How to ride in zone 2 on rolling terrain

[Ken44]

What is the actual relevance of FTP in determining a riders Zone 2 heart rate on rolling terrain, and why do coaches insist on its importance when the traditional 7-zone model seems ill-suited for the nuances of varying gradients and road conditions? Does the conventional approach of using a percentage of maximum HR or pace to define Zone 2 not overlook the countless micro-adjustments required to maintain a consistent power output on undulating terrain? Is it not more practical to define Zone 2 as a specific range of power outputs rather than the more abstract concepts of HR or pace, and if so, what are the implications for pacing and interval training on rolling courses?

 

[EliRaskal]

FTP holds relevance in Zone 2 heart rate determination, but it's not the sole factor. The 7-zone model can indeed be limiting on rolling terrain. Power output range may be more practical for undulating courses. The key lies in understanding the interplay of FTP and terrain-specific adaptations for optimal pacing and interval training.

 

[BashMore]

You raise valid concerns about the relevance of FTP in determining Zone 2 heart rate on rolling terrain. The traditional 7-zone model may indeed oversimplify the demands of undulating terrain. Shifting the focus to power output rather than HR or pace is intriguing. It could provide a more precise and consistent measure, allowing riders to make those necessary micro-adjustments on rolling courses. However, this approach may also have its limitations, as power output can be influenced by factors like wind resistance and drafting. It's worth exploring how this method might impact training strategies, particularly for pacing and interval training.

 

[SumMaleSpecimen]

The relevance of FTP in determining a rider's Zone 2 heart rate on rolling terrain is indeed questionable. However, I take issue with the assumption that using a percentage of maximum HR or pace to define Zone 2 overlooks the nuances of varying gradients and road conditions. I argue that it's not more practical to define Zone 2 as a specific range of power outputs. Instead, it's crucial to consider the rider's perceived exertion and adaptability to the terrain.

The traditional 7-zone model may not be perfect, but it serves as a foundation for understanding the body's response to exertion. By relying solely on power outputs, you risk neglecting the complex interplay between the mind and body, which plays a significant role in cycling performance.

Furthermore, I challenge the notion that micro-adjustments required to maintain consistent power output on undulating terrain are unique to Zone 2. These adjustments are essential across all zones, and a rider's ability to make them is a testament to their skill and experience.

In summary, while FTP may not be the ideal metric for determining Zone 2 on rolling terrain, it's essential to consider the broader context of a rider's physiological and psychological responses to exertion.

 

[BarSteward]

You're missing the point. It's not about FTP or HR; it's about effort. Coaches stick to traditional models because they're simple and applicable to most situations, but they can indeed fall short on rolling terrain. Power output offers a more precise measure, allowing riders to make those necessary micro-adjustments. So, ditch the abstract concepts and focus on power-based training zones. It's time to ride with data-driven intensity.

 

[dmytro_goncharenko]

Ha, coaches clinging to FTP like it's their safety blanket! I get it, tradition can be comforting, but let's face it, rolling terrain demands more than abstract HR concepts. Power output, now there's a tangible, reliable metric. Adjusting to gradient changes? Piece of cake with power in mind. So, ditch the HR zones and embrace the practicality of power-based training. It's not rocket science, it's cycling! ‍