Training for The Uphill Athlete Scott Johnston New Hunting Podcast

[The_Jim]

Oh totally, more training is going to be better than less. Particularly for endurance.

I'm asking more like: if you know your training is going to be fixed at (say) 5 hours per week, will you have better outcomes from zone 2 work or something at a higher intensity?

I think the higher intensity is going to give you the opposite effect of zone 2 - It will train your heart rate to spike.

 

[Willie IV]

How much weekly zone 2 work are you planning to do?

5 to 6 days but at varying degrees of incline, speed and weight. I'm wanting to keep my body from adapting to one routine so I'll change it up. One day is a grind it out day (2-3 hrs) and some days are 0% incline for only 30 minutes. Most days range from 45 - 90 minutes.

 

[mad_angler]

Oh totally, more training is going to be better than less. Particularly for endurance.

I'm asking more like: if you know your training is going to be fixed at (say) 5 hours per week, will you have better outcomes from zone 2 work or something at a higher intensity?

I think Scott specifically addressed this when talking with Cliff. He said that leaving zone 2 actually hurts your performance. When you are out of zone 2, you are telling your body to ignore aerobic pathways and focus on anaerobic pathways. That defeats the primary goal of his program.

That is my uneducated recollection. Others maybe heard it differently...

Listen to the podcast around 1:29 where this exact question is asked and answered...

 

[Poser]

Oh totally, more training is going to be better than less. Particularly for endurance.

I'm asking more like: if you know your training is going to be fixed at (say) 5 hours per week, will you have better outcomes from zone 2 work or something at a higher intensity?

I would expect that one's fitness would plateau only doing zone 2 training for a handful of hours a week.
The question is if that plateau level of fitness is sufficient for your demands. If you were climbing a Himalayan peak, it most certainly would not be sufficient, but it may be enough for a moderately difficult hunting trip. Of course, if you further divide that 5 hours up with some strength training and, eventually, some muscular endurance, you're not going to be left with much zone 2 training.

 

[kad11]

I think Scott specifically addressed this when talking with Cliff. He said that leaving zone 2 actually hurts your performance. When you are out of zone 2, you are telling your body to ignore aerobic pathways and focus on anaerobic pathways. That defeats the primary goal of his program.

That is my uneducated recollection. Others maybe heard it differently...

I understood it the same as you...

 

[The_Jim]

If you trust ChatGPT - this sounds accurate to me though...

Great question—and you’re thinking about this exactly the right way.
There is a very real diminishing-returns curve for Zone 2 aerobic training. You don’t need elite-athlete volume to get most of the benefit, especially for hunting.
Below is a practical, evidence-based way to think about it.

The Zone 2 “Return on Investment” Curve​

~3–4 hours/week → ~60% of max aerobic base gains​

• Big improvements if you’re coming from low/moderate volume
• Better fat oxidation, lower resting HR
• Faster recovery between efforts

Who this fits: Busy people, maintenance mode

---

~5–6 hours/week → ~75–80% of aerobic base gains​

This is the sweet spot for most hunters

• Major mitochondrial growth
• Strong capillary density increases
• Noticeable drop in HR at given pace
• Very good endurance carryover to rucking and long days

Time efficiency: Extremely high
Fatigue cost: Low
Injury risk: Low

~7–8 hours/week → ~85–90% of gains​

• Gains continue, but slower
• Requires better sleep and fueling
• Mostly useful if you’re prepping for very long pack-outs or multi-day hunts

10+ hours/week → Final 5–10%​

• Elite endurance territory
• High fatigue, high time cost
• Not necessary unless you’re chasing performance margins

 

[hibernation]

Of course, if you further divide that 5 hours up with some strength training and, eventually, some muscular endurance, you're not going to be left with much zone 2 training.

Yeah, that's where I'm struggling a little. Strength training, some mobility and rehab work, shooting the bow regularly, now add in some longer zone 2 work... it adds up fast.

 

[TheM1DoesMyTalking]

For sure endurance is a high volume low intensity - I have a feeling you can probably do like 50% of the training volume to get 80% of the results. It would be interesting to hear his perspective on that.

From Scott's article on Aerobic Deficiency Syndrome:

"Rules of Thumb
The aerobic needle will move very slowly if you do less than 3 hours of aerobic base training per week. Do not expect a noticeable improvement in your aerobic pace in less than six months. If you consistently get in 5-6 hours a week of aerobic base training, you will probably notice an increase in aerobic pace in 3-4 months. Things pick up when you hit 8 hours a week, and we have seen people cure ADS in 2-3 months."

 

[thinhorn_AK]

5-6 hours of zone 2 per week is great but that volume is going to pile up when you add in your strength work and everything else.

 

[kad11]

Roughly accurate? Build strength and aerobic capacity first, then add muscular endurance and HIIT periodically while maintaining foundation?

 

[P Carter]

I’ve done their ultra running plans for mountain running. The volume was too high for me. So I just scaled to the duration of my event. Instead of back to back 4 hour runs, a one hour run one day and 3 the next. That sort of thing. Worked great. I maxed at 12 hrs/week for a few weeks, but most were right around 8 hours. Ran 40 miles with 11,000 of vertical and wasn’t sore the next day.

I think the thrust of it is: here’s an ideal program with a proposed set of concepts and workouts. My guess is, if you scale that to meet your training availability, it’ll work really well.

Specifically, I’d guess 5 hrs of zone 2 a week, if maintained as a base for several months, and the ME and strength on top, is going to be great. And if you can do, say, 4 weeks of bumping that to 8 hrs and scale back the strength work to maintenance levels for the 4 weeks, even better.

Substituting high intensity for zone 2 is qualitatively different because it works a different energy system.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, I think folks on the thread are right on. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good - any program with consistent zone 2 aerobic work, strength work, and an ME component will be awesome if you stick with it and progress/periodize in a reasonable way.