4 Comments

Good stuff, Rob. Looking forward to following along. We’re the same age but exact opposite in size (5’8”, 150 here), how we spend our training time (I’m ~7.5 hours/week running, 90’ total in gym), and problem we’re trying to solve (my VO2max is 69.3, but I’ve never been consistent with strength work—typical runner). Don’t love the gym but made the time for it by dialing back the running volume 1 hour/week. I expect this ratio will shift even more for me as I continue to age, much to my chagrin.

Expand full comment
author

Haha. We all have our favorite flavors! I'm definitely not anti-cardio but given my choice of extra time on I'll be on the jiu jitsu mat!

Expand full comment
Sep 1Liked by Robert Wilson

Interesting read and for sure VO2 max appears to be the key longevity biometric. Nearly everything here lines up with what I am familiar with (as a cyclist) with one big exception. There is a mountain as advice re. zone 2 training in the cycling world and it’s important in building an aerobic fitness base - but I don’t see Z2 referenced for VO2 work. Building VO2 always involves intervals at slightly above your max threshold power (4 x 4min with rest between is a classic example). Those would hurt more but definitely require less time than zone 2 training.

Expand full comment
author

Hey Neil - Thanks for commenting! I speak briefly about Z2 above in regards to timer recommended per week. There definitely is loads of evidence for it improving VO2. My question is more in terms of is it worth it for me given my current time constraints. Even 4x4, which I'm also familiar with is an extra investment in time. My goal with this particular experiment is to see if I can squeeze bang for the buck utilizing a practice that can be built into my current approach without an additional investment in time. If not, and I'm already in the 75%, will there be enough of a net effect on my performance longevity for me to invest any additional time? All TBD.

Expand full comment