For the running nerds, I created an 800m racing game. Complete with historical runners with different skills, a model of fatigue, big kicks, and hitting bricks... Check it out, let me know what you think: finallap800.com/

Vo2max, High Intensity Interval Training, Norwegian Method, Tabata Sprints, & on & on. There's a lot of fancy sounding advice in the social media fitness world. And a lot of it is misguided. Let's correct. This is my Fitness Influencer Survival Guide: When they say "sprint"... Ignore it unless it's something that takes less than ~8 seconds and has long recovery. Usually what they mean to say is run hard, or about 800 to mile pace , especially if the interval is from 20-90sec in length. When they say "all out"... Unless we're talking about a race, ignore it. What they really mean to say is your best average over the workout...but still leave one rep in the tank. So try to run 4x1mile where every mile is within +/- 5 seconds of each. A dramatic slow down is not good. When they say HIIT... They mean something kind of hard. There's a wide variation in interval training. And the specific matter. HIIT is just a catch all that means everything from 200s at 800 pace to 3k repeats at critical velocity and everything in between. It's a fancy word for "hard workout" When they say Sprint Interval Training (SIT)... They mean a hard and fast workout...but not actual sprinting. We'd call this work speed endurance in track. Something like 4x150m at 400m pace with a couple minutes rest. When they Tabata sprints are great... They're not. They are the Pert Plus of intervals. Mediocre at two things. There are many better options. First, the original intenisty (170% Vo2max) is too hard for most. People just practice falling apart. Instead, if you need a short fast workout, do 8 to 10 x 30sec at mile pace with 60 sec recovery. As you adapt, decrease rest or increase reps. Or if you want short rest, do a few sets of 8x100m with 20-30sec rest at 800-mile pace. When they say the Norwegian 4x4 protocol is the best for raising Vo2max... It's not. It takes one study that compared a few intervals. Guess what, Seiler's research found 4x8min better than 4x4, while Billat found 30sec on/off better than 3min reps, and any other number of other studies found different workouts increase VO2max more. And guess what? None of that maters. Because research sucks at studying workouts. Why? It's artificial. It takes people and makes them do the same workout 2-3x a week for 6-8 weeks. No one does that in the real world. It's not generalizable. So what? There is NO best workout. Your best workout if you care about VO2max is to mix it up... -do some short and fast (10x200m w/ 200m jog @ 3k-1mile pace) -medium- 6x800 @ 5k-3k pace w/ 2min rest -longer and a bit slower- 4x2k @ 15k-10k pace w/ 2min rest -Tempo/Threshold- 2x10min at half-marathon pace -And lots of easy slow running And adjust the workouts as you go. You want to manipulate rest length, speed, rep distance, sets, rep number, and more as you go. That's how you adapt. Repeating the same exact workout over and over is what we did in the 1950s. So what? Vary it up. When they say Vo2max is the best indicator for health and longevity... What they really mean is aerobic performance! That's right, nearly all the research on longevity uses PERFORMANCE, not actual VO2max. They either use the speed you reach at the end of a treadmill test, what your heart rate is during a standardized submax test, or some other performance metric. In other words: You are better off seeing what you can run in a mile or 5k (or equivalent test in rowing, cycling) than a Vo2max test. Why? Because performance encompasses more than just VO2max, which is generally more centrally limited. A 5k time trial give you a decent idea on both peripheral and central contributors to aerobic performance. What's this mean? Stop trying to improve VO2max (it levels off much earlier than performance). If you care about health and want a decent indicator, just try and get a bit faster over 5k. Or make your standard hard workout feel a bit easier. When they say Zone 2 is the best... They really mean easy or slow running. That's it. There is no magic in zone 2. In fact, all the training zones are just markers to help classify training. You do not actually enter a different 'zone' where the adaptation is completely different. It's a rough guess to say, most of the work in this area kinda helps at Y. But that's it. The reason elite runners spend a lot of time in zones 1,2, and 3 is that they need to accumulate a lot of volume in easy to kind of easy paces to get long term aerobic adaptations. Life isn't going to end if you do some of those runs in zone 1, or venture into zone 3 on a typical run. In fact, varying it up is the point. It's why you'll see elite runners do some runs at 7min pace, and then other days they're feeling good and clicking off sub 6 for a standard day. So when it comes to zone 2, think: accumulate a lot of easy to steady mileage. That's it. Focus on Zone 2 and 5. That's your biggest bang for your buck. Nope. All zones matter. If you care about performance you need to span the gamut from jogging to nearly sprinting. If you care about health....guess what? Same thing just to a reduced load. If all you do is zone 2 and 5...you're missing out on stimulus for important adaptations. You need all of them. And guess what...you can blend and mix them in the same workout as well. Do 15 minutes at threshold followed by 6x400 at 3k pace. Or whatever combo you want. So what? Follow the training poem: Mostly Easy Some moderate Occasionally hard and out of breath A bit of fast and smooth Vary it up. And very rarely...Go see God Do that for months and years, and you'll be fine.