Advice for the “average” human
If you woke up tomorrow in the body of an “average” unhealthy modern human: 35 - 50 pounds overweight, metabolically unhealthy (over nourished and under muscled, as you say) … fairly out of shape, flirting with prediabetes with not horrible but decidedly NOT GREAT labs and general health … what would be your game plan (methods, timeline, priorities) for climbing out of that hole ? There is a TON of information contained in the several hundred podcasts here; can you distill it down to, say, the top 5 (or even 10) things you would tackle first ? Conversely, what if you could only pick TWO things to have the greatest impact on improving health (I’m not even sure that last part is a fair question, but … give it a try !) Thank you.
Is cycling really the best way to do zone 2 for longevity?
If the goal of zone 2 training for longevity is to increase both mitochondrial number and efficiency as much as possible, I would presume the the more muscles you activate during your zone 2 training, the better that would be. Also, the principle of specificity would seem to indicate that it would be best to target zone 2 activities which reflect your goals for longevity (i.e. what are the events in your personal centenarian decathlon?). Having said that, I am curious why Peter insists on doing zone 2 on a bike when there is nothing in his centenarian decathlon about biking? Wouldn't uphill walking on a treadmill (perhaps weighted?) be more specific to his goals and involve more musculature (and therefore potentially more mitochondria) while still being easy to control from an RPE or lactate perspective?
How important is it to stay precisely in zone 2 during long easy aerobic training?
If mitochondrial number and function is the primary goal of zone 2 training, I am curious to know how detrimental fluctuations in effort level are to the overall goal. I understand that going for a run or ride outside will probably be difficult to do without fluctuating in and out of exact zone 2 effort levels. However, as long as you are aware of the goal of maintaining a relatively stable and low effort level, I think you can probably stay fairly close. How detrimental to improvements in mitochondrial number and function would this be? 10%? 30%? 50%? It seems to me that if the difference is fairly small, then focusing on absolute control would be much less important than allowing people to do the things they enjoy outside. However, it the difference is quite large, I see the need for focusing on control. Has anyone done any research to quantify this?