all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Zone 2 cardio question

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
DrFierce said:
I think the talk test just feels a bit squishier to me. I can get significantly above my MAF number (125-135 with nasal breathing and on the talk test.

That being said, Peter's version of Zone 2 looks pretty hard to me-- and would probably fall in a higher HR range:


Obviously the MAF number is probably lowballing things a bit.
Click to expand...

the way i think of the MAF number is that it's like the 4-week step load in Simple & Sinister.

A compromise - (which would have been made one way or another) - between rushing, and not going anywhere.

the MAF number gets me what I need, with ease, every time it's tried.
 
jrtmolar said:
The wattage is the best metic to determine if your metabolic health is improving zone 2 training. More specifically watts/kilogram. The rough wats/kilo are as follows

1=poor health.
2=average health
3=10th percentile health
4=elite health.
Click to expand...
@jrtmolar curious about this. for the watts. Is this number specifically tied to a 60 minute effort , or average watts (regardless of duration )? And where did you find these numbers? Not skeptical just curious
 
DrFierce said:
I think the talk test just feels a bit squishier to me. I can get significantly above my MAF number (125-135 with nasal breathing and on the talk test.

That being said, Peter's version of Zone 2 looks pretty hard to me-- and would probably fall in a higher HR range:


Obviously the MAF number is probably lowballing things a bit.
Click to expand...

I am in the same boat, my MAF is 125 but my talk test/nasal breathing is at least 10-15 beats higher. I am going to try my ‘Z2’ training at the higher HR for a while and see how it goes.
 
Sure, I get it but volume of? Well Im sure it is fine to do but there is a large selection and confirmation bias at play because it is driven by an endurance background. I'm not dissing easy running zone 2 because I do some but not anywhere near the volume suggested, if otherwise active. But then I have a sprint bias, so there's that...very much a minority sport in these older years.
 
ali said:
Sure, I get it but volume of? Well Im sure it is fine to do but there is a large selection and confirmation bias at play because it is driven by an endurance background. I'm not dissing easy running zone 2 because I do some but not anywhere near the volume suggested, if otherwise active. But then I have a sprint bias, so there's that...very much a minority sport in these older years.
Click to expand...
I haven't followed everything mentioned in this particular thread so if my comment seem like they're coming out of left field it's because they might be but... :
*(The recommended) 3 hours/week of zone 2 is NOT that much.
*3 hours of zone 2 does in no way preclude doing speed work or resistance training.
 
ali said:
Sure, I get it but volume of? Well Im sure it is fine to do but there is a large selection and confirmation bias at play because it is driven by an endurance background. I'm not dissing easy running zone 2 because I do some but not anywhere near the volume suggested, if otherwise active. But then I have a sprint bias, so there's that...very much a minority sport in these older years.
Click to expand...
I could be very wrong in my interpretation of everything Im reading but the 3-4 hours per week of zone 2 training is the best thing we can do from a movement perspective for overall metabloic health . . . .and with my goal to live like a king till 100, Im all in
 
Last edited:
watchnerd said:
That doesn't make it correct.

CDC guidelines:

"Muscle-strengthening activities

on 2 or more days a week that work all major muscle groups (legs, hips, back, abdomen, chest, shoulders, and arms)."

You're not going to do that in 10 minutes.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The Giant is 20 minutes.
 
watchnerd said:
Are you actually hitting 70-80% MHR while walking?

I can't.

I love walking for all sorts of reasons, but I don't count it as Zone 2 cardio because my HR doesn't get into the target threshold for long enough (or barely at all).

So while I walk every day for about 20-30 minutes, I supplement that with 3 x 20-30 min of "vigorous" work each week (2 x Zone 2 sessions, 1 x Zone 5 interval session).
Click to expand...
Well, with a bad cardio and vo2 max of years of bad habbits and sedentary life, even I figured that it is not easy for me to hit zone 2 by rucking. I will continue to adjust speed weight etc and believe I can hit but for some one with years of weightlifting experience, it might be difficult to hit zone 2 in a practical manner via rucking w modest weight.
 
Ege said:
Well, with a bad cardio and vo2 max of years of bad habbits and sedentary life, even I figured that it is not easy for me to hit zone 2 by rucking. I will continue to adjust speed weight etc and believe I can hit but for some one with years of weightlifting experience, it might be difficult to hit zone 2 in a practical manner via rucking w modest weight.
Click to expand...
I can absolutely hit zone 2 rucking or a light loaded carry (shouldering a 40lb training bag). I sometimes pace in the backyard for 30-40mins in the good weather months. Keeps the dog company and she likes it.
 
Boris Bachmann said:
I can absolutely hit zone 2 rucking or a light loaded carry (shouldering a 40lb training bag). I sometimes pace in the backyard for 30-40mins in the good weather months. Keeps the dog company and she likes it.
Click to expand...

That is great to know. I am quite new on this and you guys might ask what is new about walking :) I am new in tracking my heart rate and trying to increase it to certain level.

Once I have an understanding I will use talk test… My walking strides are short, pace is slow, I mean somehow someway I am sure I will be able to hit target HR. Since I suck in cardio.

Encouraging to see your results, thanks for sharing sir.
 
Boris Bachmann said:
I can absolutely hit zone 2 rucking or a light loaded carry (shouldering a 40lb training bag). I sometimes pace in the backyard for 30-40mins in the good weather months. Keeps the dog company and she likes it.
Click to expand...

I will give it a go this afternoon w 8kg KB in the bag. Let’ s see how it goes…
 
watchnerd said:
Because your speed and power don't matter much if you stroke out or have a heart attack.
Click to expand...

What about Jim Fixx? Is Zone 2 cardio training is an effective insurance policy against heart attack and/or stroke?

My brother-in-law coined a good expression about health issues as we age. (He, my sister, my wife and I are all within 3 years of the same age.) He said he considers it his job to "manage" his health, by which he meant keeping an eye on things so as to deal with whatever might need dealing with before it gets out of hand. I like the concept. I don't know that doing this is an insurance policy, either, but it seems sensible to me to try to stop a small problem from becoming a bigger one, so if I was worried about stroke or heart attack, I'd get the appropriate tests done, but I wouldn't start jogging as a preventative but, hey, maybe it's because I ran for a lot of years and I don't feel it ever did much for me except make me better at running.

I still need that second cup of coffee...

JMO, YMMV.

-S-
 
Steve Freides said:
What about Jim Fixx? Is Zone 2 cardio training is an effective insurance policy against heart attack and/or stroke?
Click to expand...
a certain amount of my extended family is in medicine. and the nurses and doctors were talking one thanksgiving and lamenting: some people just got dealt a bad hand organ-wise. some people are born with attributes that can get them into the Olympics. some people are born with livers that are genetically destined to be less capable than others.

they continued their thoughts that there is this range of patients they treat, who could not have possibly avoided their fates in the hospital. a bad liver, kidney, heart, etc. is sometimes a congenital issue.

and their speculations about how much of the population is like this - they argued it's probably whatever a roll of the dice would come up with. sometimes more sometimes less. so, as has been explained to me, sometimes there are people who never could have known they got a bad ticker, till they're 51, and they play a game of flag football, and a casual exertion goes awry.

All of this is to say the so-called therapeutic effects of exercise have a segment of the population where it's necessarily harmful due to underlying circumstances. this is said to have been exhibited in the latest iteration of the Framingham heart study to be somewhere in the vicinity of 10% of the populace. where extended aerobic exercise seemed to correlate with increases in bad heart health markers. as they lamented, yeah they got dealt a bad hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom