Why You’re Overcomplicating Endurance Training

Zone 2 training has become increasingly complicated, with subzones like 2a, 2b, and even 2c being thrown around. But does any of that actually improve your training?

In this episode, we break down what Zone 2 really is, why most of this added complexity is unnecessary, and how to organize your endurance training more effectively. The goal is simple: build aerobic fitness without overthinking it. When it comes to endurance, simplicity done consistently beats complexity every time.

​​Free Cycling Training Assessment: https://trainright.com/cycling-training-assessment-welcome/

HOST

Adam Pulford has been a CTS Coach for nearly two decades and holds a B.S. in Exercise Physiology. He's participated in and coached hundreds of athletes for endurance events all around the world.

Interested in working with a coach? Schedule a free consult: https://trainright.com/coaching/cycling/

Self-coached athlete? Check out our TrainRight Membership: https://trainright.com/membership/

Find more free resources here: https://trainright.com/blog/

Resources:

• Trainright.com
• Cycling Power Zones Explained
• Cycling Training Zones: A Detailed Guide — High North Performance
• Trainright Guide to Heart Rate Training for Cycling - CTS   
• Cycling Power Zones: Training Zones Explained - TrainerRoad Blog
• https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/trainright-podcast/id1494799053?i=1000700902926 

Transcript

The Zone 2 Buzzword Problem

SPEAKER_00 0:00

So your buddy is doing a zone 2A ride with some zone 2B efforts and 2C microsurges, then finishing with some supra soul crushers to end the day. Should you join them? Um, yeah. Pass. When it comes to building aerobic endurance or doing effective workouts, complexity and fancy nomenclature is not necessary. Today let's explore whether we need to separate zone two into subzones like zone A and B, and answer the question: is there a C or D? Additionally, we'll discuss the benefits of common language in the sciences like exercise physiology, and I'll share some simple ways to organize your training with less confusion. First off, let's have a reminder of what zone two is. Zone two is the second training zone in a seven-zone system for power-based training. It's your endurance zone. It's also the second zone in a heart rate-based system, but because super short hard sprints, i.e. neuromuscular power, isn't applicable to heart rate tracking, we just typically use five to six zones to organize heart rate intensities. This zone has been identified by physiologists, researchers, and coaches who are far smarter than I am, to be the zone to train at in low to moderate intensities to build aerobic endurance. It's also the upper end of zone one in a three-zone system, which is used more in the scientific research field than coaching industries right now, but it's where training zones first originated from and helped evolve to where we're at now. As you can see in the schematic, these zones are derived from lactate and heart rate curves to indicate key points of fatigue or changes in physiology during progressive incremental time periods of increased intensity. And we can then plan and organized better training outcomes. The seven-zone power-based system was developed by Andy Coggin and Hunter Allen when they were working with training peaks with the goal to use common language to describe what was going on in a workout or a training session. Type A coaches started to use this more to prescribe intervals, more and more. Some coaches found their own delineations amidst these zones or have developed their own systems, but most have aligned with a seven-zone system, which is now known as the COGAN zones today. Fun facts CTS used to call the low end of endurance zone foundation miles, to distinguish between endurance miles, which correlated with the upper zone too. We don't use that anymore. We align with the Coggin zones to make sure that it's more simple for our athletes and for you, our audience. Back in the day, different coaching companies had their own secret sauce training zones. I've seen up to 14 zones at some point. And some companies like Dorada Training still have eight zones. Frank Overton over at FastCat Coaching popularized Sweet Spot, which is a subzone of high tempo or low threshold. This is still in use today with some coaches. Overall, where we're at today is most coaches in the industry use this seven-zone system, agreeing that zone two is your endurance zone. So what's the difference between zone two A and zone two B? And do we even need to separate the two? 2A just refers to the low end, and 2B is the upper end of zone 2. Specifically, low end equals 55% of FTP and the high end is 75%. Like I said, some do call this zone 2A and B. I just call it high and low. The upper end of zone 2 is a significant point in our physiology, and that's where we can put some focus. Essentially, it's the first lactate turn point, also called ventilatory threshold. And this typically happens somewhere at the upper end of zone two or the low end of zone three. And it's a point we shouldn't overlook. But it's already designated as the point before your tempo zone. The low end of zone two doesn't have anything standing out so much, but you're still building endurance. And that's the important thing to recognize. Higher is not always better. So if you want the minimum dose of power to build aerobic benefit, my advice is to aim for around 60% of FTP for your endurance rides, and you'll be just fine. I did a long podcast about this. So check out episode number 241 of the Time Crunch Cyclus for a deeper dive. But straight into the point, some claim that you'll burn your highest percentage of fat, also known as FatMax, at the upper end of your zone two, and therefore it's more beneficial. Now, this could be true, but it also may not. And just because you're burning more fat, it doesn't mean it's better. First, in order to know for sure that you're at fat max, you actually need to measure this in a laboratory setting with ventilatory gas exchange methods. Here's some more fun facts for you. If you're a less trained athlete, your fat max may be lower, closer to 60 to 65% of FTP. If you're an elite or master's elite, your fat max could be 75 to 78% or higher than normal. So if you simply choose the higher percentage of FTP of whatever you read or heard about FatMax, and you're a less trained athlete, you could be doing more intensity than intended. Not necessarily bad, but you're basically just doing tempo work at that point. And that changes the training stimulus and the outcome. Now, if you're a more well-trained athlete and you think that you're doing FatMax at like 65 to 70% of FTP, because that's just where your coach always prescribes it, you may be under training a bit. These mistakes kind of don't super matter in the long run because the intensity is low enough to where it's not going to cause a ton of damage, but it can be really confusing, especially to beginners who think that if they do a bunch of fat max training, they should lose fat. Then they're probably actually doing more tempo, of which they're burning more glycogen, and they're just getting more tired and hungry than expected. So my overall advice is no need to super worry about your endurance training if you're between the low and high end most of the time. Just ride your bike. Just don't drink the snake oil of zone 2B being so much more effective than something else, please. Should there be any subzones at all? Personally, when it comes to power-based zones, I think seven is a pretty solid number. Because more than that, it just adds more unnecessary complexity that doesn't equate to increased performance gains and oftentimes leads to confusion. So if we don't use subzones, what do I recommend? Individualize training. Think of it as an infinite scroll feature for all intensities. That means once you've done your field testing, you get baselines across all these intensities, find your thresholds, capacities, and limits to your physiology. You then use that data to form strategies in order to improve yourself versus doing whatever zone-based workout is hot right now with the pros. Individualized training, it's not just one zone or magically curated little neat boxes of subzones. It's all intensities that should be considered when organizing your training. You can use the three-zone system to get the big picture understanding of your intensity distribution on a weekly, monthly, or annual basis. Then use the seven-zone system on a daily basis to guide your training description. Finally, hit specific power duration targets periodically that specifically improve you and get you closer to your goals. Once you start thinking about training like this, you may have a lot more questions than answers. But that's where we can help at CTS. Links below for that. And of course, don't forget to smash that like button. Even though I don't think there should be a ton of subzones, when I'm coaching my athletes, I do communicate with my riders when to do more on the lower end versus the upper end of their zone too, because it's a very wide training zone and some guidance here is helpful. I do think low end and high end are better than 2A and 2B because they are more simple and descriptive terms of what we're trying to achieve. So whether someone calls it 2A and B or low and high end, all I ask is let's not get more wild than that. And let's be sure not to fall into the higher is always better trap because it's not. Here's my keep it real simple advice on the topic. Ride the low end of your zone two on your longer days, easier rides, or when you want to burn more fat as a fuel source over time. Ride high zone two on your shorter endurance rides where you want to do a little bit more work in less time, or start building higher aerobic capacity, andor you don't care if you're burning a mix of fat and glycogen. And don't worry about a few spikes in your power here and there. If the normalized power is roughly in the middle of your zone two and your rate of perceived effort is a three to five out of ten, these are simple indicators that you're doing it right. When I'm coaching, I do prescribe specific targets for each of these based on the percentage of FTP for an individual athlete and their needs of their training session. If we're trying to target something specifically. So why do people make such a big deal out of zone two? Honestly, I don't know. This really wasn't a thing until a few years ago, but it's fun that people are so stoked and curious about aerobic exercise. So I'm here for it. So long as we don't get too silly and make something simple, overly confusing and complicated, I'm here for it. If there's anything to take away from this episode, it's this. Whether you're on the low end or upper end or some mixture of the two ends on your endurance ride, you're building endurance. And don't think anyone here listening needs to make it more complicated than that. What about zone two C? That's just tempo. And zone two D? That's just ridiculous and stupid, in my opinion. Anyone who is talking about zone two C and D, I'd stop listening to them and go ride somewhere else. What about subzones at higher intensities like six and seven? Well, how about this? What's the subzone of fun? Not fun. And that's just more than a real funny coach joke. That's a fast, fun fact right down the middle for you. All jokes aside, it's just better to individualize the percentage of FTP at that point or just go hard using an RPE of nine or ten out of ten to guide your training. Going hard can be fun if you just send it and don't overthink it. Overanalyzing and micro-pacing is not the most effective way to do sprints and near-max efforts, in my experience. Still measure the power and the heart rate for sure. Just know that how you make your anaerobic power is much more individualized than you probably think. So subzones of anaerobic stuff isn't a great solution for the general population of endurance athletes. The reason is that aerobic power is much more predictable in human physiology rather than anaerobic power. In other words, training zones at zone four and below fit most people most of the time. Higher than that really depends on how trained up you are, genetics, and the specific duration you're going for. Either way, hard is hard, max is max, and RPE is a super valuable way to communicate that. You can look at the power afterwards and confirm what zone or microzone you may have been in, but if you're looking at the screen when going full gas for short, hard efforts, like at zone seven, may not be the best strategy. Finally, there's a need here for common language in sciences like physiology. We're still a young science, so some of this stuff is still evolving. I get it. In my opinion, we should choose language that helps to make things more simple, not more confusing. Separating zone two into more than two parts, in my opinion, is completely unnecessary in the very least, and at the most can be very damaging because it only creates more complexity to an already overhyped, simple topic. To build endurance, just ride your bike between the low and the high end of zone two, and you're good to go. Oh, and if you're gonna sprint, just call it a sprint. Supra whatever crushers is also confusing and kind of silly too. That's it for today. Hope you liked it. Keep it simple with already established science and training zones, like I talked about today, to organize your training. Any subzoning probably isn't going to be overly useful. And if you get stuck and need some extra advice, that's what we do here at CTS. Links below.