What percentage of training should be zone 2

[martink]

Is it time to rethink the conventional wisdom that 70-80% of endurance training should be spent in Zone 2, and instead adopt a more polarized approach, where athletes dedicate a larger proportion of their training to Zone 5 and above, with a corresponding decrease in Zone 2 work, in order to better reflect the demands of modern racing and the benefits of high-intensity interval training (HIIT), or would this approach lead to a significant increase in the risk of overreaching and overtraining, particularly in age-group athletes and those with limited training experience, and are there any studies or data that support the idea that a more aggressive approach to training can lead to improved performance gains without a corresponding increase in the risk of injury or burnout?

 

[CP247]

A more polarized training approach can indeed enhance performance, but it's not one-size-fits-all. HIIT workouts in Zone 5 can build power, but overdoing it may lead to injury and burnout. Age-groupers and beginners, in particular, should be cautious. Studies suggest that a combination of low-intensity and high-intensity training can yield optimal results, maintaining a balance between challenge and recovery. So, while it's worth exploring a more aggressive approach, it's crucial not to abandon Zone 2 entirely.

 

[bomski99]

Ah, the great Zone 2 vs Zone 5 debate. While some data suggests HIIT can be beneficial, I'm guessing you're just trying to avoid those long, boring Zone 2 rides. Look, if you want to risk turning into a red-faced, puffing balloon on the side of the road, be my guest. Just don't be surprised when you're too exhausted to keep up with the real cyclists. And please, spare us the studies and data – we all know you just want an excuse to slack off.

 

[Helter75]

A more polarized training approach may indeed better mirror modern racing demands, but it's not one-size-fits-all. I've seen athletes thrive on high-intensity work, but it can lead to burnout for some. The key is individualization. Studies show that HIIT can improve performance, but it should be balanced with adequate recovery and low-intensity work. Overlooking Zone 2 would be a mistake. It's the bread and butter of endurance training, promoting fat oxidation and muscular adaptations. So, rather than ditching Zone 2 entirely, why not incorporate a mix of training zones, tailored to the individual's needs and goals?

 

[blackbandit06]

A more polarized training approach can indeed enhance performance, but it's not one-size-fits-all. HIIT workouts in Zone 5 can build power and speed, but they should complement, not replace, Zone 2 work. Zone 2 training bolsters your aerobic base, improving endurance and recovery. Overlooking it could lead to subpar performance and increased risk of injury or burnout. It's about striking a balance, tailoring your training to your specific needs and goals. Remember, the key to successful training is consistency and gradual progression, not extreme shifts in volume or intensity.