[Anonymous]

It seems that what we’ve been preaching for many years is now beginning to trickle into the more mainstream channels. There two articles came out with then last 2 weeks:
From Training Peaks NL.

The Science Behind Building an Aerobic Base

From Mountain Tactical
https://mtntactical.com/knowledge/defining-the-nebulous-aerobic-base/?utm_source=Active Subscibers High Engaged&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Beta 1.13.22_Everyone_HighEngaged (VVLtNm)&_kx=IMmyC8iIpaE8PbaRiGtkgVR0_OGaPpv33QNkX8huoVI=.PNk3rj

Dec 2019 this was on the Drive podcast

#85 – Iñigo San Millán, Ph.D.: Zone 2 Training and Metabolic Health

Topic

[Seth Keena-Levin]

Seth Keena-Levin on January 30, 2022 at 12:54 pm #62715

Nice. And, 3x UA was linked from Mountain Tactical’s article… that’s like paying us from ones own advert budget.

Something I noted and think we should be careful of: Rob uses maybe an unintentional exaggeration bolstering aerobic-level training: (under “The Science” “..This means the individual’s glycogen stores won’t get burned…” glycogen not being burned is incorrect.

Glycogen is not burned as readily as it would if one were above AeT/not as aerobically developed, but its still being burned (its always being burned.) I think we want to be careful about being imprecise about such things because such things can be misconstrued as ‘false advertising’ and make us look like hucksters.

Obviously not blaming UA or Scott but wanted to highlight something that is a potential pain in the ass/ damaging. Think twice before using absolutes — they never really exist… ALWAYS!! 😛

[Anonymous]

Anonymous on February 5, 2022 at 5:33 pm #62960

Good catch Seth:

Glycogen sparing wold be the correct way to think of aerobic base training.

Seth