Canvas & Ratio
Choose your destination platform format
Layout Template
Choose a content structure for your slides
Preset Themes
Typography & Sizing
Brand Kit Customization
AGENCYConfigure brand assets for headers & footers
Outro Slide CTA
Customize your closing call-to-action slide
Background Pattern
Build Your Carousel
Drag and drop any post card below onto a slide, or use the quick buttons to insert content/images instantly!
What if I told you there’s a study where people boosted VO₂max by ~44% in just 10 weeks? It's real. And it's a larger increase than any of the workouts promoted by influencers, Tabata, Norwegian 4x4, you name it. Sounds like a miracle protocol, right? Let's dive into the details to understand why short-term studies can make insane training look unbeatable.
The protocol was simple and brutal. Six days a week, you either ran 40 minutes “as fast as possible” or did 6×5 minutes on the bike at VO₂max with 2 minutes rest. No easy days, repeat for 10 weeks. Think of it as a lab-approved death march.
The results looked spectacular on paper. VO₂max climbed. Endurance performance did the same. Only one person got injured. The results were so good, the researchers asked folks to continue. There was only one problem... "They almost unanimously refused for the reason that they found exercise of this frequency and intensity too tiring and time-consuming." Only one guy tried to continue, he last 3 weeks. In fact, nearly everyone wanted to drop out before the study ended..
That’s the first lesson: survival ≠ sustainability. You can white-knuckle your way through nearly anything for 6–10 weeks and still adapt. Physiology is resilient in the short term, especially from a lower base. But inevitably, the bill shows up. And it’s usually expensive.
Most training studies are short because that’s what academia can run, student calendars and grant timelines. In a compressed window, the craziest plan often wins. It concentrates stress, floods the system with signal to adapt. And your body complies. There's not enough time to overtrain, get hurt, and fall apart... Adherence lives in the long tail.
It's why you can't really look to training studies for guidance on real world training... We're not after what you can survive for 6-8 weeks. We're after months and years. It's why the advice from coaches is often different than the HIIT, Tabata, crush your intervals training that's cited all the time by health influencers.
Lab research is fantastic for mechanisms: why intervals push VO₂max, how intensity signals adaptation, what levers exist. It’s weaker for deciding complete programs. Programs live or die on progression, recovery, monotony management, psychology, and life constraints—things hard to capture in 6–10 weeks.
That's why I like to look to history and practice for guidelines on overall training programs. The best plans feel almost boring: modulated stress, easy days that protect hard days, and rhythms you can repeat. It's the training haiku: Mostly easy Some moderate A spice of hard Vary it up Repeat for a long time.
Takeaway: everything “works” in the short term—especially the craziest stuff. Remember this study, next time you see someone hype some 8 week study on some crazy training trend. Chase sustainability, not spectacle. Build a body and mind that can keep showing up, long after the study ends.
For a full breakdown and to read the article this came from: <a target="_blank" href="https://open.substack.com/pub/stevemagness/p/the-best-training-plan-according?r=13ojw&utm_medium=ios" color="blue">open.substack.com/pub/stevemagne…</a>