If you have a goal to exercise more, you will fail. Exercising stinks, and we’re biologically wired to avoid it. So quit trying. Train instead.

This isn’t fancy wordplay. If you have a goal to exercise 3 times a week, you are set up for failure. Each time you exercise, you’re being pushed to go all out. You feel great about yourself afterwards but dread each workout. Eventually, you stop doing it because the misery of the workout really doesn’t outweigh the vague health benefits.

But, if you are training for a half marathon, you’ll get out that door every day. The difference? A training plan has structure and purpose. Each session builds on the previous one, and you can feel yourself improving over time. When you see why each workout is part of a greater whole, it takes more effort to break the plan than to keep it.

Plus, smart training doesn’t involve a lot of pain. You can’t improve over time if you are going all out each workout. When training, it’s better to be consistently good than occasionally great. You aren’t proving your worth each workout, you are making each training session work for you.

Viktor Frankl, Austrian psychologist, Holocaust survivor, and author of Man’s Search For Meaning explains that when suffering serves a purpose, it can become a source of meaning in one’s life. Training brings that purpose to working out. Generic exercise sessions don’t.

Most people exercise, and that’s why most people don’t actually do anything at all. This is causing major health problems.

The health impacts of training are unrivaled.

The best way to reduce your risk of dying is to be a fast runner.

A cohort study published in the prestigious Journal of American Medical Association tracked the health of over 122,000 patients to quantify the impact aerobic fitness has on longevity. The patients were tracked for an average of 8.4 years and a total of 1.1 million person-years of observation. Each participant in the study ran on a treadmill while having their heart rate taken to determine how fit they were. This treadmill test estimates each person’s VO2 Max, how much oxygen their heart can pump at once. For runners, your VO2 Max has a very strong correlation to your 5km race time. The results are very clear - being aerobically fit has a bigger impact on your health than anything else.

The study quantifies your risk of dying from any cause as an adjusted Hazard Ratio. Smoking has a Hazard Ratio of 1.41, meaning you are 41% more likely to die over a given time period if you are a smoker. The Hazard Ratio comparing the fastest runners to the slowest runners was 5.04! That means fast runners are 5x less likely to die than slow runners. This is over 3.5x the impact of not smoking. But you don’t have to become an elite runner to make an impact on your health. Going from just the slowest group of runners to the second slowest group cuts your risk of dying in half, a 40% greater impact than not smoking. This trend continues as you move up each fitness level. With each jump in fitness groups, you make considerable impacts to your longevity. Once you reach the elite level, the impact of improved fitness grows smaller, but it never stops.

When looking at these results, keep in mind that it is very possible for somebody to improve their fitness level. Running several times a week at a light jog will certainly take somebody from Low to Below Average. Increasing your total weekly running mileage over time can take almost anybody into the High and even Elite categories. Truly elite runners can run twice as fast as the threshold for Elite runners in this study.

The study’s findings are remarkable, so I’m going to post some science-heavy figures here for anybody that wants to dig a bit deeper. Here’s a table that places participants into a fitness group based on an expected 5km race time — my conversion of the treadmill test results in the report:

Fitness Level Thresholds By 5km Race Times

And here’s a figure directly from the report, which shows the Hazard Ratios of various health risks and between fitness groups:

Figure 2. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality compared with low performers in all patients (A) and by sex (B) (P values are for comparisons with low performers). C, Adjusted HRs for comorbidities and between performance groups. Error bars indicate 95% CIs (Confidence Intervals). CAD indicates coronary artery disease; and ESRD, end-stage renal disease.

And finally, here is a figure directly from the report which shows the adjusted mortality risk in elite vs. high performers. I have a genetic predisposition to hypertension, and this figure shows that by moving from the high performer group to elite, I reduced my risk of dying over a given time interval by 30%. This impact is more pronounced at lower levels of fitness.

Figure 3. Multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression model for specified subgroups. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) are for elite vs high performers. Error bars indicate 95% CIs. CAD indicates coronary artery disease.

That’s a lot of science. For anybody overwhelmed, just know that there is a really massive impact to your health that happens from becoming a better runner, and that this impact continues as you get faster and faster.

Roughly put, every time you cut several minutes off your 5km race time, you decrease your risk of dying by a magnitude equal to the decision to never smoke. And you can keep making this improvement to your health risks over and over again.

There are many studies with similar findings to this one. While the exact numbers might vary, the trend is always the same. So, if your goal of “exercising” is to improve your health, then it is far superior to work on becoming a better runner (or cyclist, swimmer, etc.) than to simply work up as much of a sweat as you can several times a week. Note that elite runners don’t do spin classes; in fact, they spend the vast majority of their training time running at an easy, conversational pace. Training with purpose is easier and more effective than “exercising.”

Strength training is also critical

There are many studies that show increasing strength reduces your risk of all-cause mortality as well. One study published in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association looked at the results of 42 studies, comparing data of over 3 million people. The Hazard Ratios for every 5kg/11lb decrease in grip strength were 1.16 for all-cause mortality, 1.21 for cardiovascular diseases, 1.09 for stroke, 1.07 for coronary heart disease, and 1.01 for cancer. Said another way, for each additional 11 lbs you can hold, you decrease your risk of dying by 14%. The Hazard Ratio comparing the lowest grip strength group to the highest for all-cause mortality was 1.41. Once again, this is about the same impact as never smoking.

Grip strength is a commonly used metric for scientific studies because it’s easy to test and it serves as a good proxy for total body strength. Somebody that can deadlift 700 pounds raw needs to be able to hold onto that bar without letting it slip through their fingers.

Strength training and running are better together.

Another cohort study published in the Journal of American Medical Association looked at over 115,000 participants aged 65 or older, and it found that both regular aerobic training and strength training reduced all-cause mortality, but the combination of the two had the best results. For the entire group, regular strength training alone reduced the risk of death by 10%, aerobic training alone reduced the risk of death by 24%, and combined strength and aerobic training reduced the risk by 30%.

Training for longevity: The Hybrid-Athlete

Nothing screams the 2020s like taking something that has been known for ages, slapping some science behind the idea to make it feel fresh, and then giving it a buzzword. And that’s how the “Hybrid Athlete” came to be.

The most official definition for hybrid training comes from influencer, athlete, and coach Alex Viada:

“The concurrent training of different athletic disciplines that do not explicitly support one another, and whose disparate components are not essential to success at any one sport.”

Ultimately, the culturally accepted definition has become “the combination of weight lifting and aerobic endurance training.” This means trying to excel in at least one event from each category:

• Weight Lifting

  • Powerlifting (Bench, Squat, Deadlift)

  • Olympic Lifting (Snatch, Clean and Jerk)

  • Bodybuilding

  • Strong Man (Lifting stones, trucks, and anything else lying around)

• Aerobic fitness

  • Running for time: 5ks to marathons

  • Running for distance: Ultramarathons, last man standing

  • Biking

  • Swimming

  • Triathlons: Sprint distance to Ironmans

  • Mountaineering / Multi-day trekking

I think any combination of these activities is great and will serve as effective training for longevity. However, I believe the de facto standard for hybrid athletics should be the combination of running for time, specifically mid-distance races like 5km/10km, and powerlifting. These two events are most directly aligned with what the scientific studies are measuring. Plus these are the two most accessible events. Any physically-able person should be able to finish a 5k (3.1 miles), even if they have to walk most of it. And that same person should be able to bench, deadlift, and squat, even if the weight is very low.

Training for these events is also incredibly efficient. In a world lacking free time, you’ll be grateful to see your training plan only calls for a 30 minute run or 5 sets of a heavy squat. Done daily for years and your health (and physical appearance) will be completely revolutionized.

Training for a fast 5k while maximizing strength gives “exercise” purpose. You need a plan, and you feel compelled to stick to it. It’s frustrating when you miss a workout and know that it will set your progress back. Plus, your day to day training becomes quite enjoyable once you overcome the initial sting of learning how to run casually. After a couple weeks of consistent running, your body finds a groove and you start regularly experiencing the “runner’s high” along with the “lifter’s pump”.

A way to measure your hybrid athlete improvements

Let’s say a powerlifter that can move 1500 lbs decides one day to focus more on running. They do a local Turkey Trot 5k in 34 minutes. For the next couple years, they focus heavily on running but work to maintain strength as well. They lose a bunch of weight and get down to a 24 minute 5k. Their strength falls along with their weight and now they can only powerlift 1100 lbs. Is their new combined strength / endurance capability more impressive than their first?

What about the opposite scenario? Let’s say a college runner decides to bulk up after graduating. They double their powerlifting total from 500 lbs to 1000 lbs. But they completely neglect running, and their 5k time drops from 14:00 to 30:00. Was this an improvement?

To compare progress and give training a consistent target to optimize around, I suggest standardizing on the Hybrid Athlete Ratio (HAR). This is the ratio of the total amount you can powerlift (in lbs) to your current 5k race time (in seconds). Multiply by 100 to make the number more fun:

Powerlifting Total (lbs) / 5km Race Time (seconds) x 100

Note, these aren’t lifetime PRs. These are what you can do right now, assuming you are rested. Comparing the performances above:

The elite powerlifter-turned-hybrid athlete improved their Hybrid Athlete Ratio by focusing on more diverse training. The combined performance of their aerobic fitness and strength is more impressive than their solo powerlifting performance was before. Watching their Hybrid Athlete Ratio increase with their running performance can be encouraging as they watch their powerlifting total decrease with their bodyweight.

However, the elite runner that went all in on powerlifting actually lowered their Hybrid Athlete Ratio. Since they just pivoted from one form of specialized training to another, the drop in running performance outweighed the gains they made in strength. A more diverse form of training would be better for their health and their Hybrid Athlete Ratio.

Here’s the Hybrid Athlete Ratio calculated for some more examples:

This table offers some benchmarks for Hybrid Athlete Ratios as one progresses through different fitness groups for both aerobic and strength training simultaneously.

Hybrid training by definition comes with a lot of trade offs. The Hybrid Athlete Ratio allows an athlete to track an overall improvement in performance even while one discipline (strength or running) stalls or diminishes slightly. This encourages athletes to pursue both sports vigorously instead of specializing in just one.

Optimizing the metric

If you really focus on optimizing this metric, you’ll notice the following:

1. The goal is to get as big and strong as possible, without losing aerobic fitness. This is the whole point of hybrid training, so it’s good that the metric matches this. This task is easier said than done, though. Adding 10 lbs of muscle mass can slow your 5k time by as much as a minute. You’ll want your powerlifting total to increase by more than 60 pounds to compensate. Decreasing body fat tends to be rewarded.

2. At some point, the gains you can get from shaving seconds off elite 5k times or adding a couple pounds to a powerlifting total show diminishing returns. It’s far better to improve a weakness than to continue to squeeze out gains on your strengths. That said, any improvement will increase your score.

3. Every person’s spot on the hybrid athlete scale is unique. For some, this metric will feel biased towards strength training; a running bias to others. Averaged across the board, it ultimately rewards proficiency in both over specialization.

This ratio could be done with many different race distances (i.e. 10ks, marathons) and types of weightlifting (i.e. olympic). You can vary the units (minutes, kilograms, etc.). You can even adjust metrics based on age, gender, weight, and elevation. If desired, you can incorporate any of the existing race and lifting standardization calculators before you apply the ratio to normalize for these different variables.

If you’re truly optimizing for health, then you may want to put a higher emphasis on running. The ratio of your powerlifting total to your 10km race time would capture this bias. But making this the standard ratio will alienate non-runners because the 10k is a higher barrier to entry. You could use kg instead of pounds to capture a running bias, but there is an elegance to a score of 100 meaning you can outlift your 5k time.

Ultimately, the standard Hybrid Athlete Ratio should be the one proposed because it creates a balanced metric across running and powerlifting. It invites athletes currently specializing in either sport to diversify their training. That’s the goal.

What about Crossfit or Hyrox?

Instead of inventing a new metric, we could just standardize around one of the “hybrid athlete” sports that are already gaining large followings. I don’t mean to overlook the benefits of Crossfit or Hyrox. If you are training for these events, you are certainly training to optimize longevity. However, these sports are not nearly as accessible as running or powerlifting. You must learn technically challenging movements and competitions are harder to come by. Meanwhile, there is a 5k nearly every weekend in a city near you, and almost everybody has access to a gym with a barbell. For these reasons, I believe a race-to-powerlifting comparison metric needs to exist.

Find Purpose By Adding Powerlifting To Your Turkey Trots

So here’s the call to action: Give up exercising, and start training. Instead of grinding as hard as you can every time you workout, start running and lifting with purpose. Go for lots of slow easy runs, building up the distance you travel gradually. Start lifting very light weights with good form, and slowly increase the amount over time as you get stronger. Then, test yourself by running a 5k and measuring your max lifts all in the same week. Figure out your Hybrid Athlete Ratio and watch it improve over time. This lifetime mastery of the combination of running and powerlifting will bring meaning to the work you need to do to live a long, healthy life.

If you’re already training for one of these sports but not the other, I encourage you to diversify. If you’re at the top of your game in the sport and trying to test your limits, then you should stay all-in. But, once you reach the point where you can no longer make improvements, look towards your Hybrid Athlete Ratio as a metric where you can continue to make gains. It’ll breathe fresh air into your training.

And for your next Thanksgiving, convince your family to do a Hybrid Turkey Trot. Have everybody max out their powerlifts the week before the race. After the run, calculate each person’s Hybrid Athlete Ratio to see who is the best athlete overall. Maybe use this to decide the order that people go through the buffet line. Then, enjoy Thanksgivings with your healthy family for many years to come.

References

Aerobic Fitness Study

Mandsager K, Harb S, Cremer P, Phelan D, Nissen SE, Jaber W. Association of cardiorespiratory fitness with long-term mortality among adults undergoing exercise treadmill testing. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(6):e183605. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3605

Grip Strength Studies

Bohannon RW. Grip strength: an indispensable biomarker for older adults. Clin Interv Aging. 2019;14:1681-1691. doi:10.2147/CIA.S194543

Wu Y, Wang W, Liu T, Zhang D. Association of grip strength with risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer in community-dwelling populations: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(6):551.e17-551.e35. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2017.03.011

Combined Strength and Aerobic Training Study

Webber BJ, Piercy KL, Hyde ET, Whitfield GP. Association of muscle-strengthening and aerobic physical activity with mortality in US adults aged 65 years or older. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(10):e2236778. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.36778