Zone 2 is such a deep subject that peoples individual experiences can contribute so much. This will just be a “lauch pad” post pointing to a bunch of questions. We believe in letting people train the way they like to train, but we also like to promote a health first approach to training. For most people a health first approach will provide their maximum results.
7 Likes
#1 How do I understand and define my own zone 2 limit? As well as what are the potential benefits of zone 2. Click to view discussion.
#2 Here is a long discussion on finding your limit as well as important pre-ride fueling. It goes into different deep ideas of zone 2 with a guy that is an expert. View Discussion
#3 Maffetone Running vs Cycling and Heart rate changes (HRR)
4 Likes
Here is a good video discussing what Zone 2 or low heart rate training should feel like.
https://forums.trainerday.com/t/good-zone-2-video-dr-seiler-80-20-i-e-polarized/
I just watched the video to give another try at zone 2 workout. I did when the zone 2 was introduced with TrainerDay. I rode 5 times a week around 3-40 mn each times. After a few weeks my Vo2max had decreased. I use a garmin that gives me a aerobic and anaerobic training effect to see if the workout was effecting improving my cardio vascular fitness. This is really my main goal with cycling. I alternate with strength training when i do not cycle. During these workouts at zone 2, my training effect was low and had no impact on my aerobic fitness. I decided to do 75 mn this morning and got a training effect of 2.3 that is giving me maintaining status. To impact my aerobic fitness, i need to reach a score of 3.0. I assume that i would have to ride 60 more mn to get to that. I do not have the time to ride 2 and half hour every morning. I guess this is great if you are a full time athlete and ride for living.
Garmin status is the worst place to look for this stuff. Their advice is terrible in general. You should measure something that is much more accurate for example HR/power ratio over a longer period of time. Their VO2max estimate is very dependent on your exact target power / hr again not accurate for fine tuning.
For sure if you do pure low heart rate for a longer period of time you won’t feel super strong and “ready to race.” It won’t get you in top shape quickly. It’s really meant to be a part of a seasonal periodization plan. It has some strong health components but if all you car about is current fitness level then for sure it is not what you want to do.
I saw significant measured benefit doing 20 minutes a day 7 days a week. Each person is unique.
If you read Maffetone you realize making aerobic gains from strict zone 2 frequently requires a very focused effort. For example he points out that many people combining weight training with low heart rate endurance work will completely stop any aerobic progress.
So as you point out it is not for everyone. It tends to be best for people that want to hit a peak outdoor spring time with a lot of high volume, hard cycling, people that seem to get sick often, people with high stress lives and people with a tendency to overtrain. Also people that put health at much higher priority than fitness should take a closer look at more zone 2 work.
For a person that just wants a smart simple year round pattern, polarized training year round at 6+ hours a week is a good choice and proven effective.
2 Likes
Once people start to take the Garmin advice for truth, things can only go South…
2 Likes
I like First Beat algorithm. I downloaded their paper on EPOC i need to read. I feel like doing zone 2 does not give me happy feeling after the workout. I ride 3 days a week so i have days in between to rest my legs as usually, Garmin gives me a longer recovery time. Another Garmin advice 
I usually look at the stress and intensity of the workout in TD and act depending on how i feel. I also have a whoop taht gives me a good picture of my cardio workout. I guess you got to pick your poison. I do appreciate Alex posting the video. It was interesting. I learned about angiogenesis.
I am a strong believer in people doing what is fun and feels like the right thing to them. Zone 2 is like a tool for a specific set of problems but many people (most people) get fantastic fitness results and are not doing tons of zone 2.
Garmin is a hardware and marketing company. First beat had some good ideas but that does not mean that Garmin implemented them well or provide the optimum suggestions based on that data. They provide much more mainstream advice. What Claude and I are suggesting here follows more elite coach, or even a sect of training not mainstream.
Have you ever seen a Nike commercial? Or Peloton classes? This is what sells. Intensity sells. If you are a hardware company, you don’t want to tell people to take it easy for 4 months when they are ready to do intensity now. You want to give them what they think they need and want, immediate results that make them feel different NOW. You want to sell them the dream. Garmin is a big company, they need to sell this dream. Buy their watch, become a real athlete.
But really if your not hurting yourself by over doing it their is no reason not to follow what Garmin suggests. You will be in reasonable shape following their advice and if it feels better and more fun by all means listen to them.
Thanks Alex. I read the white paper on EPOC by first beat. He does talk about training with low and high intensity. The paper does make sense. But like you said, did garmin implemented it well. I really never saw a Nike or peloton commercial but i know of them My garmin is a fenix 6 so it is 5 years old. My friend just got an 8 and it seems like the training suggestion takes your previous workouts in consideration not to overtrain. But it is a computer. If i feel crummy when i wake up, it really does not matter what the watch or whoop is telling me. I really like to look at the training plans you have available and try them if i like them. That is what I like about TD. I make the choice. Thanks for all the advice though. I always like to learn more about physiology.
Yes, actually this is what you find with science based discussions is they all sound good Easy to believe any of them and their is some truth in all of them and there is always the aspect of “it depends.” For example this other user here that is posting about his 400w FTP, his plan is exactly what we recommend against for most people but he has a unique physiology and mindset that makes it work.
So generally you start from a base recommendation and go from there. If zone 2 does not work for you, for what ever reason that’s fine, adapt, find something that does. The problem is most products suggest starting with killing yourself and should start more on the taking it easy end of the spectrum, at least if you care about a persons health and not just marketing. But regardless you as a self coached athlete should continually adapt to what feels like it works for you.
When I say commercial. I mean the “no pain, no gain” type of philosophy. While there is an element of truth to this. The problem is most people take this too literally and do too much pain with less than optimal micro gains and generally low work to results efficiciency. It’s like you could eat a donut or a banana for training. The donut might give you more power short term but the long term benefits are questionable.
Pretty much the best guide on setting zones. Default zones set using any formula (e.g. 180-age) or zones created using MHR (most people don’t actually push to their true max HR) are pretty inaccurate. Using LTHR is a more accurate method. According to Maffetone’s method, my max Z2 HR is 138. That’s laughable considering my LTHR is 182. People are simply too individual to use a one-size fits all formula.
RPE is also very effective in ensuring you’re in zone 2. Peter Attia swears by this method and I’ve personally found the talk test to correspond very well with my zone 2 using Friel’s method above.
182 wow
First of all Zone 2 is not Zone 2… San Milan and Attia popularized this terminology but this is drives incorrect thinking. So while Friel might have a fine method for setting zones (I have a lot of respect for Joe) that does not mean that the top of his zone 2 aligns with AeT. I also believe San Milan and Attia have aligned it with a lactate level and this is not 100% accurate either and they are new to low HR training (I believe San Milan is scientist not long term coach of normal people) and I don’t believe the experience to represent the masses. Attia sounds really good and I was a huge fan but decided he is more of a salesman, much of his info requires more validation…
Maffetone’s was a 20 year coach at the time of creating his formula, with an exclusive focus on low HR. He is more qualified in my opinion. Sure he created a simple formula that is likely not perfect for everyone, but he has tens to hundreds of thousands of people getting online and talking about their results… Now cycling probably even has more trying “zone 2” but we don’t have good communities of people doing testing and validating their AeT (yet). I never see any cyclists posting results from MAF tests.
Cycling outdoors below AeT is very hard (running is too but switching to walking is easier than slowing down or walking on a bike…), and it is also less necessary, meaning cyclists are less likely to get injured from over training. There are millions training for marathons and getting destroyed and a lot less with the same struggles cycling.
You also have to realize most athletes have a bias towards hard work. So they are going to pick a methodology that allows them to perform “Zone 2” as hard as possible. In this case this is usually the wrong approach. If you read Maffetone he makes this very clear. You are better off going too low that going too high.
You are an extreme outlier so in your case, I am guessing you are 42 years old and you are likely a candidate for +10 so your AeT might be closer to 148 based on his formula. Ignore the terminology zone 2 in this case… Think in terms of fat burning and what walking feels like. Below AeT should feel closer to walking then running. Now maybe for you that is 160 but even going at 148 would give you 95% of the low heart rate benefits, maybe going up to 160 might give you that last little extra but comes with more risk.
I also believe it’s very easy to use the talk test to over estimate your AeT… I spent about 5 years studying this stuff fairly in depth (in running not cycling). I am not saying everyone should blindly follow Maffetone’s formula but if you read his work and follow his protocol, starting too low, seeing measurable results via MAF test and slowly raising it until you find your tipping point would be a fine zero risk approach.
Becoming the optimum fat burner and tricking your body into thinking it is not doing anything is the way to accomplish that. As soon as your body thinks, oh this is exercise I need energy it switches to carb burning and defeats most of the benefits of low HR training. So recommending people go to 89% of LTHR would be much riskier and in Maffetone’s findings not going to be below AeT and be primarily burning fat.
Unlike you, I happen to be one that Maffetone 100% aligns with everything including blood oxygen levels, even though my max HR was about +10 over “average.” I did not try a mask so don’t know if my 135 was truely the fat burn turning point. But I know 100% my MAF tests improved significantly following his protocol. What’s interesting is as I started to slightly push above my triangulated AeT, I stopped seeing MAF test progress and backing down I would see progress again. So maybe I am the exact test student for this. I also did it with running not cycling. I mentioned other places I went from not being able to run at 135bpm to easily “running” at a faster pace at 100bpm.
Without maf tests this is all theory, once you look at MAF test results then that’s where theory hits reality. So you have to decide who do you trust and what is fun for you. If super low HR is not fun and you have no reason to need to do it, then do what ever you want I struggle with low HR on the bike outdoors so I fully get it if people don’t want to do it. It’s not easy, becoming great is not easy, it takes a lot of mental dedication.
I didn’t want to reply to this because I knew it was going to take a looong post and I just didn’t feel like taking the time.
But yes, Z2 and Maffetone are not the same thing. Agree with everything @Alex wrote here.
If you are a ‘high volume’ athlete, Maffetone will yield better results going forward without risk of overtraining/injury.
If you are ‘time crunched’ the Z2 theory might make you progress a bit faster, but in the long time you will hit a plateau. If you combine high volume with Z2, you will hit that plateau within 2-3 years if you stay healthy for that time.
1 Like