Don’t be like health guru Bryan Johnson, who seemingly repeated this workout each week because it was scientifically “the best.”
That’s how an extremely well-written article by coach Steve Magness on exercise training history finishes. This article provides a wonderful overview of the history of exercise training and the lessons learned over the decades. I want to share some of the insights with you, so we can make sure we’re maximizing our benefits from our own exercise plans in the limited time we have.
Then I’ll share whether I agree with his critique of Bryan Johnson or not.
Table of Contents
- Don’t Repeat the Same Exercise Mistakes
- We’ve Been Here Before
- 120 Years of Exercise Training History in 12 Minutes
- What’s the Problem with Bryan Johnson?
- What Should We Do Instead?
- Don't Skip Power Training
- In Summary
- References
Don’t Repeat the Same Exercise Mistakes
Something hugely significant happened in the world of running in 1896. That was the year of the first modern Olympics. And that meant runners were competing on a world stage, with their performances being a matter of national pride and prestige.
Suddenly, there was a lot more attention on the best runners. And that led to more attention on how they got that way. People started to focus on training methods as never before. For runners and those who trained them, there was a strong incentive to find the best method to produce athletes who could win races.
Imagine it's 1905. You’re standing on the edge of an unmarked track, watching a miler named Joe Binks stroll out for his weekly “workout.” He sprints a few 60-yard bursts, then goes home. A few miles away, another champion, Len Hurst, trudges through endless walks, insisting that patience and plodding miles are the only way to build a champion. Two men, two extremes. High-volume, low-intensity vs. low-volume, high-intensity. Who’s right? At the dawn of the 20th century, nobody knew. There were no textbooks, no GPS watches—just opinions, ego, and gut instinct.
We’ve Been Here Before
Fast‑forward to the 1920s. A skinny Finnish kid named Paavo Nurmi looks at the giants of his era and wonders if there’s another way. Instead of picking a side in the volume‑versus‑intensity war, he combines them. Long walks in the morning, steady runs in the afternoon, short sprints at night. To his competitors, it looks crazy, but the medals start piling up. Maybe a balanced approach is the way forward?
This period saw the rise of an emphasis on intervals. But there was still disagreement about the ideal mix. How short should the intervals be? How many should we do? What intensity level was right?
A Swedish coach in the 1930s named Gösta Holmér took his athletes into the forest. “Run by feel,” he said, sending them surging and slowing over hills, inventing fartlek—speed play. No stopwatches, no strict recovery breaks. Just humans learning how their bodies respond to change.
Meanwhile, German scientist Woldemar Gerschler scoffed: “Not precise enough.” He strapped heart‑rate monitors to his runners, ordered 30‑second bursts followed by measured recoveries, and called it interval training [1].
Neither side wins outright.
Then comes Emil Zátopek in the late 1940s. A Czech soldier with a grin and an iron will, he turns Gerschler’s intervals into an obsession—60 × 400 m, day after day, rain or shine. He trains so hard that fellow soldiers think he’s mad. But at the 1952 Olympics, he wins the 5K, 10K, and marathon. Another coach, Franz Stampfl, designs workouts like 10 × 400 m at blistering speeds. His pupil Roger Bannister uses them to crack the four-minute mile. Again, success breeds imitation. The pendulum slams toward intensity.
In New Zealand, Arthur Lydiard watches the craze and worries. He experiments on himself, running farther and farther until 100-mile weeks feel normal. He creates a training pyramid: months of long aerobic running, then hills, then sharpening speed work. His athletes, unknown amateurs, dominate Olympic finals. Yet not everyone buys in. Across the Tasman Sea, eccentric Aussie coach Percy Cerutty marches his athletes up sand dunes, preaching “Stotan” living—no sugar, barefoot running, heavy weightlifting. He despises “scientific” training and mocks interval coaches. Herb Elliott thrives under Cerutty. Again, we’re left to ask: is the answer in the stopwatch or the sand dunes?
In Oregon, university coach Bill Bowerman travels to New Zealand and returns home impressed with the mileage but alarmed at the monotony. So he mixes Lydiard’s distance with a simple rule: hard days followed by easy days. His athletes—Steve Prefontaine and others—become legends. Recovery isn’t weakness; it’s part of the plan.
By the 1970s, high mileage with 2–3 hard sessions per week becomes the norm.
120 Years of Exercise Training History in 12 Minutes
But human nature being what it is, moderation doesn’t last. In the 1980s, Peter Coe keeps mileage modest and pushes speed all year. Steve Ovett’s coach Harry Wilson adds mileage and hills. They trade world records and Olympic titles.
Sport science enters. Coaches brand workouts as VO₂max sessions, lactate threshold runs, and prescribe exact paces from charts. In the short term, Coe-style speed training produces fireworks. But by the 1990s, Britain and the USA struggle. An entire generation plateaus on too many intense intervals and too little endurance.
Today, elite endurance athletes spend 75–80% of their time at low intensity and only a small fraction at high intensity. They call it polarized or pyramidal training. To anyone who’s read Lydiard’s training pyramid, it’s old news.
What’s the Problem with Bryan Johnson?
So what lessons should we take for our own exercise plans, and what do I think about Steve’s critique of Bryan Johnson?
There are five key takeaways that can help us take a smarter approach to training.
What Should We Do Instead?
1. Volume and Intensity
We need both. Early debates faded as we learned that peak performance requires a mix. In a meta-analysis of exercise in overweight adults, programs combining resistance and endurance training had the greatest overall impact across multiple health metrics—body composition, cholesterol, blood sugar regulation, and blood pressure [2].
2. Recovery is Essential
Exercise stresses our bodies. Gains come during recovery. In resistance training, for instance, muscles sustain minor damage, which triggers repair and adaptation [3]. Without rest, this process is undermined. Personally, I aim for about 2 HIIT workouts a week and fill the rest of the week with other types of exercise.
3. Precision or Feel Works
You can guide your training with heart rate zones or use feel-based approaches like “run until you’re winded, then walk.” Both methods work. I personally prefer the ‘run-by-feel’ style—delete and simplify where possible.
4. There’s No Single Best Workout
Bryan Johnson includes the popular Norwegian 4x4-minute interval workout in his regimen, which is widely considered “scientifically best” [4]. In fairness, the version he shares is fairly nuanced, so I don’t fully agree with Steve Magness’s critique. But the idea that one “ideal” workout exists is flawed. Our bodies adapt. Variety drives growth.
5. Everything Works to a Degree
Low-intensity volume? Helpful. High-intensity, low-volume? Also helpful. The biggest leap often comes from moving out of sedentary life. According to WHO, nearly 1.8 billion adults didn’t meet recommended activity levels in 2022 [5].
One study tracked non-exercisers using wearables and found just 6 minutes/day of vigorous bursts (like climbing stairs) cut all-cause and cancer mortality by 38–40% [6].
That’s massive. The most important step is simply to start moving. Don’t overthink it. “Exercise snacks” are a great way to get started. I use them at home and in my clinic—even while writing scripts or working on Rapamycin research.
Don’t Skip Power Training
One last thing I tell my patients: don’t skip power training. Power, the speed at which we generate force, declines faster than strength as we age and may be more important for preserving function [7].
A 10-year study of 4,000 people found muscle power was a stronger predictor of mortality than muscle strength [8].
Power training has also proven to be more effective at preserving power than standard strength training [7]. It typically involves performing movements quickly, sometimes with added weight like a weighted vest [9].
In Summary
We want to get the largest benefit possible from exercise in the limited time we have for it. The 120-year history of elite running offers us valuable lessons: don’t chase fads, use variety, respect recovery, and remember that movement of any kind—especially if you're just getting started—is a win.
And personally, to squeeze more out of my workouts, I take MicroVitamin+ Powder with TMG and creatine monohydrate to boost strength and muscle recovery. But just because I take a supplement doesn’t mean you need to.
References
1. https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2016/08/a-brief-history-of-interval-training-the-1800s-to-now.html
2. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epub/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.121.008243
3. https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00971.2016
4. https://x.com/bryan_johnson/status/1904900208577917374
6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9800274/
7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9367108/
8. https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(25)00100-4/fulltext
