How do you determine what Zone 2 training is (specifically asking re cycling here).
Is it by power or HR? What about when the 2 conflict - meaning zone 2 HR requires high Zone 3 power. Or Zone 2 power generally is not anywhere near the top end of Zone 1 HR?
Similarly, how do you know what your Zone 2 HR is?
This is what I do now:
Since so much of my bike time is on a velodrome now, practicing and racing it’s nearly all high aerobic and anaerobic. Because of that I subjectively add zone 2 and 3 time when I can.
I describe it as a little easier than tempo but still requires a little bit of effort. I’m using LT effort as a percentage of HR, the definition put forth by Garmin.
Zone 2 is up to 72% of LT (116bpm) (LT is 161)
Zone 3 is up to 83% of LT (135bpm) (50% of my time)
They do not line up with my Power Zones (Coggan’s zones)
Most of my HR time is Z3 at 116 to 133 bpm but most of my power is at Zone 2 which is under 154 watts for me
Edit: I don’t watch either one, it’s either subjectively high or low depending on what the demands of the workout are. Maybe once every 2 weeks I’ll do a workout by myself but it’s not threshold or easy, it’s normally high effort (near 150% FTP) for short periods of time repeated over and over
How do you determine what Zone 2 training is (specifically asking re cycling here).
Is it by power or HR? What about when the 2 conflict - meaning zone 2 HR requires high Zone 3 power. Or Zone 2 power generally is not anywhere near the top end of Zone 1 HR?
Similarly, how do you know what your Zone 2 HR is?
Zone 1: YES
Zone 2: NO
Zone 3: YES
E
You’re saying it’s clear what’s easy … and what’s hard … but the in between is a bit vague?
Do you see any reason to have to be more accurate on the Zone 2?
https://joefrieltraining.com/should-heart-rate-and-power-zones-agree/ - I really use to struggle with wrapping my head around why the two metrics wouldn’t line up in zone 2, and I still haven’t really found a convincing answer. Maybe we just become more fit and efficient at zone 2 power as aerobic fitness increases. My threshold power and HR could never change, but I will require less HR to ride at a given zone 2 power. Maybe this is due to our hearts growing, more mitochondria with better function, etc.
Friel also says this about one of his athlete’s, “His issue was that his heart rate zones were low relative to his power zones. That’s actually a good problem to have at this time of year. The most likely reason for this is that aerobic fitness is very high and exceeds muscular fitness. So the heart does not have to beat as fast to provide oxygen to the muscles. This implies the need to improve one’s power.” For me, I know I’m very similar to Friel’s athlete mentioned in his blog. I’ve always had great aerobic fitness but cannot build muscle (6 feet and 150 lbs), so I know I need to pay attention to my power output when riding in zone 2. My muscular fatigue builds very quickly and I’m very injury prone if I push zone 2 HR for the majority of my training. Friel has also said to use HR zones for early season and move to power zones as your fitness improves. I think you’ll also find that if you ride long enough, your heart rate and power zones should start to align a bit better.
At the end of the day, I think the best thing to do is to watch both and go by whatever one is higher. If power is zone 2 and HR is zone 1, go by power. If HR is zone 2 and power is zone 1, go by HR. And it doesn’t always have to be the same metric you use. There’s a couple things that will impact your heart rate so they don’t line up on any given day or time of season:
You’re saying it’s clear what’s easy … and what’s hard … but the in between is a bit vague?
Do you see any reason to have to be more accurate on the Zone 2?
I’m being very vague and layering years of ST forum nuance into one snarky post.
But the literal part of my post is more straightforward and I also think you get the gist. What three ways could you divide your training in such a way that the middle one is to be avoided?
Another: fast is fun, and fun makes you feel good.
The word is not the thing. Just because you know the meaning of the word “bicycle” doesn’t mean you really know the bicycle. Or “zone”, or “2”. Further, trying to define those things with HR is like trying to define a word using charades.
The bicycle is a machine that humans invented to convert calories into suffering and suffering into endocrine system ailments. Like, it never gets easier you just go faster. Train accordingly.
Sans power meter, yes/no/yes is much more prescriptive and preventative than zones 1-7 or whatever.
E
You’re saying it’s clear what’s easy … and what’s hard … but the in between is a bit vague?
Do you see any reason to have to be more accurate on the Zone 2?
Let me start by saying there are way more qualified people to answer this than me but I have a lot of the same questions as you so I apologize if I’m hijacking your thread.
Are you asking, is there a training benefit to being in zone 2 HR vs zone 1 (ignoring power zones for a second)? If yes, then I’ll give my 2 cents and hopefully people will correct me if I’m wrong haha.
Scenario (from my simple understanding): Let’s say your zone 2 HR and power line up perfectly to start. You do a one hour ride and get a certain training benefit aerobically and muscularly (let’s say equal benefit). When you become more aerobically fit, your heart is only working at a zone 1 effort to provide oxygen to your muscles. So when you do a one hour training ride in a more fit state, you are now getting more of a muscular training benefit than aerobic because you haven’t stressed your aerobic system enough (I’m thinking of the supercompensation training model here). Now to answer your question (I think), by going into zone 3 power to raise your HR into zone 2 for a one hour training ride, you are not going to get the same training benefit as that initial one hour ride with equal zones. You will get a zone 3 muscular benefit/ fatigue, and zone 2 aerobic benefit/ fatigue. You now have to decide what you want in terms of training benefit/ fatigue. It doesn’t mean that zone 3 power ride was negative, you just accumulated more muscular fatigue to get that same aerobic benefit. And I really apologize to those who are experts in the field if my scenario is completely wrong.
So now to hijack your thread, I think. The question is how do we get the same benefit as that initial one hour ride when our zones were the same? I think we need to ride longer and pay attention to our aerobic decoupling. So let’s say 1.5-2 hours. I think this is the big difference when I look at “intermediate” vs “advanced” IM training plans. They schedule longer, but fewer, rides to keep training the aerobic system at a similar rate. I also think Lionel is doing something similar with his new coach (not to turn this into a Lionel thread) since he’s mentioned he’s doing the same amount of riding but in fewer rides. He also noted that his pacing and power has been more consistent in races.
How do you determine what Zone 2 training is (specifically asking re cycling here).
Is it by power or HR? What about when the 2 conflict - meaning zone 2 HR requires high Zone 3 power. Or Zone 2 power generally is not anywhere near the top end of Zone 1 HR?
Similarly, how do you know what your Zone 2 HR is?
You do a step test and measure blood lactate. The point where it rises above 2mMol/L (some may disagree on the exact amount but that’s a different discussion), is lactate threshold 1 and you can see what HR and power this occured. Below LT1 is where you want to do the majority of your training in a polarised approach (which would actually call it zone 1 in their 3 zone model). I don’t think it particularly matters in what HR or power zone this actually falls, blood lactate is the key and you pick the power/HR based off that rather than their particular zones.
There are other methods for estimating it:
-70-75% of max HR
-point at which nose breathing becomes difficult
-being able to read a chapter in a book out loud without having to take big breaths/pauses
-pace you can run at for 1 hour with 3.5-5% cardiac drift
I’m not saying any of these are particularly accurate!
Zone 2, in the sense of coggan’s 7 zones, or the traditional 5 zone model since they generally line up, is not a power or a heart rate. It’s a feeling. It’s the feeling where you’re working a little bit, but can still talk comfortably and feel like you can keep it up for a long time. Trying to stick to a number only guarantees that you’ll go too easy on your good days, and way too hard on your fatigued days. Learn to feel what each zone is for you.
Are you asking, is there a training benefit to being in zone 2 HR vs zone 1 (ignoring power zones for a second)?.
Exactly my question, yup
I actually think that you should ignore power completely and train in the HR zone, rather than trying to relate the two zones. For me tho, that requires a lot More power than coggin zones (15%-ish above the top end of Z2), tho I can still hold on a convo pretty well
I leave my long endurance rides pretty fatigued
I believe EricMPro’s advice can also be understood by watching Dylan Johnson’s YouTube video ‘Polarized vs Sweet Spot’
.
Are you asking, is there a training benefit to being in zone 2 HR vs zone 1 (ignoring power zones for a second)?.
Exactly my question, yup
I actually think that you should ignore power completely and train in the HR zone, rather than trying to relate the two zones. For me tho, that requires a lot More power than coggin zones (15%-ish above the top end of Z2), tho I can still hold on a convo pretty well
I leave my long endurance rides pretty fatigued
I’m sure others will chime in and confirm you’re probably doing a zone 3 ride and not zone 2, even though your HR is indicating a zone 2 ride. You’re probably just more aerobically fit than muscularly fit. So you need to follow power zones so you don’t over do it. Consider this, imagine going for a run at 0 degrees C and 25 degrees C, your pace is the same. Are you going to look at pace or HR to determine what zone you’re working in?
One quote that I always come back to when I’m learning about this stuff:
“Before I learned the art, a punch was just a punch, and a kick, just a kick. After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick, no longer a kick. Now that I understand the art, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick.” - Bruce Lee
I think this is contradictory to everything I have learned
Endurance rides should be HR and ignore power. Right?
So to your question. If it’s hot, then I would expect less watts. If it’s cold, I’d export more.
Or am I wrong?
I think this is contradictory to everything I have learned
Endurance rides should be HR and ignore power. Right?
So to your question. If it’s hot, then I would expect less watts. If it’s cold, I’d export more.
Or am I wrong?
For me personally, I have to do my endurance rides with power. I pay attention to HR but it isn’t what I’m watching.
In terms of temperature, I don’t know the answer to the more watts/ run pace in the cold. I hear more about backing off in the heat. However, I find this is talked more about in terms of running since cooling is a bigger issue than in cycling.
So to your question. If it’s hot, then I would expect less watts. If it’s cold, I’d export more.
Or am I wrong?
Should we use a density altitude calculator to compensate for elevation?
Here are the descriptions of each zone in the 80/20 triathlon model: https://www.8020endurance.com/intensity-guidelines-for-8020-running/
It offers ideas for each discipline as well as when one metric may be preferred over another.
see other thread fop don’t do it
.
How about this, Z2 can be a wide range. For HR or power, judge your target by how long you can ride. Only can manage short ride? Upper Z2. Long ride, middle or lower Z2. More often, less power or HR. Less often, more power or HR.
As for HR, you need a steady route. Flattish, few stops. Otherwise stops lower the avg. Or you can be going uphill too hard and down hill very easy and your heartrate is bobbing from super low Z2 to upper limit of Z2 but the power is “out of range”.
For Z2 I think most folks should “just go ride miles”. A little harder uphill, a little easier downhill, steady on the flats…and go by feel. Just glance at the HR or power once in a while. Especially when fresh early in the ride or tired late in the ride.
I leave my long endurance rides pretty fatigued
Have you ever thought that maybe you should not be going as hard for these?
I’d choose the lessor intensity if it were me. The positive physiological adaptations from riding around at 65% of FTP and 73% of FTP are going to be minimal. Or to paraphrase jack Daniels you should only go as hard as necessary to make the physiological adaptations you’re looking for.
Now for people with high FTPs, you’re riding around in z2 at say 260w then you’re going to produce a lot of kJ and outstrip your ability to replace those during the ride. ( in this example FTP would be ~ 400 or so. Even top male IM pros can run into this problem)
Interesting question though as I think everyone knows what z2 is yet I think it’s a shades of grey thing. You might be thinking ABCD someone else is thinking BCDE and talking about the same thing yet not talking about the same thing.
ETA: I don’t really look at my power or HR for long endurance rides. I can feel if I’m going to hard or too easy. Maybe going to PRE is the way for you to go?
ETA even more: as the duration goes on the physiological response increases even if the workload stays the same -food for your long ride thought
Can you further explain your last response?
even continuing riding at ~200w zone 2 for 2 hours you’re getting more load for the same effort in hour 2 vs hour 1? Am I understanding this correctly?