Practiceby Lab 10 Get started ›
Crossfire

If you only have a few hours a week for cardio, should most of it be easy Zone 2 work or should it be harder?

What the experts say

Martin J. GibalaPhD · exercise physiologist, McMaster University

Harder. At three to six hours a week, Zone 2 is not a hard enough stimulus to accrue benefits efficiently, and putting 80 percent of a small weekly budget there leaves you less fit than you could be.

What it rests onA narrative review he co-authored argues the Zone 2 recommendation rests on observational data from elite endurance athletes doing very large volumes, that it contradicts substantial evidence for high-intensity exercise on mitochondrial capacity and cardiometabolic health, and that prioritising intensities above Zone 2 matters particularly at lower training volumes. He adds that Zone 2 has no uniform definition and that consumer wearables bound it differently from one another.

Source: realexercisescience.com ↗
Peter AttiaMD · longevity physician, founder of Early Medical

Mostly easy. Two hours a week of zone 2 is a good place to start, three to four hours is the target, and you probably cannot do too much of it.

What it rests onHe defines zone 2 as the highest level of exertion that is effectively pure mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation before lactate begins to net accumulate, crediting Iñigo San Millán for the definition, and treats mitochondrial function as the lever behind metabolic health. He reports doing it four times a week himself with a lactate meter at a target of 1.8 to 1.9 millimolar.

Source: peterattiamd.com ↗

Overview

They are addressing different people, and neither of them says so. Gibala's objection is explicitly conditional on a small weekly volume, three to six hours, and his own review says the Zone 2 case comes from athletes training far more than that.

Attia's dose is three to four hours a week for a general reader optimising for longevity, which sits inside the band Gibala says is too easy. Gibala also declines to take this position at all for elite endurance athletes, where he says there is likely no single optimal intensity distribution.

Where they agree

Both hold that mitochondrial capacity is the mechanism worth targeting and that cardiorespiratory fitness matters for long-term health. Both prescribe more than one intensity: Attia's own template carries zone 5 work alongside zone 2, and Gibala's catalogue carries a 45-minute moderate-intensity comparator that performed as well as his sprint protocol. The disagreement is about the split, not about whether hard work belongs in a week.

What would settle it

A randomised trial in recreational trainees with a fixed weekly time budget, comparing an 80 percent easy distribution against a distribution weighted above the lactate threshold, with cardiorespiratory fitness and mitochondrial capacity as endpoints. Gibala's own review says this evidence does not currently exist for the general public; a trial finding no difference at three to six hours a week would close the question for him.

Practice does not pick a winner here

You do, and your call is dated, kept, and yours to change. Follow the people you already trust and what they publish turns into a short daily practice.

Get started

Free to sign up and use. We do not ask for a card.