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)
Are there any research that says that zone 2 training leads to better health and longevity than people who do interval training like 4*4 minutes ?
 
Anders said:
Are there any research that says that zone 2 training leads to better health and longevity than people who do interval training like 4*4 minutes ?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's plenty of research to be cited, but from my general impression, there is a LOT of research that supports a dose-dependent relationship between aerobic/cardio training and health and longevity benefits -- i.e, the more you do, the better you get. So where zone 2 "wins" is that you can do a large volume with relatively little stress. With interval training you just can't do that much of it. However, it certainly has its own benefits, and some of them do overlap with the benefits of zone 2 cardio.
 
Well, after going too far down the rabbit hole and reading differing opinions on Zone 2 HR percentages, I settled on the simple Maffetone formula and went from there. The two seem similar enough to me.

Walking on a 7-8% inclined treadmill at 3.0mph puts me right at where I want to be. I break a sweat and enjoy the training.

Thanks, all!
 
Cochran said:
Well, after going too far down the rabbit hole and reading differing opinions on Zone 2 HR percentages, I settled on the simple Maffetone formula and went from there. The two seem similar enough to me.

Walking on a 7-8% inclined treadmill at 3.0mph puts me right at where I want to be. I break a sweat and enjoy the training.

Thanks, all!
Click to expand...
 
@Anders there is some research I remember reading that different mechanisms occur with intensity vs volume.... I wish I could remember where. I'd have to find it
 
Cochran said:
Walking on a 7-8% inclined treadmill
Click to expand...
Walking on a steep incline treadmill reminds me of this article about Nathan MacKinnon, who was a 1st overall NHL draft pick (hockey).

His trainer got a hold of him as a 14-15 year old and made him walk on a steep treadmill for hours at a time during his off season. Didn't let him touch a weight or do sprints. He came out and dominated that season against older kids.

The article talks about focusing on flexing his ankle (by incline walking) to improve his skating mechanics. I'm sure the solid base he developed didn't hurt either.

 
Ian CL said:
The article talks about focusing on flexing his ankle (by incline walking) to improve his skating mechanics.
Click to expand...
Thank you - now I know of two sports in which flexible ankles are an asset, in this case dorsiflexion. The other way, plantar flexion, is a big deal in swimming.

(Why is dorsiflexion one word and plantar flexion two words? I have no idea.)

-S-
 
John K said:
I like Maffetone and the Talk Test, or even nasal breathing. I would suggest picking one and using it for a while, and then start paying attention to where the other one is at relative to it. What I mean is, if you pick Maffetone (180-49 = 131 max, 121 min), do that, follow it - it is your Guide. But also - pay attention to what your breathing is like when you are in that range. On the flip side, if you choose Talk Test, use it as your Guide - but maybe still wear a HRM and see where you heart rate is over the course of a run. Then you can start seeing where YOUR upper zone 2 is - where you normally fail the talk test relative to the HR - and then you can use either as your guide, depending on feeling.

How long have you been doing S&S, and how often? As you continue to practice, that time will continue to decrease. Keep in mind that passing the talk test (being able to speak 10-15 words in a breath) is different from being completely recovered.

I like using a clock as a guide to make sure I am not resting too long (or sometimes, to hold me back). Feel free to play and explore with that. For example, set a 2 min timer and do a set of 10 swings every 2 minutes. If you get to where the timer beeps and you are huffing and puffing and can't speak a full sentence, skip that round - write it down, and track it, but take that round off and then pick back up on the next one. Over time, you might find 2 min is WAY too generous and you cut it down; or over time you might find you could string 2 2-min rounds together initially before having to take a round off, but now you are able to do 5 2-min rounds before taking a break. These are both strategies to help organize your session and so that you can easily start seeing progress as you go, which is rewarding and encouraging. Feel free to NOT use these ideas as they are only one of many tools - and some people hate being constrained by the clock. If you do use them, sometimes take a break from using them and go by feel and see what your total time is.
Click to expand...
Thanks again.

I was using the talk test in a wrong way….. I was doing:
Swing Left - Talk Test - Swing Right - Full Recovery ..

TGU Left- TGU Right - Full Recovery … ( with no talk test at all!)

Now S&S is more productive and does not “feel” long. Purposefully I will rely on “feeling” and don’t time cause I could try to squeeze things..

Thanks again.
 
An interesting read from a world record holder ultra marathon er.
In her words, “Long runs are overrated.”

It's all relative of course! Still, bone and tissue adaptation and the view that higher frequency running is an alternative model.

www.trailrunnermag.com

Camille Herron’s Advice For Ultra Athletes: Skip the Long Run

Bones are made of dynamic tissues that need stress, just not too much, says one of the world's best ultrarunners.
www.trailrunnermag.com www.trailrunnermag.com
 
Boris Bachmann said:
Is Huberman (a neurologist?) really all that? I guess I find it strange that he's considered an expert on S&C...
Click to expand...
Sir, just as an information on Huberman. He doesn’t claim to be an expert on S&C. He is a scientist who is capable of going through researches effectively, and sharing the summary of those researches and invites the experts on different topics to his podcast.

I respect him but we all have to know that he does not have credible empirical experience on S&C and to his credit he does not claim that he has. From time to time, he mentions his own S&C routine in a humble way that is all.

While listening to him, I view him as a person who would summarize the studies in that given area better than me. But he can’t “filter” them with empirical knowledge. And he is not trying to do so. He almost always shares the researches not his opinions or experiences on S&C.

The S&C information he shares on his channel is as good as the META analysis or the researchs them selves.

And in my opinion all/some S&C researches have serious limitations due to the nature of the field.

IMHO, some guidelines out of researches are great but some are not.
 
Anders said:
Are there any research that says that zone 2 training leads to better health and longevity than people who do interval training like 4*4 minutes ?
Click to expand...
I believe I have read researches that is conducted on different types of HIIT protocols, and finding them as effective as LiSS in terms of some selected health markers.

And this is an example of the limitations of many studies in S&C and fitness pops up.

Those studies are conducted for 4 to 8 weeks.

Funny enough, this is coinciding with a duration of a so called “peaking protocol” as far as I learn from SF forum and articles.

What will be the injury rate of an HIiT protocol in 2 years? What will be the drop out rate? We can ask a million important questions that is indeed not covered in an 4-8 weeks study.

My body tells me everything is okay after S&S practice. It does not tell me that everything is okay after a HiIT session. It tells me not to do it again.

Hats off to people who can use HIIT long term. And hats off to HIIT researches. Well my body seems to not care about researches that much …

S&S prescribed jolt will be fun once in two weeks. That is a different topic and approach.

PS: Fun fact, there is IMHO, again for me only, not a time efficiency aspect of HIIT. I have experienced same thing with HIT as well. There is indeed no time efficiency. Basically One set training to the failure twice a week). Because I am almost entirely worn out for the given day. I don’t think I will be back in life fully within 30 minutes of a proper HIIT session. So where is the time efficiency?

Again those are all personal experiences and only sharing a different view. I don’t claim anything for general population.
 
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.

www.cdc.gov

Move More; Sit Less

Suggestions for how adults can get the recommended amounts of aerobic and muscle-strengthening physical activity each week.
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov
Click to expand...

Borrowing the idea from Tim Anderson, you can do a surprising amount of work in just ten minutes.

Session One
- Any reasonable number of: front squat, brief pause and push press (not a thruster, two separate lifts) on the odd minutes.
- Any reasonable number of: pull up, brief pause and leg raise on the even minutes.

Session Two
- Any reasonable number of: RDL, brief pause at the bottom, bent over row and then finish up the RDL on the odd minutes.
- Any reasonable number of dips on the even minutes.

Far from ideal, but those ten-minute workouts would tick a lot of boxes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom