A Journey of Mindfulness--the Remaking of Life in Midstream.

[IlliniDave]

This mornings per-caffeinated BP measurement average was 103.0/67.0 61.7 bpm. I'm starting to think I've lost no ground in the last year on that metric which I'm pretty happy about.

Starting last June I made a significant change in my nutrition to up my protein intake to roughly 1g/lb of body weight. There were two reasons for that: to support the increased emphasis on resistance training and because the growing trend in the Medicine 3.0 healthy aging community is towards higher protein intake for older adults (prevention/slowing of sarcopenia).

My formative years occurred during a time when there was significant disinformation (and maybe some innocently erroneous beliefs) that I absorbed regarding what constitutes healthy nutrition that I still carry as a skeptical conscience during my present neoformative years. There's also been some spurious "popular press" reporting that's tried to cast protein into the role of a cause of insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, etc. Yes, excess protein intake above the bodies current needs will be converted to glucose in a messy process, and as the glucose is produced insulin will be secreted to shuttle it out of the blood. But the magnitude of those things if the excess is not extreme shouldn't be a big deal. I'm also hacking the protein by using a fancy pants amino acid supplement that combines all the essential muscle building blocks in the required proportions to minimize any excess amino acids hanging around in my gut as candidates for conversion to glucose. I get about 100g equivalent dietary protein from that per day, and even though it's somewhat pricey ($4-$6/day) it's about a third the cost of my preferred regeneratively-raised grass-fed beef, and about half the cost of my second choice eggs from pastured chickens. Plus it's only 8-10 calories and it allows me to keep my fat intake moderated. The other ~80g I get from a blend of animal sources: dairy, eggs, and meat. At this time last year I was loosely following Gundry's protocol, which is sort of a lowish protein version of the Mediterranean diet with some additional restrictions on plant foods that some people display adverse sensitivity to. On that protocol I was probably getting under 40g of protein/day by design. So as testing season approaches I'm of course wondering what the under-the-hood impact was. My mid-cycle follow up tests in November were decent, even though my "biological" age estimate went from 11 years younger than chronological to 9.5 years younger than chronological. Increased protein wasn't the only nutritional variable. I let my hair down in the late summer/fall, and let more confort-style carbs into my diet, and beginning in midsummer I substantially streamlined my supplement protocol. I've gone back to limiting the sweet and starchy stuff, brought a number of items back into my supplement routine, and kept my protein up. The other change I've made is to be extremely careful with plant-based oils. I try to avoid the highly processed ones altogether (generally the seed oils, especially soybean, corn, and canola oils) and stopped cooking with any plant based oil.

Anyway, I'm wandering off track. On my to-do list today is scheduling my main annual battery of tests through Function health and that was a little pep talk to myself. Getting an indication that those changes do not appear to have changed my BP is encouraging in the sense that elevation in BP is a pretty reliable sign of metabolic dysfunction.

Of course I've still been burrowing into the topic of sleep. Unfortunately it's difficult to unearth much useful information. I did find an online article that says for my age cohort it's at least conceivable that averaging as low as 6 hours per night might not be indicative of a problem. I averaged slightly under 6 hours for five months last year, June-October, but my overall 2024 average was above that. So now I'm off trying to decipher what are the reliable signs that person is getting insufficient sleep. It's an evasive topic. That I wake up the vast majority of days feeling "okay" is a good sign. That I have a propensity for midday naps if I set myself up for one undermines that, but days I don't have one don't result in a noticeable problem with tiredness in the afternoon. Other things linked to chronic sleep deprivation are hypertension, Type 2 diabetes, and obesity (IOW insulin resistance/metabolic dysfunction, although most sleep experts/clinicians don't talk in those terms). So I'm starting to think I might just be a genetic outlier in that respect. If I can convince myself of that, it should lower the affect sleep anxiety might be having on me. There's an argument that the body is actually more proactive than we give it credit for in terms of sleep, and it has a considerable ability to tailor sleep to its needs. No randomized placebo-controlled crossover clinical trials to back that up. But it makes sense with some of my observations that I seem to randomly go through periods of more or less REM, and more or less deep sleep irrespective of what I do to dial in my sleep routine and hygiene. In both of those I'm more/less doing all the right things. So I'll continue on with avoiding naps and delaying my coffee until 600am for a few more weeks and observe more passively. People who treat sleep issues seem to feel making changes is a process that takes weeks or even a month or two.

In the mean time I'm going to focus on something else, maybe on achieving a little more leanness before hideout season rolls around. Not that it's a metric that has a lot of meaning to me. It's just something to distract me from thinking about sleep. Then in a week or two when my Function results come in I'll likely have a whole bunch of other numbers to obsess over. That seems to be a compulsion I have, lol.

ETA, I just noticed that PerfectAmino, in addition to the amino acids, also contains some "nucleic acid building blocks" purportedly for "DNA/RNA" health. Fortagen does not, which is causing me to rethink whether I'd want to make a switch without looking into the additional ingredients some more.

[suomalainen]

I recently “learned” that lean protein (chicken) is only ~20% protein by mass, the rest being water and other stuff, so if one needed 200 grams of protein that’s over 2 pounds of raw chicken per day! So, yeah, supplements ftw.

[IlliniDave]

I recently “learned” that lean protein (chicken) is only ~20% protein by mass, the rest being water and other stuff, so if one needed 200 grams of protein that’s over 2 pounds of raw chicken per day! So, yeah, supplements ftw.

Yep, it's daunting, and sticking with uber lean protein results in another inefficiency. It seems our bodies were designed for protein and fat to be ingested together, and leaving the fat out makes the process of breaking down dietary protein into amino acid building blocks less efficient (fat triggers the release of bile into the gut which is part of the process). Including the fat adds a lot of calories. I like the targeted amino acids over the usual protein powders since they are already in their absorbable/usable form and that circumvents the age-related decline in the nutrient absorbing processes most (maybe all) humans encounter in later life. I still try to get at least a third from whole food sources because of other nutrients that come along with protein. But at that level (~50-80g/day from whole food) I've still got room in my gut for a good variety of plant-based foods. I know some people thrive on near-carnivore regimens, but I don't think that would be best for me at this stage.

[zbigi]

I recently “learned” that lean protein (chicken) is only ~20% protein by mass, the rest being water and other stuff, so if one needed 200 grams of protein that’s over 2 pounds of raw chicken per day! So, yeah, supplements ftw.

Pure protein and pure carbs are around 400 kcal per 100 g, and pure fat is 900 kcal. So, for example, if what you're eating is theoretically pure carbs, but has much less kcal per 100g than 400, then it has to be paded with water or fiber - e.g. cucumber, carrot or any other popular vegetable for that matter.

[Scott 2]

Can you link to the amino acid supplement? I'm struggling to understand what it is. Protein is 4 calories per gram, so 8-10 calories doesn't mesh with the 100g equivalent.

I bought a leucine powder years ago. The promise was that amino acid is the constrained resource for muscle protein synthesis. As a vegetarian who doesn't like protein foods, I was intrigued. Unfortunately it didn't mix well and tasted horrible, even in the context of protein supplements.

I settled on a decent whey isolate. The amino acid profile is good and it's easy to get down. Only 25-50 grams per day though. I've not been convinced going beyond 125 grams will offer me much. It's clearly a processed food too, which always bugs me a little.

[IlliniDave]

Can you link to the amino acid supplement? I'm struggling to understand what it is. Protein is 4 calories per gram, so 8-10 calories doesn't mesh with the 100g equivalent.

I bought a leucine powder years ago. The promise was that amino acid is the constrained resource for muscle protein synthesis. As a vegetarian who doesn't like protein foods, I was intrigued. Unfortunately it didn't mix well and tasted horrible, even in the context of protein supplements.

I settled on a decent whey isolate. The amino acid profile is good and it's easy to get down. Only 25-50 grams per day though. I've not been convinced going beyond 125 grams will offer me much. It's clearly a processed food too, which always bugs me a little.

Yes, it's definitely processed, and is vegan sourced in both the brands I'm familiar with. But other than flavoring it's more of an extract than it is something fabricated in a chemical plant. It's "secret" is that contains only amino acids used in muscle repair and synthesis, and in the proportions they are used. So very close to 100% of it is utilized for that task and there's almost no residual that would be contribute dietary calories in the gut.

I was probably sloppy in some of what I said. I don't get 100g of protein from this stuff daily. I get 20g of amino acids that provide the same muscle synthesis capacity as the amino acid content of ~100g protein from beef or eggs or whey. I think the basic math is 20g of AAs replaces 100g dietary protein which corresponds to 400 cal and at ~98% directly utilized in muscle synthesis results in ~8 cal leftover for energy balance. In my prior note I think I stated the 10g caloric load of 4-5 cal. The main reason people pay attention to that is if they employ a fasting protocol, a serving or two of this stuff does not break a fast because of how readily/directly it is utilized. It would probably be better to say net calories because if you put the stuff in a bomb calorimeter or whatever, it would probably test higher.

Here's a link to what I'm pretty sure is the most popular brand.

https://bodyhealth.com/products/perfect ... powder-nsf

I use the stuff the X3 guy sells. It's called Fortagen. I think there may be a third version/brand out there as well. They're all based on the same research that first identified the optimal AA ratios such that it's more/less all utilized in muscle tissue synthesis without any excess of any of them. It may be that leucine is typically be the one that gates the process in dietary proteins. The reason I had the link handy for PerfectAmino is that I've heard it tastes somewhat better. Fortagen isn't awful, but it's not what I'd call tasty either*. I've stuck with Fortagen because once I bought some bands from X3, they periodically send me discount links which makes it more cost effective than PerfectAmino.

I also think the utilization assumptions of the research was that there was some underlying activity that puts the body in need of protein synthesis. In other words, if a person is not active in a strength-taxing way, I'd think many of the assumptions about it's efficiency insofar as muscle synthesis goes are invalidated.

Regarding total protein levels I target ~130g to 180g (roughtly 0.8-1.0 g/lb bodyweight). Occasionally I go a little over. And 100g of that is "equivalent" protein from the AA supplement. I've started to see recommendations creeping up to 1.2g/lb body weight in the context of older folks trying to increase muscle mass. It seems to be an ever moving target. So far my strength is still slowly increasing so I don't feel the need to experiment with increasing protein intake. And I don't really know if the use of targeted amino acids mitigates any of the concerns of "excess" protein intake, or even exacerbates them.

*The first 2-3 times I took it I thought it was pretty awful, but then the taste quickly grew on me which, being an optimist, I took as my body saying, "Hey, this stuff is pretty useful, give me more."

[Scott 2]

Got it - so you plan on 30-80 grams of protein from food, plus 20g from the essential amino acid supplement. The thought is lower overall protein intake correlates with longevity. But with the supplement, you're hoping to avoid shorting muscle protein synthesis.

People using the product while fasting, are trying to avoid surplus aminos from converting into glucose. During an extended fasted state, especially for someone running a caloric deficit, I guess that makes sense. I listened to a nutrition podcaster who would do 24 hour fasts with the leucine.

I would think during caloric maintenance, the glucose benefits are limited. Since we have to get calories from something. And there's only so much fat the body can tolerate. But I could still see when eating one meal a day, wanting to spike aminos in the blood stream. I'll start the morning with some whey for that reason. I'm less conscious of limiting overall protein though.


I think where protein information gets tricky, is teasing out the confounding variables. IE protein is satiating. So does doubling it push out muffins and cookies? Alternatively, are the longevity enhancements with low protein diets really a correlate of calorie restriction? I've not found clear answers, hence my approach.

Well, the calorie restriction thing seems pretty clearly effective around longevity enhancement. But I just can't.

[IlliniDave]

Got it - so you plan on 30-80 grams of protein from food, plus 20g from the essential amino acid supplement. The thought is lower overall protein intake correlates with longevity. But with the supplement, you're hoping to avoid shorting muscle protein synthesis.

People using the product while fasting, are trying to avoid surplus aminos from converting into glucose. During an extended fasted state, especially for someone running a caloric deficit, I guess that makes sense. I listened to a nutrition podcaster who would do 24 hour fasts with the leucine.

I would think during caloric maintenance, the glucose benefits are limited. Since we have to get calories from something. And there's only so much fat the body can tolerate. But I could still see when eating one meal a day, wanting to spike aminos in the blood stream. I'll start the morning with some whey for that reason. I'm less conscious of limiting overall protein though.


I think where protein information gets tricky, is teasing out the confounding variables. IE protein is satiating. So does doubling it push out muffins and cookies? Alternatively, are the longevity enhancements with low protein diets really a correlate of calorie restriction? I've not found clear answers, hence my approach.

Well, the calorie restriction thing seems pretty clearly effective around longevity enhancement. But I just can't.

Yep, that's pretty much it. There are people that will tell you that carbohydrates are not an essential macronutrient because the body can make all the glucose it needs to function through gluconeogenesis. If a person is super lean and consumes very little fat, then they might have true need for appreciable dietary carbs. But it would take a lot of fat and a lot of excess protein to provide 2000-3000 daily calories, or appreciable fat stores and a healthy enough metabolism to mobilize them.

it seems like there are two schools of thought when it comes to the healthspan/longevity side of it. From the perspective of someone like Gundry it's in good measure about suppressing MTOR (and many of the supplements I take/my food choices actually up regulate AMPK which down regulates MTOR). The other school of thought is that strength and muscle mass correlate with longevity and with simply being able to live independently, i.e., quality of life. MTOR regulates cellular growth and survival, so to build/maintain muscle you have to up regulate it. I believe dietary protein tends to up regulate MTOR by simply being present. So that first school of thought would say limit protein for that reason. The other says essentially to maximize protein for the sake of maximizing strength and combating sarcopenia. I don't know which is "right". But for the lifestyle I want to preserve, strength is important, so I err on the side of somewhat higher MTOR and hope that it doesn't become dysregulated. Over a lifetime balancing anabolic and catabolic processes is necessary, so rather than going out of my way to suppress anabolic processes (lower MTOR) I'm counting on maintaining a balance of anabolic and catabolic activities through things like using intermittent fasting and targeted AMPK up regulating nutrients/supplements along with higher protein/protein equivalent intake and resistance training.

These optimized amino acid studies I'm pretty sure came out of the bodybuilding world, or at least were first adopted there. And the traditional approach there is to use excessive calories during a bulk up phase, then go into into a caloric deficit during a cutting phase to shed the extra body fat accumulated during the bulking phase (which will also cause loss of some of the muscle gained during the bulk up). The AAs purportedly offer a way to bulk up while staying somewhat leaner, and losing less, maybe no, muscle during cutting. Dunno if they deliver on that promise enough to satisfy a competitive builder.

From my perspective as an old guy who is still unwinding IR accumulated over decades, body fat is too apt to show up as visceral fat, so I really want to minimize getting into a situation where my body is looking to store excess calories as fat. But also as an old dude, I want to increase, or at least preserve, strength and lean mass. That's basically a smaller scale version of what the bodybuilders are after for different reasons. So I like to stay in a slight caloric deficit most of the time, but remind my body I'm actually using the muscle, and supplying it with easy-to-use nutrition for the muscle, to avoid breaking it down for energy needs.

[IlliniDave]

This morning's BP was 106/72, 56 BPM. I'm not thrilled with the 72 but looking back at 2024's data, diastolic numbers in the low 70s in the morning generally occurred a couple times each week. So it seems all I've done over the last year has not caused my stage 2 hypertension to reappear.

I learned about a new metric (or maybe remembered it after forgetting about it), pulse pressure (difference between systolic and diastolic), and at 34 this morning mine is pretty good. The medicine 2.0 take is that under 40 is "healthy". Last Thursday when I did my first 2025 reading mine was 46, but that was right after coffee so I'm inclined to discount it. All my other readings (which are actually averages of 3 readings) were in the mid-30s. Pulse pressure is said to be a measure of arterial stiffness, with higher pulse pressure being indicative of arterial stiffening, which in turn is generally indicative of arterial damage and calcification. For the last year I've been trying to baby my endothelial glycocalyx health through food choices (exclusions, really) and supplements. I wish I had a better historical data set, but on that fateful day in Dec '22 when I got the tests done that caused the course correction everyone has had to suffer thought in this journal, my BP was 144/86 83 bpm, so a pulse pressure of 58, which is well beyond what is deemed healthy and on the edge of being an official Medicine 2.0 pronounced heart disease risk factor. I suspect the numbers that day were partially attributable to whitecoat hypertension, but in May of '24 when confronted by the whitecoats I read 105/68 65bpm. Back in late '22 my Medicine 2.0 options/recommendations were a Rx for hypertension and a statin--try to manage the symptom and take a second drug to suppress another symptom as a preventive measure, even though that "symptom" is an essentially bodily function. No thought at all about simply removing the causes of the problem and providing my body what it needs to restore itself.

And yes, for whatever reason my attention has wandered back to cardiovascular risk. It's one I often bury my head in the sand about, I think because I had long been of the belief that once that process started there was nothing to do about it beyond a token delaying action of swallowing drugs while enduring growing disability until a premature end. I also judged that prediabetes was a more urgent concern and something there was more hope in successfully dealing with. Good blood and pulse pressure aren't the same as a clean bill of cardiovascular health, but they indicate a better situation than could be surmised if they were still screwed up. I am wrestling with a little "guilt" too as I've been neglecting much of the HIIT work I'd been doing to preserve or increase VO2 max due to my workout of choice being hard on my still-recovering left shoulder. That's a bit of a cop out. To me, HIIT workouts have a high suck factor and I'm probably too quick to rationalize skipping them. That's an issue that I need to address.

My HRV is something that encourages me as well. Mine isn't spectacularly high, but my long-term average is a little above the range that typifies my age demographic, and is roughly at the midpoint of someone 25 years younger than me. I don't think it's a direct measure of cardiac health, more an indicator of stress management, and low HRV implies poor/chronic stress management problems which in turn are associated with CVD.

My exhortation for the day is to ignore political team uniform colors and view disparaging popular press portrayals of people like Robert Kennedy and even more so, Calley Means, with a high degree of skepticism. IRL, I'm surrounded by people who seem caught up in a cycle of a pill for every symptom, which begins the cascade of a symptoms for every pill. It makes me sad. Medicine 2.0 is miraculous in many respects, but it has some gaps a person could drive a proverbial truck through,something readily apparent in epidemiological data. Those guys are going after some of the systemic problems that seem to oppose the common sense action of simply looking at where the current healthcare/nutrition paradigms are failing and considering new philosophical approaches free of conflicted science to augment established medicine, rather than doubling down on the mid-late-20th century model.

[Scott 2]

Why not accumulate Zone 2 minutes, instead of the HIIT? It's extremely effective at raising v02 max, and you can chill during it. I browse the web, catch up on YouTube, watch Netflix, listen to audiobooks, etc. All stuff I'd enjoy anyway.

My work capacity crushes anything I ever built from interval training. Zone 2 feels like a cheat code.

[IlliniDave]

Hi Scott,

It's an option. The biggest reasons I don't target Zone 2 are 1) cortisol (my HIIT regimen is designed to minimize it while still producing VO2 max gains) and cortisol works against my lean mass building goals, 2) I don't have a way to track it live (Oura records heart rate, but I can't see it until after I end the workout heart rate tracking feature), and 3) I hate running, and so do my knees. Of course, I might be overestimating my max heart rate. I calculated 96-112 bpm to be my age-based Zone 2 range. I occasionally get into Zone 2 walking or hiking, but even when I was experimenting with walking 50 paces then running 50 paces alternately on somewhat hilly trails, I usually didn't get my heart rate up enough for sustained periods. And I sometimes get there during my band workouts, and during "easy" rows when my shoulder is feeling okay, but again, not for significant time.

That's a lot of excuse making mostly because I just don't like to do it. The HIIT regimen was a way to avoid it. But it's a good suggestion and maybe something I need to revisit.

[suomalainen]

Bike

[Scott 2]

Yeah, I'm mostly a bike or elliptical these days. If cardiovascular health is a high priority, then zone 2 work strikes me as a key variable. Way more impactful than any supplement.

You could pay $10 a month for a random gym membership, and experiment with building to a couple hours a week, over a few months. There's HR measures on all the machines.

Or pickup a HR strap for $50 and figure what gets you steadily in range. Outdoors, I think a bike is easiest. Walking is too light, running too hard. So it's like a slow shuffle jog, which gets annoying. Alternating running and walking is not the same.

In my experience, a rower is tough as the only zone 2 option. It's hard to sustain a low enough wattage. 80-100 watts on the concept 2 keeps me in range. That's like 18 strokes per minute on a 3 damper setting. My limiter is tailbone chafing issues, even with a seat pad.


If you don't like it and won't do it, week there's no point. But it's definitely eschewing one of the fundamental levers.

[theanimal]

Or pickup a HR strap for $50 and figure what gets you steadily in range. Outdoors, I think a bike is easiest. Walking is too light, running too hard. So it's like a slow shuffle jog, which gets annoying. Alternating running and walking is not the same.

In my experience, a rower is tough as the only zone 2 option. It's hard to sustain a low enough wattage. 80-100 watts on the concept 2 keeps me in range. That's like 18 strokes per minute on a 3 damper setting. My limiter is tailbone chafing issues, even with a seat pad.

The slower/lower output are the case when starting out. However, as you build cardio base you will be able to go faster and faster while staying in Zone 2, meaning you can run sub 6 minute miles, put out more power on a rower/bike, etc.

[Ego]

Deep water pool/lake running sprints using a float belt is a zero impact option for HIIT. Other than group track running, the best consistent HIIT I've done, where Ive been motivated past the temptation to stop at set number three are the HIIT specific Peloton classes taught by Hannah Frankson. Some gyms have Peloton bikes for free. They allow you to race against your own previous rides. It is hard to recreate that consistant effort on a road bike with traffic and weather.

[theanimal]

Laird Hamilton is a big proponent of HIIT style water based workouts and I enjoy doing them whenever I have access to a pool/water. They could serve as a good option for your time up at your hideout. I think he has the workouts available behind a paywall somewhere but I pieced quite a few of them together from articles/podcast. You can do all of these with your bands, light dumbells/kettlebells, medicine balls, bricks, or anything relatively light that you have on hand. 10 lbs is a good starting point.

-Dolphin Jacks- Hold weights out 90 deg away from your body and bring them down to your sides. Simultaneously move your legs out and in like jumping jacks
-Ammo carry- Holding the weight like a football, swim one lap (or as appropriate) on one breath. Switch arms
-Cellphone- Carry a weight in one arm overhead out of the water and swim as far as you can on one breath. Switch arms
-Crawl- Start in a pushup position on the bottom of pool/lake and move the dumbells forward one at a time, moving yourself forward with them. Stay under as long as you can.
-Jumping squats- Hold weights at your shoulders, squat down and explode up out of the water
-Swim on your back with the weight on your chest, using your free arm to swim
-Alternating jump lunges with weight overhead
-Alternating explosive cleans

There's more but you get the idea. It's a great workout, no impact, and ends up being a lot of fun.

[IlliniDave]

Thanks for the ideas!

The HIIT protocol I'd been following was something I adapted from Dave Asprey that he developed in his upgrade Labs model. You basically do an easy warmup, then go to burst of 100% effort "until you feel like you're about to die", then go into a warm down where you're barely moving for as long as it takes for your body to return to baseline (heart and respiratory rate return to the easy warmup levels), then repeat the 100% effort period, warm down until you're back to baseline, and you're done. That's repeated twice each week. In an Upgrade Labs setting you'd have AI monitoring you that's adapted to you over time to optimize those intervals. One thing that's always drawn me to some of Asprey's approaches is that I'm fundamentally lazy and am drawn to approaches that seek to optimize results/unit effort.

As an aside, it's the same idea with the resistance bands for strength. The X3 protocol was designed around maximizing strength gains per the amount of time working out. (there is an aternate "hypertrophy protocol" that seeks to maximize muscle growth per unit calendar time (at the cost of more time spent working out), but it's not the one I follow).

In Asprey's HIIT methodology the idea is that a short burst of maximum effort that bring you to the brink of failure followed by immediate recovery back to baseline sends a message to the body that "this is doable" and circumvents the cortisol dump that comes with repeatedly hitting the brink of failure without fully recovering in between. The X3 protocol is similar--do a single set of each movement to failure then stop. That's apparetly enough to signal the need for muscle upgrades with minimal cortisol or damage (repairing damage diverts resources that would otherwise ge utilized for tissue upgrades). Both those seem rather minimal and lazy, but the hacks in both cases go a long way towards allowing me to be consistent over time, and they produce results, though I can't verify they are optimal relative to their intent. I've never enjoyed working out for the sake of working out. Using my rower really worked out well since it's a reasonably functional movement (loosely similar to paddling a kayak) and hits all of upper body, core, and lower body to an extent.

I did get on the rower for10 minutes yesterday and my shoulder held up fairly well, and I identified a cal/hr rate that after a few minutes put me nicely in Zone 2. I'm still hesitant about trying HIIT because the strokes get almost violent when I get going like a madman. I'm going to try some short (~20 min) Zone 2 rows on my resistance off days and see how I feel.

Sprinting is one I might try as a HIIT. I would just have to get over a lot of self consciousness, lol. I remember during Crossfit my 100m sprint time was about 5s slower than when I was a track athlete in HS and an above average sprinter. And my Crossfit days are more than a decade behind me now, I really like the idea of water-based activity and I have easy access to a lake for part of the year. It could make for a nice occasional alternative though probably not something I could make a consistent regimen of.

I appreciate you guys taking the time share the ideas.

Couple other random things while I'm here. I'm in the middle of listening to a podcast with Peter Attia as the guest. He's talking about what he's calling the "marginal decade"--the last decade of an individual's life, and framing physical activity to promote healthspan as training for the marginal decade as though it's an athletic event. I deally a person would spend their entire life training for that event. In my case, which probably isn't unusual, I waited until I was pretty far down the road, but all I can do is start where I'm at each morning and make the best of it. I get inspiration when I hear a new framing of a problem that resonates with me. Attia is pretty rigidly grounded in formal science compared to many in the longevity community, so he puts a big emphasis on VO2 max. I've been on a deliberate plan to spend a year (June '24-June '25) optimizing for strength and I'm going to see that through. But in a couple months I'm going to revisit that and probably go back to more of a blend of modalities, or maybe begin optimizing for VO2 max. I think I know enough now to do that without losing all the strength gains I've eked out over the last year.

Last night I finally watched "Don't Die" on Netflix. Scott, I can see why you brought up the point you did about questioning whether going that hard over for longevity sucks the life out of life. It's interesting that the path he's on was his path to overcome mental/psychological struggles--that it was an exercise in letting his body take charge from his mind to guide his behavior. I can't say that it strikes me as a widely applicable strategy, but if it works for him and gives him a sense of purpose, more power to him. I don't know if it was the way the documentary was presented, but to me it felt a little dark overall. At the end I found myself grateful I don't have relatively unlimited wealth at my disposal so I wouldn't be tempted to go down a version of that road myself. He reminded me of Mr. Data on Star Trek Next Gen in appearance and persona. There's arguably a nobility to donating yourself as a test subject and freely sharing "The Blueprint" and results with the world, but there was something about it that was profoundly uncomfortable to view.

[Scott 2]

It's interesting that the path he's on was his path to overcome mental/psychological struggles

Anecdotally, I find that's typically the case for those performing at the extremes of their field. Something's not quite right, and they've found an ideal outlet. Even if from the outside their results look amazing, it's a very constrained existence. Though it's hard to imagine Brian finding a better path, for him.


IMO Attia has an endurance sports bias, with those extreme swims in his background. I'm in favor of prioritizing v02, but always take his discussion with that in mind


I'll go ahead and throw out the vote against sprinting. Injury potential is sky high, with limited benefit.


That's the thing about HIIT - going to 100% is brutal. Zone 2 is luxurious in comparison.


Have you experimented with rowing, without using the foot straps? I found that improved my stroke considerably. I can take 18spm up to around 140 watts now, without the straps.

I also found the low cadences benefit from a 2:1 recovery to drive ratio. I still get to practice creating force. When I bring that energy into a high cadence, I get closer to 1:1, but the power is available. My stroke quality improved a lot.

There seems to be carry through into strapped down maximal effort too. I touched 350 watts briefly, which I would have considered impossible. My cardio system can't sustain that anyways, but it's fun knowing the gear is there.

[jacob]

That's the thing about HIIT - going to 100% is brutal. Zone 2 is luxurious in comparison.

I'll take brutal over boring. But different strokes ...

Zone 2 corresponds to around 5-6 METs, so activities like the following should work: hiking (uphill), rucking, dancing, shoveling snow, chopping wood, mowing lawns (push mower), digging holes, moving furniture, surfing, lifting weights (with breaks), stream fly fishing, slow swimming, slow cycling (12mph), slow rowing/paddling, slow running, ...

[Lemur]

I'd add that a great thing about zone 2 work is that if you're currently out of shape, or maybe just getting a lot older with years of accumulating nagging injuries, then its much more tolerable than high intensity where you'd likely get injured.

Prioritizing v02 from what I understand is something like 80% zone 2 and 20% pushing it to the limit.