Study shows duration beats intensity

Here is the link to the study referenced in the video.

https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf1018/8416519?login=false

We've known this for a long time. Its why distance athletes run 100+ mile weeks.

I’m not denying it. However the study is of interest and applicable to the amateur / non elite runner who hasn’t got the time to run 100 mile weeks.

That runner may think that it is prudent to make up for lost miles due to lack of time via an increase in intensity and the frequency of intense sessions. This study suggests that this is not the best idea. In fact this study suggests that Maffetone may have been correct all along.

How about this: more training load beats less training load. 🤯🤯

To a point

Volume alone doesn’t provide the stimulus to approach 12:35.36.

Tbh, this is correct. I wish I knew this years ago. Wasn't really until sirpoc and NSM came along that I really understood it, at least in some sort of quantifiable way, although not exact.

Obviously there is a point where all elites have done the work and the rest is targeted intensity.

But, for the most part volume will win. Especially for hobby runners.

Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m merely providing something that I thought would be of interest to people. I have no horse in this race.

I’d have thought that people would have been glad to have access to a study that appears to confirm their approach to training. My bad if that is not the case…

I'd second that. I was at my best about 40 years ago and rarely ran more than 50 miles a week (primarily racing 800m to 5000m as an English club runner) and very little of it slower than low 6 min pace, and a "long" run of about an hour. I often wonder how much I would have improved if those 6 min steady runs, had been two or three miles longer and a minute a mile slower.

I'm not going to read the study because I know that both intensity and duration are equally important.

No need to announce what you are not going to do.

The study was not looking at athletic performance. It was very specific to heart remodeling. Don't blame a study for not supporting something it did not study or intend to study.

So walking 5 miles is better than running it for fitness?

I was hoping someone would provide a reason as to why the authors believe that intensity and duration are not equally important?

No, Maffetone continues to be an unscientific quack. The study referenced in this video says nothing to suggest otherwise

We knew you were stupid but damn…

Your conclusion differs from what the authors claim.

You said: "a recent study that shows that duration spent at lower intensities beats higher intensity work when it comes to heart remodelling."

However, Cardiac remodeling comprises changes in ventricular volume as well as the thickness and shape of the myocardial wall.

So volume and intensity are equally important in Cardiac remodeling. And since you have a background in similar research, you must know that this was demonstrated a very long time ago?

No one is saying that it does.

But you aren't hoping someone would provide a reason enough that you'll look at the link?

Thx … yeah I get it.

I’m just saying that, who cares if your heart is remodeled; is the intention to log gobs of volume to change the shape of your heart?

Rowing competitively or training for rowing will remodel your heart bigly! Read up on that … that’ll blow your mind.

I’d also say, no offense intended… Do we care?