I think the most beneficial aspect of "zone 2 running" is that it may give some people a framework to recognize their "easy". But on the flip side, "zone 2" for someone who's putting running shoes for the first time, based on most qualifications of that zone, probably means "walking".
Personally, it helped my keep my ego in check when I started running in a more structured way and keep injury at bay while volume increased, and probably made me a runner more attuned to sensations and now I mostly train by RPE. (n = 1).
But it was only a tool/model , and "All models are wrong, but some are useful". The issue IMHO, especially with runfluencers, is when they turn these imperfect model into a religion/cult-like thing or demonize them + (don't forget to like and subscribe and comment to receive a link to my paywalled solution to all-and-everything). Click bait sells.
I read Attia's book two weeks ago. Here's my brief review (I always keep track of what I've read and take notes for myself). Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity: Peter Attia. It starts out well, but soon becomes annoying with the 'holier-than-thou' attitude and prescriptions for screenings, medication and exercise that only the wealthy could afford. I can't see a single-parent, struggling to make ends meet, adopting any of these practices, except for the nutritional guidelines, and then only if they weren't knackered all the time.
As a recreational runner since high school XC (20 yrs ago) it’s hilarious to know this has even been a debate. I’m glad I missed it all while I was out on my runs!
Perfect timing because I just scheduled my first ever VO2 max test because I’m curious about what my zones are and now I sound like one of those compulsively precise people. So, should I do the test anyways? Just an amateur athlete here.
It’s kind of cool (and painful) to do! Go for it. Just know that the zones they give you are rules of thumb that will vary each day, and that’s okay! Guides, not laws.
Do we know if professional runners/teams who do lactate testing try to use it super precisely (similar to Attia), or do they use it more as "I am in the right ballpark."? Any thoughts on how lactate testing might be misused by professionals in their training?
For Zone 2 or easy running? The vast vast majority do not uses lactate.
For lactate threshold training? Some use lactate, many don't. More of the Norwegian style uses lactate testing, though it's not as precise or narrow as the Attia stuff. Normally there's a slightly larger range.
Fitness, like any other industry is all about what it trending at the moment.
“We were wrong, and I have”the secret, has been lining people pockets for centuries, fitness and nutrition influencers are just the newest batch of carnival hawkers selling cures.
People won’t read if it is not controversial, or a tribal qualification.
Generally I agree Steve but some observations but context is everything. Attia was preaching to middle aged longevity focused people, not younger athletes focused on actual performance. I'm not saying attia is right, I'm saying remember the cohort and context.
I think lots of people have moved on from "volume or intensity?" and recognize the need to balance both. The debate I hear much more is "how easy should the volume be?". Call it "super easy vs. easy" or "zone 1 vs. zone 2". As usual the definitions of these categories have very fuzzy boundaries and overlap depending on who's talking. Oversimplifying for the sake of argument, one camp says "just keep it conversational, don't overthink it", and another says "easy means EASY, no more than 70% of max HR". Not naming any names :). The second camp thinks the first is at serious risk of piling up junk mileage, under-recovering from intensity work, and not getting the full benefit of easy days. All of Steve's good points about staying wary of false precision or fixating on mechanisms/pathways apply here too, but for me this is a very murky area of training theory/content that's tough for the amateur athlete to parse and figure out what's best for them.
I agree. Very murky. I've switched to taking my HRV as a 2.5 min morning test. It gives me my daily zone 2 and boy is Steve right: our zones are not static. I find variations in stress and poor sleep impact my zones a lot. So when I go out for my ride it keeps me honest. It keeps me from overcooking it on days when I'm not fully recovered.
Just a question that I wonder about for some time: what happens the VO2max of the HIIT-only folks? Sure it rises quickly, but does it stay high without an aerobic foundation?
for anyone other than a elite athlete, for the average everyday regular person the best training is what you can do consistently over time
Amen!
Thanks Steve👍
I think the most beneficial aspect of "zone 2 running" is that it may give some people a framework to recognize their "easy". But on the flip side, "zone 2" for someone who's putting running shoes for the first time, based on most qualifications of that zone, probably means "walking".
Personally, it helped my keep my ego in check when I started running in a more structured way and keep injury at bay while volume increased, and probably made me a runner more attuned to sensations and now I mostly train by RPE. (n = 1).
But it was only a tool/model , and "All models are wrong, but some are useful". The issue IMHO, especially with runfluencers, is when they turn these imperfect model into a religion/cult-like thing or demonize them + (don't forget to like and subscribe and comment to receive a link to my paywalled solution to all-and-everything). Click bait sells.
I read Attia's book two weeks ago. Here's my brief review (I always keep track of what I've read and take notes for myself). Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity: Peter Attia. It starts out well, but soon becomes annoying with the 'holier-than-thou' attitude and prescriptions for screenings, medication and exercise that only the wealthy could afford. I can't see a single-parent, struggling to make ends meet, adopting any of these practices, except for the nutritional guidelines, and then only if they weren't knackered all the time.
As a recreational runner since high school XC (20 yrs ago) it’s hilarious to know this has even been a debate. I’m glad I missed it all while I was out on my runs!
Perfect timing because I just scheduled my first ever VO2 max test because I’m curious about what my zones are and now I sound like one of those compulsively precise people. So, should I do the test anyways? Just an amateur athlete here.
It’s kind of cool (and painful) to do! Go for it. Just know that the zones they give you are rules of thumb that will vary each day, and that’s okay! Guides, not laws.
Do we know if professional runners/teams who do lactate testing try to use it super precisely (similar to Attia), or do they use it more as "I am in the right ballpark."? Any thoughts on how lactate testing might be misused by professionals in their training?
For Zone 2 or easy running? The vast vast majority do not uses lactate.
For lactate threshold training? Some use lactate, many don't. More of the Norwegian style uses lactate testing, though it's not as precise or narrow as the Attia stuff. Normally there's a slightly larger range.
Fitness, like any other industry is all about what it trending at the moment.
“We were wrong, and I have”the secret, has been lining people pockets for centuries, fitness and nutrition influencers are just the newest batch of carnival hawkers selling cures.
People won’t read if it is not controversial, or a tribal qualification.
Generally I agree Steve but some observations but context is everything. Attia was preaching to middle aged longevity focused people, not younger athletes focused on actual performance. I'm not saying attia is right, I'm saying remember the cohort and context.
Yes. I mention this at the bottom. I think that makes the odd precision even more absurd.
I think lots of people have moved on from "volume or intensity?" and recognize the need to balance both. The debate I hear much more is "how easy should the volume be?". Call it "super easy vs. easy" or "zone 1 vs. zone 2". As usual the definitions of these categories have very fuzzy boundaries and overlap depending on who's talking. Oversimplifying for the sake of argument, one camp says "just keep it conversational, don't overthink it", and another says "easy means EASY, no more than 70% of max HR". Not naming any names :). The second camp thinks the first is at serious risk of piling up junk mileage, under-recovering from intensity work, and not getting the full benefit of easy days. All of Steve's good points about staying wary of false precision or fixating on mechanisms/pathways apply here too, but for me this is a very murky area of training theory/content that's tough for the amateur athlete to parse and figure out what's best for them.
I agree. Very murky. I've switched to taking my HRV as a 2.5 min morning test. It gives me my daily zone 2 and boy is Steve right: our zones are not static. I find variations in stress and poor sleep impact my zones a lot. So when I go out for my ride it keeps me honest. It keeps me from overcooking it on days when I'm not fully recovered.
Just a question that I wonder about for some time: what happens the VO2max of the HIIT-only folks? Sure it rises quickly, but does it stay high without an aerobic foundation?