Skip wrote:Golden Ghost wrote:Anyone who is interested in cardiovascular health needs to realize that the times they are changing. I'm not saying that aerobic training is not good for you but all the new research shows that hard fast intervals are far better. Do they have some downsides, yes. But the old long slow is not the only game in town.
The question isn't which is better, the question is how much of each type of training is optimal for what you want to train for. See this thread: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=46879
Skip, I think there is some confusion here. First lets go back to th OP. His post has nothing to do with endurance training that I can see. It has to do with the optimal training plan, not to high and not to low. However, I do not agree with a few items. The OP states the Maffetone optimal rate of 180 less your age which is about 70% max heart rate is ideal. I dont think this is ideal for optimal health, only optimal for endurance training. He also states that a few beats above this is anaerobic heart rate. This is far from accurate. So someone who is training the Pritikin method 70-80% is not training in the anaerobic range, not even close. They would have great aerobic health.
Your post refers to Matt Fitzgerald, which is a little different than Maffetone but still close. However, he is still talking about endurance training. So if you are talking about endurance training I agree with both Fitzgerald and Maffetone. However, my point is endurance training is not the optimal training someone should be during and you can spend far less time and be in better shape.
If I had to pick I would say 80/20 where 80% is anaerobic training achieved by hard intervals and 20% aerobic training achieved by slow running or biking.