As a strength conditioning coach/personal trainer for the last 30 years I have found that whatever exercise gets an individual exercising more consistently and frequently, is the best form of exercise for them.
Self experimentation is so important for non-athletes to do. Try different types and protocols of exercise until you find the combination that you can do consistently and delivers the results you want, regardless of what experts and studies tell us.
Use the experts and studies to learn different approaches, but work on what works for you. It might be unique to you, but if it works it works.
I think about Zone 2 as the base that enables you to do quality high-intensity work. For me, high-intensity training feels like the reward — a small window when I have the opportunity to push myself. When I'm too fatigue to train, I just take long walks instead.
As you mentioned, most of Zone 2 is easy to "automate" with the right habits and by staying active throughout the day.
I think the emphasis on training zones has taken all the fun and enjoyment out of exercise. We should go back to a time before heart rate training. The data is making people obsessed and confused. I like to train moderately hard most days. Once a month sign up for a race and push yourself to your red line. Let your body recover and do it again.
Charles Darwin deliberately sought out contrarian thoughts, thoughts that differed from his theories and beliefs.
Thanks for posting this non-mainstream review (and your analysis) of Zone 2. Even before reading this, I've been doing more heavy rucking in the woods nearby, because I find it more enjoyable (and harder) than monotonous Z2 training. Definitely seems like I get more out of time spent rucking and getting my heart rate up. But I felt a bit guilty...thinking I'm not doing it right.
A big part of gaining wisdom is exposing one's beliefs to contrarian information and being open to upgrading beliefs. Time to strap on the pack and not worry.
This makes so much sense. I’ve never understood the zone 2 craze—it just doesn’t feel like it’s hard unless it’s for hours, and the dialog around it leaves me thinking anything else you do is substantially worse? Thanks for the write up—I’ll continue just working out and enjoying life! :)
Totally. Brendon Gurd agreed with that. My understanding of his point is that we may be missing the high HR work, which typically comes through exercise.
My guess is that if a person has, say, a few weekly hours to exercise, don't be afraid to have a high HR. In fact, probably lean into that (not saying to insane intervals every workout, but you get the point). Then look for daily life opportunities to move more to rack up more low HR work.
Better yet: Just exercise more and have dedicated sessions that are both higher HR and lower HR. That's not as practical for those w/ limited time, but better from the health/fitness perspective.
Agreed. The prescription really depends on the individual. As we age, intensity is associated with a longer recovery burden and perhaps increased injury risk. My mantra is never to let todays workout ruin tomorrows. I'm at the age and place where consistency matters more to me.
That being said, I work intensity into two of my runs each week. I tack intensity onto the end of a longish, slower run. Hill repeats, hill strides, or some track work... whatever I feel like in the moment.
Plus... I'm a trail runner and rock climber... both of which can easily keep my HR well above AeT. I don't avoid intenisty... and most people shouldn't.
It’s crazy such hugely impactful people are now having to consider a massive u turn, and how they could get it so wrong possibly in the first place. I mean Peter Attia had experts on (named in this article) who were so adamant about zone 2. So now we are saying for average joe/jane that it’s best to do 3-4 hit sessions or zone 5 cycles per week?! So confused also.
“Some people have interpreted this paper as us pushing high-intensity interval training, but we’re not,” he said. “Any exercise you can do is good. Whatever you enjoy, that’s what you should do. If the Zone 2 craze has gotten more people to exercise, that’s great.”
“But let’s say you’re trying to maximize the return on your time. If some of the messaging says to only do Zone 2 and that going harder could be causing some harm, that’s problematic. If people are now exercising less intensely because of this messaging, then that’s a downside.”
The point is that for people with limited time to exercise, more intensity if probably better. Once you've gotten enough higher intensities, then zone 2 becomes very valuable.
Exactly but for most average people, what is enough higher intensities? It’s staggering that such intelligent high profile teams of people have made such a mistake on how to exercise best for your heart. Or maybe this is the influencer curse. Even Attia himself says he only has 4-6hrs a week to do cardio now. So take cycling would the average person be better doing 4 Norwegian sessions a week and scrapping the zone 2… probably if we believe this paper. So that’s massive, it changes people’s time commitments, it could be great for reducing injuries as well. They used to say you need zone 2 for the base of the pyramid but maybe not
I'm not sure that's so far from the ratio of high intensity and low intensity pro cyclists are doing. They can just do more of both because it's their job and they are fitter so they can just handle more total volume.
I'm not so sure it's bad, just a scaled down ratio. How many HITT work outs can you do before you are overtrained? Probably a lot less than a professional. Bad would be hurting someone, less than optimal sure but optimal will change for each person and would need to be reoptimized for that individual with time so we fall back on rules of thumb.
I find it all interesting but I don't structure my training so precisely. For me I would loose interest if I had to be so precise.
You’re more likely to get overtrained or injured through overuse which zone 2 would do as your doing more time, so any movement issue you have gets amplified
I like how the Tactical Barbell training programs approach this. You go through an 8 week "base building" block which consists of lots of zone 2 cardio. When the 8 weeks is up you then switch over to 2 - 3 higher intensity conditioning sessions a week and add a single zone 2 session every week or 2 to maintain. Seems to work well ime.
If your heart wan an engine wouldn't you want it tuned to work in several rpm ranges?
I've always understood zone 2 took a lot of time and HIIT would get similar results with less time, see time crunched cyclist but the optimum is likely at neither extreme, it's going to be a mix of them and everything in between. The exact combination will be determined by your available time, desired results and genetics.
As a strength conditioning coach/personal trainer for the last 30 years I have found that whatever exercise gets an individual exercising more consistently and frequently, is the best form of exercise for them.
Self experimentation is so important for non-athletes to do. Try different types and protocols of exercise until you find the combination that you can do consistently and delivers the results you want, regardless of what experts and studies tell us.
Use the experts and studies to learn different approaches, but work on what works for you. It might be unique to you, but if it works it works.
Agree with many points you've made.
I think about Zone 2 as the base that enables you to do quality high-intensity work. For me, high-intensity training feels like the reward — a small window when I have the opportunity to push myself. When I'm too fatigue to train, I just take long walks instead.
As you mentioned, most of Zone 2 is easy to "automate" with the right habits and by staying active throughout the day.
I think the emphasis on training zones has taken all the fun and enjoyment out of exercise. We should go back to a time before heart rate training. The data is making people obsessed and confused. I like to train moderately hard most days. Once a month sign up for a race and push yourself to your red line. Let your body recover and do it again.
Charles Darwin deliberately sought out contrarian thoughts, thoughts that differed from his theories and beliefs.
Thanks for posting this non-mainstream review (and your analysis) of Zone 2. Even before reading this, I've been doing more heavy rucking in the woods nearby, because I find it more enjoyable (and harder) than monotonous Z2 training. Definitely seems like I get more out of time spent rucking and getting my heart rate up. But I felt a bit guilty...thinking I'm not doing it right.
A big part of gaining wisdom is exposing one's beliefs to contrarian information and being open to upgrading beliefs. Time to strap on the pack and not worry.
"Time to strap on the pack and not worry" is great advice.
This makes so much sense. I’ve never understood the zone 2 craze—it just doesn’t feel like it’s hard unless it’s for hours, and the dialog around it leaves me thinking anything else you do is substantially worse? Thanks for the write up—I’ll continue just working out and enjoying life! :)
Happy turkey trot season!
Easy low HR work is needed to build volume. High HR work is needed for numerous cardiovascular benefits.
There’s a time and place for it all.
Totally. Brendon Gurd agreed with that. My understanding of his point is that we may be missing the high HR work, which typically comes through exercise.
My guess is that if a person has, say, a few weekly hours to exercise, don't be afraid to have a high HR. In fact, probably lean into that (not saying to insane intervals every workout, but you get the point). Then look for daily life opportunities to move more to rack up more low HR work.
Better yet: Just exercise more and have dedicated sessions that are both higher HR and lower HR. That's not as practical for those w/ limited time, but better from the health/fitness perspective.
Agreed. The prescription really depends on the individual. As we age, intensity is associated with a longer recovery burden and perhaps increased injury risk. My mantra is never to let todays workout ruin tomorrows. I'm at the age and place where consistency matters more to me.
That being said, I work intensity into two of my runs each week. I tack intensity onto the end of a longish, slower run. Hill repeats, hill strides, or some track work... whatever I feel like in the moment.
Plus... I'm a trail runner and rock climber... both of which can easily keep my HR well above AeT. I don't avoid intenisty... and most people shouldn't.
It’s crazy such hugely impactful people are now having to consider a massive u turn, and how they could get it so wrong possibly in the first place. I mean Peter Attia had experts on (named in this article) who were so adamant about zone 2. So now we are saying for average joe/jane that it’s best to do 3-4 hit sessions or zone 5 cycles per week?! So confused also.
Re: HIIT. Not at all. Here's this from the post:
“Some people have interpreted this paper as us pushing high-intensity interval training, but we’re not,” he said. “Any exercise you can do is good. Whatever you enjoy, that’s what you should do. If the Zone 2 craze has gotten more people to exercise, that’s great.”
“But let’s say you’re trying to maximize the return on your time. If some of the messaging says to only do Zone 2 and that going harder could be causing some harm, that’s problematic. If people are now exercising less intensely because of this messaging, then that’s a downside.”
The point is that for people with limited time to exercise, more intensity if probably better. Once you've gotten enough higher intensities, then zone 2 becomes very valuable.
Exactly but for most average people, what is enough higher intensities? It’s staggering that such intelligent high profile teams of people have made such a mistake on how to exercise best for your heart. Or maybe this is the influencer curse. Even Attia himself says he only has 4-6hrs a week to do cardio now. So take cycling would the average person be better doing 4 Norwegian sessions a week and scrapping the zone 2… probably if we believe this paper. So that’s massive, it changes people’s time commitments, it could be great for reducing injuries as well. They used to say you need zone 2 for the base of the pyramid but maybe not
I started to focus on Zone 2 after reading Dr. Attila’s Outlive. I wonder if he will change his recommendations.
Does Attila not also do and recomend higher intensity along with the one 2?
He said do zone 2 for 1-1.5 hrs 3-5 times a week and then one zone 5 session. So basically the polar opposite of what this study is saying
I'm not sure that's so far from the ratio of high intensity and low intensity pro cyclists are doing. They can just do more of both because it's their job and they are fitter so they can just handle more total volume.
Exactly but the point being, the vast majority of the listeners are not pro cyclists so it’s the wrong advice
I'm not so sure it's bad, just a scaled down ratio. How many HITT work outs can you do before you are overtrained? Probably a lot less than a professional. Bad would be hurting someone, less than optimal sure but optimal will change for each person and would need to be reoptimized for that individual with time so we fall back on rules of thumb.
I find it all interesting but I don't structure my training so precisely. For me I would loose interest if I had to be so precise.
You’re more likely to get overtrained or injured through overuse which zone 2 would do as your doing more time, so any movement issue you have gets amplified
I'm so confused.
I like how the Tactical Barbell training programs approach this. You go through an 8 week "base building" block which consists of lots of zone 2 cardio. When the 8 weeks is up you then switch over to 2 - 3 higher intensity conditioning sessions a week and add a single zone 2 session every week or 2 to maintain. Seems to work well ime.
If your heart wan an engine wouldn't you want it tuned to work in several rpm ranges?
I've always understood zone 2 took a lot of time and HIIT would get similar results with less time, see time crunched cyclist but the optimum is likely at neither extreme, it's going to be a mix of them and everything in between. The exact combination will be determined by your available time, desired results and genetics.