3 ms·

As I understand it the body has different energy systems- one that is aerobic and takes hours over months and years to train and anaerobic that all out short ef

As I understand it the body has different energy systems- one that is aerobic and takes hours over months and years to train and anaerobic that all out short efforts can train. Everything in between these two is arguably time wasted. I think the title here is misleading and looking at another comment it’s not what the paper says, “it improved insulin sensitivity and other indices of cardio-metabolic health”.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
> Everything in between these two is arguably time wasted. This is if we're myopically focusing on cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes.
xarope 4y ago
There is plenty of literature to show the body has 3 main energy systems (phosphagen, glycolytic - aka anaerobic, and mitochondrial respiration aka aerobic), and many activities are a combination of all these energy systems. Further, doing pure anaerobic activities without warmups (which are more aerobic in nature) would increase injury risk; whilst low intensity/aerobic oriented activities have been shown to improve general health and well being, which would also be important to maintain an athlete's ability to train over a longer period of time. So perhaps it's not as polar nor "time" wasting as you think as you think.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
I’m sorry but this makes no sense: > the body has different energy systems- one that is aerobic and takes hours over months and years to train and anaerobic that all out short efforts can train. Everything in between these two is arguably time wasted. The body does indeed have aerobic and anaerobic energy systems but any chronic physiological adaptations to any exercise takes time.
- andy_ppp 4y ago
  So I'm getting this from Peter Attia, his suggested regimen in 45 mins 3-4 per week of zone 2 and one zone 5 all out Tabata style workout and 3-4 strength training sessions. Not 100% sure if he's right or not but he's probably more informed than either of us. When I talk about time I'm talking about total time in use of these systems - not the time it takes for them to get better which I actually know nothing about.
  - 000d 4y ago
    What I think he means is that separating your workouts into zone 2 and 5 is "optimal" in terms of anaerobic contribution. At zone 2 your anaerobic contribution is low, while at zone 5 it is high. Its best to think of these energy systems as a sliding scale, and his model is based on the theory that zone 2 is the optimal window on this scale for improving metabolic health. This doesn't mean that zone 3 and 4 are useless. Most endurance athletes do most of their high intensity in these zones because the stress of zone 5 is not manageable over time.

marginalia_nu 4y ago

> Everything in between these two is arguably time wasted. This is if we're myopically focusing on cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes.

xarope 4y ago

There is plenty of literature to show the body has 3 main energy systems (phosphagen, glycolytic - aka anaerobic, and mitochondrial respiration aka aerobic), and many activities are a combination of all these energy systems. Further, doing pure anaerobic activities without warmups (which are more aerobic in nature) would increase injury risk; whilst low intensity/aerobic oriented activities have been shown to improve general health and well being, which would also be important to maintain an athlete's ability to train over a longer period of time. So perhaps it's not as polar nor "time" wasting as you think as you think.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago

I’m sorry but this makes no sense: > the body has different energy systems- one that is aerobic and takes hours over months and years to train and anaerobic that all out short efforts can train. Everything in between these two is arguably time wasted. The body does indeed have aerobic and anaerobic energy systems but any chronic physiological adaptations to any exercise takes time.

andy_ppp 4y ago
So I'm getting this from Peter Attia, his suggested regimen in 45 mins 3-4 per week of zone 2 and one zone 5 all out Tabata style workout and 3-4 strength training sessions. Not 100% sure if he's right or not but he's probably more informed than either of us. When I talk about time I'm talking about total time in use of these systems - not the time it takes for them to get better which I actually know nothing about.
- 000d 4y ago
  What I think he means is that separating your workouts into zone 2 and 5 is "optimal" in terms of anaerobic contribution. At zone 2 your anaerobic contribution is low, while at zone 5 it is high. Its best to think of these energy systems as a sliding scale, and his model is based on the theory that zone 2 is the optimal window on this scale for improving metabolic health. This doesn't mean that zone 3 and 4 are useless. Most endurance athletes do most of their high intensity in these zones because the stress of zone 5 is not manageable over time.