Hi there,
I listened to all 3 parts of the BBM conditioning podcast episodes. The only question I have left is one regarding the distribution of conditioning training at different intensities: From a practical perspective including a larger proportion of vigorous cardio tends to be more time efficient in order to meet minimum activity guidelines. Now my question would be: Is it a big deal (only looking at this in terms of health outcomes) if one decides to do 50%of cardio at a vigorous intensity and the other 50% as moderate intensity simply because it is more convinient? I am asking because based on the podcast the 80% moderate -20% vigorous distribution is the most optimal and leads to the most profound increases in cardiovascular fitness, but meeting the minmum guidelines in whatever way is probably more important than how exactly you meet them, correct?
Hey Alex,
Thanks for the post. Definitely some good questions here. I’ll try to answer them below:
- I do think that meeting or, ideally, exceeding the current guidelines is most important. However the specifics of this shake out is of less concern to me.
- Still, I would not use 500-1000 MET-minutes as target to shoot for. Rather it’d be 150 minutes of conditioning exercise per week, minimum. With my preferred definition, I don’t think there’s likely to be a difference in health it’s all moderate, vigorous, or mixed at any particular ratio.
- “Optimal” health improvement from conditioning is likely to take place at a conditioning volume 2-3x+ higher than the minimum recommended volume of 150-min/wk. When taking things that far, I do think that the training intensity distribution gets more important for health, but likely more important for injury risk reduction and performance. Then, I’d skew more towards a 80/20 polarized setup.
- I do think that getting a higher cardiorespiratory fitness level correlates well with reduced risk of disease and death. However, I don’t think there are big differences in cardiorespiratory fitness development at the guideline-minimum levels of training volume.
-Jordan
That all makes a ton of sense (as always).
I also wanted to say that I really appreciate all the great resources you guys provide for free.
Thank you very much Dr. Faigenbaum.