the beginning of the session and try to forget it.
- find a friend and do some bike and run session from time to time (one run, one on the bike for like 20 minutes and then you change). It allows you to make longer run and recover while on the bike.
/!\ Just an opinion here, I'm not a specialist, just a +/- 20y regular runner
For someone who doesn't like running and isn't a runner... I'd advise them to try a different exercise ;-)
Seriously, I have a friend who assumes that exercise == going to the gym... and she hates the gym. But she keeps trying to force that round peg into a square hole!
I've tried asking her, "well, do you like tennis? Dancing? Rock climbing?" But apparently those don't count.
This is a fair and, as far as I can tell, accurate response. There's a huge difference between new runner strategy and optimized runner strategy. Any optimized fitness/habit plan should be just complex enough that you will maintain it, and that's different for everyone.
Another way to look at this: "ideal" has different definitions depending on whether it's maintainable for any given individual, as well as a definition for "what's the best way to do this if you take willpower out of the equation?"
Slightly tangential, but getting an e-bike has got me doing way more miles (by probably an order of magnitude) than I have ever done before - and way more total exercise overall.
Since you can dial in the assist, it basically turns a regular bike into an exercise bike. Or conversely, an exercise bike that actually rides around outside. If I want to fry my legs on a hill, I can drop the assist and really feel the grind. If I want to take it easy on the hill back home though, I can boost the assist so that it takes practically no effort.
It's just this amazing tool that reliably will trick your brain into working out. You take the ebike out because it is so effortless to ride, but inevitably you end up lowering the assist to feel the burn a bit on your rides.
> I like being able to extract the most value out of the lowest time investment
Biking to work using Strava is like this for me.
It gamifies exercise in a very addictive manner. Getting a PR, being quickest on a segment or becoming a local legend.
There is always someone or something to beat.
I had to back off that and instead do other games (ie, wandrer.earth gives you points for "new miles") because I got a bit too competitive and borderline dangerous.
Besides, I got records and fastest times when e.g. wind was at my back or the lights all went my way - so I knew it wasn't just my effort & just happenstance.
I still use Strava - mostly as a personal blog of my efforts & take a picture of wildlife or crazy videos to share with others sometimes.
Ha I had to stop tracking my bike commutes because I was going way too hard for Strava times on them. It got to the point where it was sorta dangerous... Love the app for my fun rides tho!
You sacrifice a segment then go like a mad thing for the one you need to win. And you curse if a dog walker gets in the way, sort of encouraging antisocial behaviour. But if you can get past that stage it’s pretty rewarding to ignore segments and go for longer records (eg 20km, 50km etc).
Yes. That's why I march quickly with a heavy backpack. That should be zone 2.
Then occupationally I try to do sprints uphill, walk down. Get ready for another uphill sprint. I have been lazy on that unfortunately.
There is also a lot of evidence that sprinting is really good. I mean if you look at the bodies of Olympic sprinters vs Olympic runners, what do you want to develop?
Zone 2 is all about giving the mitochondries a chance to get better at providing a steady energy flow over a long time, mainly by optimizing for burning fat as fuel instead of glucose, avoiding lactate accumulation during the process [3].
In between, in zones 3 & 4, you get a little of both those ends of the spectrum, it's still helpful to a degree, but it's not really optimized: that why it's deemed preferable to spend the bulk of your training time in either your zone 2 or zone 5.
The ideal composition of a training period seems like 90% zone 2 and 10% zone 5, and going for more than 1h of zone 5 per week seems not that interesting. Also, mixing zone 2 and zone 5 in the same training session is not ideal, it's better to stay focused on one thing at at time.
[1] https://peterattiamd.com/category/exercise/high-intensity-zo...
[2] https://peterattiamd.com/category/exercise/vo2-max/
[3] https://peterattiamd.com/category/exercise/aerobic-zone-2-tr...