Build up to it — Research
This is where we keep the evidence behind the targets in Build up to it.
It’s for you and Product — not the game board. The board only uses what we publish here.
We publish a target when it should help what you can actually do, your blood markers, or VO2 max. We base optimals on studies we read full text, in the direction Siim’s research points. We don’t invent doses.
Locked = our clear synthesis plus cited full-text study notes that support the target. Provisional = direction is solid enough to show, but we still name a gap (often an unread paper DOI). Either way, the numbers and the proof sit on this page.
Goal
Siim’s 2026 week
GoalProduct-locked as Miles’s overall Goal — cardio and strength together. From My 2026 Longevity Roadmap (OceysodInIo, 2026-01-05). This is the optimally rounded week the board builds toward. It is not Miles Now. He does not start by copying the full week.
Optimally rounded week
- Daily base: 10–12k steps/day (± vest)
- Strength: 3–4×/week (PPL / calisthenics + weekly squat)
- Zone 2: 2×/week
- HIT: 1×/week Norwegian 4×4
- Plus: sprints/plyos (freq TBD)
Goal — Product-locked north star. Never Miles Now. Study-first Now targets stay on the Cardio tracks below.
2025 contrast in the same video: strength stayed similar, but cardio was only ~1×/week (HIT or Zone 2). Full quotes + timestamps: Siim’s 2026 week — OceysodInIo.
Cardio
Walking
LockedTargetAbout 8,600 steps/day as a solid floor (≈86 min), optimally ~12,000 steps/day (≈120 min). Practical daily band: 10–12k steps (≈100–120 min).
Walking minutes (how we translate steps): We divide daily step totals by ≈100 using the Tudor-Locke cadence heuristic — ≥100 steps/min ≈ absolutely-defined moderate walking (~3 METs) in adults (BJSM narrative review 2018; CADENCE-Adults papers). Corpus has no Siim line that converts 8.6k / 10–12k / 12k into minutes; he separately notes “brisk walk for 1 hour/day = 1,500 MET-min/week” (MET framing, not steps↔minutes). Full note: Tudor-Locke cadence.
Catch: Dividing by 100 estimates time if those steps were continuous walking at that cadence. Real days mix incidental slower steps, so the minutes are an approximate translation aid — not a lab stopwatch of continuous walking.
Why it matters
More daily steps track with lower death risk in large accelerometer cohorts. Total steps matter more than how “intense” the stepping looks once you account for volume. Walking is the easy daily base under lifting and hard cardio — glucose after meals, circulation, insulin sensitivity, mood — not mainly a calorie trick.
Protocol
- Floor: ≥8,600 steps/day (≈86 min) — Siim-informed (his “at least 8,600… optimally 12k” stack); aligns with the study’s strong drop already visible by ~8k vs ~4k.
- Optimal: ~12,000 steps/day (≈120 min) — study-informed (JAMA 2020 dose points) + Siim-informed optimal.
- Personal band we mirror for the board: 10–12k/day (≈100–120 min) — Siim-informed (his stated aim).
- Site floor he also states: ≥8–10k — Siim-informed.
Evidence
Saint-Maurice PF et al. Association of Daily Step Count and Step Intensity With Mortality Among US Adults. JAMA. 2020;323(12):1151–1160. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1382. Full-text note: JAMA 2020 Saint-Maurice. Minutes translation: Tudor-Locke cadence.
Key finding: vs 4,000 steps/day, 8,000 → HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.44–0.55); 12,000 → HR 0.35 (95% CI 0.28–0.45) for all-cause mortality (~51% and ~65% lower hazard). Step intensity was not significantly tied to mortality after adjusting for total steps.
Catch: Observational (not proof that steps cause longer life); residual confounding; hip accelerometer misses cycling/swimming; device step counts can differ a lot across brands.
How Siim frames it
He treats steps as non-negotiable foundation (“walking isn’t about calories”) and cites this JAMA paper as 12k vs 4k → ~65% lower mortality, with no significant benefits beyond ~12k in his summary. Exact stack quote (X 2026-02-17): “Walk at least 8,600 steps a day, optimally 12k…” → https://x.com/siimland/status/2023797719035502598 · Personal aim (YT OceysodInIo 1:01:21): “10 to 12 K steps every day.”
Status
Locked — synthesis + full-text JAMA note on file. (Siim’s “no benefits beyond 12k” is his framing; the paper’s published HRs are vs 4k at 8k and 12k, not a formal “beyond 12k” test.)
Full dump / backlog (weighted vest, Level ladder): corpus → Walking.
Zone 2
ProvisionalTargetEasy aerobic work at about 60–70% max HR, roughly 2×/week (2026 plan) for ~45–60 min/session, paired with 1×/week hard intervals — not instead of them.
Why it matters
Steady moderate work builds the aerobic base under HIT and lifting. Large long-term cohorts (and Siim’s 2023 review that points at them) show moderate-intensity volume keeps associating with lower mortality at high weekly minutes, while vigorous volume plateaus earlier — which is why he keeps a moderate lane even when he already lifts hard several days a week. His own reported VO2 jump after a Zone 2 block is his story, not Miles’s prescription.
Protocol
- Intensity: Zone 2 ≈ 60–70% HRmax — Siim-informed (YT definition).
- Frequency: 2×/week (2026 plan) or 2–3×/week (site / earlier X) — Siim-informed.
- Duration: 45–60 min/session (his experiment 45–55 min, HR ~115–145) — Siim-informed.
- Expert cue he opens with: at least ~3 hours/week Zone 2 — Siim-informed (attributed as what experts say).
- Pair with 1×/week HIT; don’t replace the hard day with more Zone 2 only — Siim-informed.
Evidence
O’Keefe JH, O’Keefe EL, Eckert R, Lavie CJ. Training Strategies to Optimize Cardiovascular Durability and Life Expectancy. Mo Med. 2023;120(2):155–162. PMID 37091937 · PMC PMC10121111. Full-text note: O’Keefe 2023.
Key finding (paper’s reading of Lee 2022): high doses of moderate PA reduce CVD/all-cause mortality more than high doses of vigorous PA; VPA mortality benefit maximizes ~150 min/week then plateaus; MPA keeps a dose-dependent inverse relationship.
Catch: Narrative systematic review (not a new pooled meta with extractable −17%/−35% cells); observational base; does not prescribe Zone 2 HR bands or 2×/week sessions.
Siim site (R): this PubMed ID is the exact href next to his 2023 moderate-vs-vigorous paragraph (scraped 2026-09-18). His “−17% vs −35%” and “200 / 800 min” framing are his numbers — not verified verbatim in O’Keefe full text → Partial match.
Lee DH et al. Long-term leisure-time physical activity intensity and all-cause and cause-specific mortality… Circulation. 2022;146(7):523–534. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.058162. Full-text note: Lee 2022.
Key finding: mutually adjusted MPA + VPA; near-max association ~150–300 min/week VPA or ~300–600 min/week MPA; higher bands don’t clearly add more; among people already ≥300 min/week MPA, extra VPA adds little.
Catch: Observational (NHS/HPFS self-report); not a Zone 2 training RCT.
Role: Landmark cohort under O’Keefe/Siim’s story — Partial as Siim cite (not the site href).
Garcia L et al. BJSM 2023 dose–response meta (doi:10.1136/bjsports-2022-105669) — prior-pass candidate; full-texted; not Siim’s (R); different MVPA mMET-h framing. Note kept under other/rejected-as-Siim-cite: Garcia 2023.
How Siim frames it
YT OceysodInIo 34:12–34:21 — once-weekly HIT 4×4 + twice weekly Zone 2 because he already has several high-intensity training days. → https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OceysodInIo
Status
Provisional — protocol numbers from corpus are solid; full-text notes now on file for O’Keefe (his (R)) + Lee (underlying cohort). Gap: Siim’s exact −17% vs −35% and 200 / 800 min figures still unverified in those full texts; Zone 2 session dose remains Siim-informed, not study-prescribed. Not Locked until Product accepts that gap or we find a paper that states those exact numbers.
Full dump / backlog: corpus → Zone 2.
Running / intervals
ProvisionalTargetAbout 1×/week hard VO2 work — usually Norwegian 4×4 — or at least one all-out sprint session/week. Weekend-warrior style can match high-frequency VO2 gains if weekly volume matches.
Why it matters
Intervals are the hard cardiorespiratory lever next to Zone 2. Structured HIT (4×4) and short sprint work are time-efficient ways people raise VO2; a volume-matched weekend-warrior trial and a SIT meta (both now full-texted) are why frequency alone is less magic than total hard + steady work — and why stacking endless sprint reps isn’t required for the VO2 adaptation in Wingate-style SIT.
Protocol
- Norwegian 4×4: 4 min @ ~85–95% HRmax (study posts often ~95%), 3 min rest/active @ ~60–70%, 4 rounds · about 1×/week (sometimes once every ~10 days when strength leads) — Siim-informed.
- Sprint floor: ≥1 all-out sprint session/week (e.g. 3–5 × 60–100 m after warm-up, or 10 × 100 m walk-back) — Siim-informed.
- Weekend-warrior option (study he posts): high-frequency 4×/week shorter vs 2×/week longer → similar VO2 if volume matched — study-informed (Tripp 2025) + Siim-informed catch.
- High-frequency: 2× 35 min continuous + 2× HIIT 4 min work / 3 min rest × 4 (Siim’s ~80% / ~95% HRmax labels; paper uses GET/RCP power domains).
- Weekend warrior: 1× 70 min continuous + 1× HIIT × 8 rounds (doubled units).
Evidence
Tripp TR et al. Cardiorespiratory Fitness Improvements Following Low-Frequency Training Are Not Inferior to High-Frequency Training Matched for Intensity and Volume. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2025;35(2):e70024. doi:10.1111/sms.70024. Full-text note: Tripp 2025.
Key finding: 8-week RCT (n=28); WW (2×/week) not inferior to HF (4×/week) for V̇O2max when intensity + weekly volume matched (WW 43.5→47.8; HF 42.3→47.3 mL/kg/min; change difference 95% CI −1.5 to 2.9 vs 3.5 mL/kg/min margin).
Catch: Short trial, young adults, cycle ergometer; intensity prescribed by GET/RCP power, not %HRmax; non-inferiority ≠ identical.
vs Siim: Headline Yes; %HR wording Partial.
Vollaard NBJ et al. Effect of Number of Sprints in an SIT Session on Change in V̇O2max: A Meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49(6):1147–1156. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001204. Full-text note: Vollaard 2017.
Key finding: 38 trials / 34 studies; typical SIT → +7.8% ± 4.0% V̇O2max; −1.2% ± 0.8% per 2 extra sprint reps/session (more reps not better; possibly slightly worse).
Catch: Wingate-type cycling SIT only; magnitude-based inference framework; “2–3 enough” is discussion/REHIT pointer, not a pooled optimal-dose estimate.
vs Siim: Yes on 34 / ~8% / more reps not better; Partial on “2–3 enough” slogan.
Catch (Siim names it): you have to match the volume.
How Siim frames it
YT OceysodInIo 31:52–32:07 — Norwegian 4×4 at 85–95% / 60–70% × 4. YT F__fxx_E9p4 5:38 — “at least one sprint workout per week.” X weekend-warrior thread: https://x.com/siimland/status/2094442770047893557
Status
Provisional — weekend-warrior VO2 + SIT meta now full-texted with solid (partial) Siim matches. Gap: Norwegian 4×4 still lacks a named full-text note for the specific Helgerud/Wisløff paper he leans on; weekly 4×4 / sprint-floor doses remain Siim-informed. Not Locked until that 4×4 cite is pinned + full-texted (or Product accepts intervals Locked on WW+SIT alone).
Full dump / backlog (Tabata/Gibala ranking video): corpus → Intervals.
Corpus
Siim Land — posts, site, and videos roughly Sep 2023 → Sep 2026. Last dig: Sep 18, 2026.
Published targets use our synthesis + study notes. Exact Siim quotes live in corpus tables (and short framing on this page when useful). Corpus is the full dump and backlog — not a vault that hides the proof.
Siim-cited studies sit separate from studies we add later.