Yea, I still recall that and the newer modified Borg from undergrad. But I was more interested what you recommend specifically for LISS-type training, based on your coaching experience, I'm guessing the typical 60-70% max HR for "fat loss zone".
I think there are a few different lines of consideration here:
1) Previous development and training biases, e.g. naturally or training induced anaerobic vs. aerobic status
2) Goals, e.g. general strength development vs weight loss vs. endurance training
3) Resources available for training
See above.
HR on the old Borg/Warner scale was RPE x 10, basically- so RPE 12 was 120 and RPE 20 (maxed) was 200. Now it's different so more subjective. It's likely a percentage of Max Heart Rate , e.g. 90% for RPE 9 and 80% for RPE 8, give or take.
Yea, I still recall that and the newer modified Borg from undergrad. But I was more interested what you recommend specifically for LISS-type training, based on your coaching experience, I'm guessing the typical 60-70% max HR for "fat loss zone".
As always its complicated. I get point 3, but the rest not so much? In how that relates to the kind of cardio you choose.
OP asked for a lil extra "wind". Its been my n-1 experience that my liss is pretty good. Im sedentary af but put me on a bike and ill cycle 80km no problem. But ask for 2 sprints and my lungs are on the Tarmac. Just figured HIIT would provide a better base for that extra wind ?
Just picking your brain. The info around here s xtremely valuable, Thanks for that
Hmmm, just as I got my doctor excited about what I'm doing.
He is of the opinion that HIIT has a greater impact on gene expression (sorry if I mangle your lingo). He backed that up with some experiment on mice and said the pathologists couldn't tell the difference between mice who were genetically predisposed to a bunch of diseases (probably metabolic?) and genetically superior mice when the former was forced to do HIIT.
But, then again, they were mice.
What are we ferriting out? I probably asked something without realizing. Im sorry if I come across as annoying, not my intention. Im just wildly interested and This is that moment you realize you have many questions but not enough knowledge to ask the right ones.....
Sooo, (hypothetical) I suppose my 400 would be "better" because its short enough not to kill me. An all out mile would probably end me. But then again is it really aerobic? For me not probably.
I would probably show me that my aerobic base is bad. Which then means, you think being able to bike 80k doesnt have really much validity and doesnt diffenrentiate between a good and bad base? Does it say anything at all?
Im lost. I want to know / understand more but im rattling to myself in circles.
I disagree. The 1 mile is absolutely aerobic given it's length. The major point of my query is to say your aerobic base has not been challenged and so it's difficult to know how well developed it is and what management needs to be done wrt conditioning prescription. The 80km bike at a very low intensity with intermittent bursts of effort tells me almost nothing about your aerobic capacity unless it's done as a time trial and we could see how your efficiency and power output fall off. It's just too long and not fast enough/hard enough to challenge the energy systems. It's like saying "My strength is fine because I can squat 20 reps with my bodyweight." Well, that doesn't tell us much about your strength, does it?
I think I got the point. Just tells you Im "good" at cycling. Or doing bw squats as you mentioned.
In your previous post you also mentioned a 400m for comparison reasons, why was that?