I have been doing your 4/3/4/3/4 o2 max training once a week (rowing) to replace my own uphill run where I hold zone 5 for 10 uninterrupted minutes. I think mines is better but now that I have introduced the two modalities (Sunday your o2 max system and Wednesday mine) the progress on both has gone through the roof. The two training sessions are feeding of each other.
Hey Peter I just read an article talking about how rapamycin maybe increasing aging and that one of the guys who's trying to live a long time had to stop taking it due to the side effects. Have you heard about this?
I do sprint rowing and use the online calculators to measure my calories burned vs. my time and distance. It also gives a VO2 max based on the data that is compiled. I have used 2 separate calculators by a rowing company and a sports calculator. They both come up with approximately the same VO2 max. As a ballpark number, does anyone know how accurate these calculators are. I am not looking for precise numbers. I just want to know how things stand and how I can improve.
Peter, isn't VO2Max, more like a vanity metric, for most of the population, except for the elite athlete? Shouldn't something like pulmonary efficiency be a more useful metric to measure. To take an analogy, the easiest way to unlock more power out of an engine, is by free flowing intake and exhaust manifolds, something similar to pulmonary efficiency. Trying to get the heart run more, is like trying to push the rpm higher than redline. While, it may unlock some more power, it will ultimately be held back by inlet and outlet efficiency. Something similar for VO2Max. So, for most people, isn't higher pulmonary efficiency something that would be more useful metric, and something which would help better as people age?
VO2 max, or maximal oxygen consumption, is the maximum amount of oxygen a person can use during intense exercise. It's a measure of aerobic fitness and cardiovascular health. What it measures: Volume: The amount of oxygen (\(V\)) consumed. Oxygen: The amount of oxygen (\(O_{2}\)) consumed. Max: The maximum amount of oxygen consumed. How it's measured: A VO2 max test involves exercising on a treadmill or bike and increasing the intensity until exhaustion . The test measures the amount of oxygen consumed per minute per kilogram of body weight (\(ml/kg/min\)).
VO2 max might as well be grip strength. Yes, it correlates to life expectancy (because one needs to be healthy in order to obtain high VO2 max, and because those obtaining high vo2 max likely have a lot else going for them.) But thinking that puking on a peleton 3x per week is going to make you live longer than more conventional exercise is like thinking that doing forearm curls is going to make you a centenarian. Ya don't see a lot of centenarians with intense exercise regimens. Just like you don't see a lot of olympians living into the triple digits.
Comparing VO2 max training to forearm curls is, excuse me, stupid. If one engages in regular high intensity excercise, that prevents and mitigates more longterm issues down the line and keeps fitness at a high base line for any given age. In other words, if your heart and cardiovascular system is never exposed to high loads, of course over the long term (eg. decades) it will make adaptations and develop issues that are hard to or impossible to reverse.
@@speedsociety9177 The point you're missing is that there's no evidence demonstrating that high intensity VO2 max training is in any way superior to conventional, less strenuous exercise like zone 2, or even consistent walking. The link between VO2 max and life expectancy is strictly correlational, just like with grip strength. " *if your heart and cardiovascular system is never exposed to high loads, of course over the long term (eg. decades) it will make adaptations and develop issues that are hard to or impossible to reverse.* " What do you mean by "of course?" This has never been demonstrated or proven by data. Go to any modern day primal society, or into any of the famed blue zones. People are living long, healthy, heart-disease-free lives. And guess what, they're not doing hill sprints into their 70s. So your claim that "of course" your heart will develop issues if not exposed to intense loads is decisively false. There are countless counter-examples. The vast majority of centenarians are not, nor have they ever performed HIIT training.
You’re mixing the best apples from one great apple tree (centenarians) and oranges (the vast majority of humans). We study centenarians to understand why their onset of high mortality aging afflictions (Jim Fries, 1980 labeled “compression of morbidity”) are delayed by decades SO THAT regular humans, who don’t have those genetic advantages, could possibly benefit in terms of lifespan and healthspan. Statistically, .1% of males and 1% of females live past 100. That’s it. Very small sample size. Median death age for the same cohort was 63 (male) and 72 (female) according to the landmark New England Centenarian Study (NECS). “There is a growing body of evidence indicating that an increasingly greater positive GENETIC influence is necessary for survival to age 100 and older ages.” So virtually ANY evidence you gain about centenarian behavior (e.g., nutrition, exercise, sleep) is not helpful for the rest of us. You “don’t see a lot of Olympians living into the triple digits”?!? Of course not! Statistically, you don’t see ANY group, especially one as genetically diverse as “Olympians,” living into the triple digits! Some areas of the world have some increased incidences, and much has been made of those areas (I lived in one-eastern North Dakota), but the numbers are vanishingly small. Attia covers all of this in his book _Outlive_. In short, Attia and many others are operating under the common sense hypothesis that the other 99.5% just might be able to modify their health through exercise, nutrition, sleep, and other means to increase lifespan and healthspan. That hardly seems controversial. Physiology researchers know grip strength is only a useful PROXY for total body muscular strength. Same with VO2 Max-it’s a PROXY for cardiovascular health. So should you attempt to increase muscular strength and VO2 Max? Whether or not it will increase your particular healthspan is unknowable because we’re all an “N” of 1. But pursuing both will most likely improve your mental and physical resilience, now and in the future. And, BTW, you can definitely increase VO2 Max through endurance level cardiovascular exercise, especially for untrained individuals. Hope that helps! ☮️
@ In the absence of interventional data, the best we can do is epidemiology and real-world examples. Epidemiology only illustrates correlation. And my examples illustrate that high intensity cardio is neither *necessary* for longevity (on account of centenarians that don't do it,) nor a reliable meachnism for longevity (as olympians and professional athetes do not live much longer on average than the general population, and not at all longer than healthy people of a more typical fitness level. " *because we’re all an “N” of 1.* " ugh... the old "N of 1" catchphrase is getting tired. " *Attia and many others are operating under the common sense hypothesis that the other 99.5% just might be able to modify their health through exercise* " Nobody is disputing that exercise fosters health and longevity. But Attia is doing more than that; he's claiming that high intensity training, and pushing the limits of one's VO2 max, provides longevity benefits *above and beyond* that of conventional exercise. And the data just doesn't support this assertion. The limits of epidemiology apply to this data, as with any other, despite the jargony gobbledegook Attia has concocted in order to convince himself that this correlational data is essentially just as strong as causal data. " *Same with VO2 Max-it’s a PROXY for cardiovascular health* " Exactly. But proxies can be either the cause or the effect (or neither.) And we have no evidence that above average VO2 max is itself the cause of above average life expectancy. It may very well be that the countless positive lifestyle factors of the kind of poeple putting time and energy into pushing their VO2 max (and that have the physical capacity to) are what is truly the culprit of the improved life expectancy. " *But pursuing both will most likely improve your mental and physical resilience, now and in the future* " Ok, but we're not talking about resilience. We're talking about longevity.
@ He’s not claiming any “truth.” He knows that there isn’t clinical, study-based evidence for it. It’s an hypothesis. He’s actually claiming that today’s medical environment makes us have to guess. So he’s guessing based on evidence. If people who live longer have a higher VO2 Max, then it sounds like something to improve. Same with strength. But why does it sound like something to improve? Because of the very strong evidence that VO2 max and strength decrease, often rapidly, past certain ages. Why shouldn’t we try to offset or mitigate that decline so we can walk longer, pick up more things, etc. when we’re older? I find this all rather common sense. And you’re saying studies don’t prove it. Well, studies have not been structured to prove it, and regardless it will be well nigh impossible to structure it properly. I’ve been a coach of elite endurance athletes for decades. I know the limits of BOTH “science” and “coaching practice.” One is highly limited in replicating the athlete’s environment, while the other is subject to all manner of human mimetic behavior. Yet the coach and the athlete still must train to improve. It’s the same with aging. If we wait around for studies, we’ll wait forever. Attia is simply trying to find the middle ground, taking insight from studies and interpolating it with what we know about training. FWIW, from my coaching perspective, his prescriptions for improving VO2 Max are too simplistic relative to what we do in elite athletic training. And Attia is basically taking an elite athletic perspective on longevity. Frankly, I doubt most humans could implement HALF of what he’s advising. I could go into chapter and verse on that issue. But to poo-poo any high-intensity training for the purposes of longevity is short-sighted. And Attia has skin in this game, as he’s advising real patients. So he has greater incentive than some guy on YT to get this right. And we also don’t have any evidence about downsides to high intensity VO2 training. Finally, you’re contrasting his VO2 Max ideas with “conventional exercise,” whatever that means. And it means nothing. In my world, high intensity VO2 max is conventional exercise, even for my seniors, which includes me at 66. I just did a big set of 30/30s today. Three sets of 15 at 130% FTP. If that’s bad, well, show me your evidence! ☮️
You do have to support your full body weight running/sprinting as apposed to sitting on a bike. There are also moments in time when your body is completely off the ground in running/sprinting. So yes, running/sprinting is more aerobic than cycling.
@rider65 Any reasonable person would understand that it takes more energy to stand than to sit. Running is the only exercise that you have to propel your body off the ground with every step. Leave the physiology to me it's what I do and you clearly don't. Don't hurt yourself.
Who TF wants to live to 100? Embrace your eventual death. It’ll be here before your know it regardless of your lifespan. People that obsess about living longer are in a form of denial. It’s gonna happen.
So we should just forget about our health and sit on our ass all day? This isn't about living to 100. It is about living a healthier, longer life. Why are you even here?
I have been doing your 4/3/4/3/4 o2 max training once a week (rowing) to replace my own uphill run where I hold zone 5 for 10 uninterrupted minutes. I think mines is better but now that I have introduced the two modalities (Sunday your o2 max system and Wednesday mine) the progress on both has gone through the roof. The two training sessions are feeding of each other.
Ya, respect to triathletes on this. Inefficiency smokes us.
Hey Peter I just read an article talking about how rapamycin maybe increasing aging and that one of the guys who's trying to live a long time had to stop taking it due to the side effects. Have you heard about this?
I’m pretty sure he has stated that it’s BS for a bit now
I do sprint rowing and use the online calculators to measure my calories burned vs. my time and distance. It also gives a VO2 max based on the data that is compiled. I have used 2 separate calculators by a rowing company and a sports calculator. They both come up with approximately the same VO2 max. As a ballpark number, does anyone know how accurate these calculators are. I am not looking for precise numbers. I just want to know how things stand and how I can improve.
You should try surfing in bigger waves 🤙
If it's not limited in the cell why does the body grow bigger and more mitochondria?
Peter, isn't VO2Max, more like a vanity metric, for most of the population, except for the elite athlete? Shouldn't something like pulmonary efficiency be a more useful metric to measure. To take an analogy, the easiest way to unlock more power out of an engine, is by free flowing intake and exhaust manifolds, something similar to pulmonary efficiency. Trying to get the heart run more, is like trying to push the rpm higher than redline. While, it may unlock some more power, it will ultimately be held back by inlet and outlet efficiency. Something similar for VO2Max. So, for most people, isn't higher pulmonary efficiency something that would be more useful metric, and something which would help better as people age?
could you VO2Max simply explain?
VO2 max, or maximal oxygen consumption, is the maximum amount of oxygen a person can use during intense exercise. It's a measure of aerobic fitness and cardiovascular health.
What it measures:
Volume: The amount of oxygen (\(V\)) consumed.
Oxygen: The amount of oxygen (\(O_{2}\)) consumed.
Max: The maximum amount of oxygen consumed.
How it's measured:
A VO2 max test involves exercising on a treadmill or bike and increasing the intensity until exhaustion .
The test measures the amount of oxygen consumed per minute per kilogram of body weight (\(ml/kg/min\)).
@ I appreciate it bro
VO2 max might as well be grip strength. Yes, it correlates to life expectancy (because one needs to be healthy in order to obtain high VO2 max, and because those obtaining high vo2 max likely have a lot else going for them.) But thinking that puking on a peleton 3x per week is going to make you live longer than more conventional exercise is like thinking that doing forearm curls is going to make you a centenarian.
Ya don't see a lot of centenarians with intense exercise regimens. Just like you don't see a lot of olympians living into the triple digits.
Comparing VO2 max training to forearm curls is, excuse me, stupid. If one engages in regular high intensity excercise, that prevents and mitigates more longterm issues down the line and keeps fitness at a high base line for any given age. In other words, if your heart and cardiovascular system is never exposed to high loads, of course over the long term (eg. decades) it will make adaptations and develop issues that are hard to or impossible to reverse.
@@speedsociety9177 The point you're missing is that there's no evidence demonstrating that high intensity VO2 max training is in any way superior to conventional, less strenuous exercise like zone 2, or even consistent walking. The link between VO2 max and life expectancy is strictly correlational, just like with grip strength.
" *if your heart and cardiovascular system is never exposed to high loads, of course over the long term (eg. decades) it will make adaptations and develop issues that are hard to or impossible to reverse.* "
What do you mean by "of course?" This has never been demonstrated or proven by data.
Go to any modern day primal society, or into any of the famed blue zones. People are living long, healthy, heart-disease-free lives. And guess what, they're not doing hill sprints into their 70s. So your claim that "of course" your heart will develop issues if not exposed to intense loads is decisively false. There are countless counter-examples. The vast majority of centenarians are not, nor have they ever performed HIIT training.
You’re mixing the best apples from one great apple tree (centenarians) and oranges (the vast majority of humans). We study centenarians to understand why their onset of high mortality aging afflictions (Jim Fries, 1980 labeled “compression of morbidity”) are delayed by decades SO THAT regular humans, who don’t have those genetic advantages, could possibly benefit in terms of lifespan and healthspan. Statistically, .1% of males and 1% of females live past 100. That’s it. Very small sample size. Median death age for the same cohort was 63 (male) and 72 (female) according to the landmark New England Centenarian Study (NECS). “There is a growing body of evidence indicating that an increasingly greater positive GENETIC influence is necessary for survival to age 100 and older ages.” So virtually ANY evidence you gain about centenarian behavior (e.g., nutrition, exercise, sleep) is not helpful for the rest of us. You “don’t see a lot of Olympians living into the triple digits”?!? Of course not! Statistically, you don’t see ANY group, especially one as genetically diverse as “Olympians,” living into the triple digits! Some areas of the world have some increased incidences, and much has been made of those areas (I lived in one-eastern North Dakota), but the numbers are vanishingly small. Attia covers all of this in his book _Outlive_. In short, Attia and many others are operating under the common sense hypothesis that the other 99.5% just might be able to modify their health through exercise, nutrition, sleep, and other means to increase lifespan and healthspan. That hardly seems controversial. Physiology researchers know grip strength is only a useful PROXY for total body muscular strength. Same with VO2 Max-it’s a PROXY for cardiovascular health. So should you attempt to increase muscular strength and VO2 Max? Whether or not it will increase your particular healthspan is unknowable because we’re all an “N” of 1. But pursuing both will most likely improve your mental and physical resilience, now and in the future. And, BTW, you can definitely increase VO2 Max through endurance level cardiovascular exercise, especially for untrained individuals. Hope that helps! ☮️
@ In the absence of interventional data, the best we can do is epidemiology and real-world examples. Epidemiology only illustrates correlation. And my examples illustrate that high intensity cardio is neither *necessary* for longevity (on account of centenarians that don't do it,) nor a reliable meachnism for longevity (as olympians and professional athetes do not live much longer on average than the general population, and not at all longer than healthy people of a more typical fitness level.
" *because we’re all an “N” of 1.* "
ugh... the old "N of 1" catchphrase is getting tired.
" *Attia and many others are operating under the common sense hypothesis that the other 99.5% just might be able to modify their health through exercise* "
Nobody is disputing that exercise fosters health and longevity. But Attia is doing more than that; he's claiming that high intensity training, and pushing the limits of one's VO2 max, provides longevity benefits *above and beyond* that of conventional exercise. And the data just doesn't support this assertion.
The limits of epidemiology apply to this data, as with any other, despite the jargony gobbledegook Attia has concocted in order to convince himself that this correlational data is essentially just as strong as causal data.
" *Same with VO2 Max-it’s a PROXY for cardiovascular health* "
Exactly. But proxies can be either the cause or the effect (or neither.) And we have no evidence that above average VO2 max is itself the cause of above average life expectancy. It may very well be that the countless positive lifestyle factors of the kind of poeple putting time and energy into pushing their VO2 max (and that have the physical capacity to) are what is truly the culprit of the improved life expectancy.
" *But pursuing both will most likely improve your mental and physical resilience, now and in the future* "
Ok, but we're not talking about resilience. We're talking about longevity.
@ He’s not claiming any “truth.” He knows that there isn’t clinical, study-based evidence for it. It’s an hypothesis. He’s actually claiming that today’s medical environment makes us have to guess. So he’s guessing based on evidence. If people who live longer have a higher VO2 Max, then it sounds like something to improve. Same with strength. But why does it sound like something to improve? Because of the very strong evidence that VO2 max and strength decrease, often rapidly, past certain ages. Why shouldn’t we try to offset or mitigate that decline so we can walk longer, pick up more things, etc. when we’re older? I find this all rather common sense. And you’re saying studies don’t prove it. Well, studies have not been structured to prove it, and regardless it will be well nigh impossible to structure it properly. I’ve been a coach of elite endurance athletes for decades. I know the limits of BOTH “science” and “coaching practice.” One is highly limited in replicating the athlete’s environment, while the other is subject to all manner of human mimetic behavior. Yet the coach and the athlete still must train to improve. It’s the same with aging. If we wait around for studies, we’ll wait forever. Attia is simply trying to find the middle ground, taking insight from studies and interpolating it with what we know about training. FWIW, from my coaching perspective, his prescriptions for improving VO2 Max are too simplistic relative to what we do in elite athletic training. And Attia is basically taking an elite athletic perspective on longevity. Frankly, I doubt most humans could implement HALF of what he’s advising. I could go into chapter and verse on that issue. But to poo-poo any high-intensity training for the purposes of longevity is short-sighted. And Attia has skin in this game, as he’s advising real patients. So he has greater incentive than some guy on YT to get this right. And we also don’t have any evidence about downsides to high intensity VO2 training. Finally, you’re contrasting his VO2 Max ideas with “conventional exercise,” whatever that means. And it means nothing. In my world, high intensity VO2 max is conventional exercise, even for my seniors, which includes me at 66. I just did a big set of 30/30s today. Three sets of 15 at 130% FTP. If that’s bad, well, show me your evidence! ☮️
You do have to support your full body weight running/sprinting as apposed to sitting on a bike. There are also moments in time when your body is completely off the ground in running/sprinting. So yes, running/sprinting is more aerobic than cycling.
Agreed… And additional benefit of improving bone density.
@@iosifkovalenko8364if bone density is what you’re worried about running isn’t what you want to be doing to improve it.
Ah, mtb'ing? Not sitting much. So you're wrong on that. Mtb riding like mx/enduro riding requires full body support...🙄
Depends, not always. XC racing for example. Where did you get your 'degree' omg...🤦♂️
@rider65 Any reasonable person would understand that it takes more energy to stand than to sit. Running is the only exercise that you have to propel your body off the ground with every step. Leave the physiology to me it's what I do and you clearly don't. Don't hurt yourself.
th-cam.com/video/3YN7RDWk6uk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=53bWDMppoQNmSdli
Who TF wants to live to 100? Embrace your eventual death. It’ll be here before your know it regardless of your lifespan. People that obsess about living longer are in a form of denial. It’s gonna happen.
So we should just forget about our health and sit on our ass all day? This isn't about living to 100. It is about living a healthier, longer life.
Why are you even here?
@@robinmorris8201🤣🤣
サイクリング歴33年の75歳の老体です．
ヒルクライムレース前，毎日100キロコースの登りで2度、失神しかけて落車しました．
やはり心臓は許してくれない，長寿に高負荷トレはむかないかも？