Does zone 2 training really deserve the reverence it gets when it comes to improving speed in races, or has it simply become a default setting for many cyclists due to its perceived safety and ease of execution. Can we truly say that hours spent in zone 2 are directly translating to tangible gains on the road, or are we simply convincing ourselves that its true because it feels like the right thing to do.
While zone 2 is often touted as the goldilocks zone - not too hard, not too easy - is it actually the most effective way to build the kind of speed and power that we need to be competitive in races, or is it just a comfortable default that allows us to avoid the real work of high-intensity interval training.
Furthermore, do we have any actual evidence that zone 2 training is superior to, say, zone 3 or zone 4 training when it comes to building speed and endurance, or is this just a myth thats been perpetuated by cycling coaches and experts who are trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
It seems to me that were so quick to advocate for zone 2 training as the be-all and end-all of cycling fitness, but when you really start to dig into the science and the data, its not entirely clear that its the most effective way to build speed and endurance. And yet, despite this lack of clarity, we continue to evangelize about the benefits of zone 2 training as if its gospel.
So, Id love to hear from those of you who are more knowledgeable about the science of cycling fitness - is zone 2 training really the key to unlocking speed and endurance, or is it just a convenient myth that weve all bought into.