Considering the significant time pros spend training in zone 2, a relatively low-intensity zone, its surprising that there isnt more discussion about the merits of this approach for amateur cyclists. Were often told that pros train in zone 2 to build base fitness, increase mitochondrial density, and enhance fat metabolism, but is this really the best use of their time?
With the advancements in sports science and the increasing importance of high-intensity interval training (HIIT), it seems counterintuitive that pros would focus so much on low-intensity training. HIIT has been shown to be incredibly effective for improving cardiovascular fitness, increasing muscle strength and endurance, and even improving mitochondrial density, all of which are crucial for success in cycling.
Furthermore, when we look at the actual demands of professional cycling, its clear that the vast majority of racing takes place at high intensities. Whether its a sprint finish, a mountain climb, or a breakaway, pros are rarely racing in zone 2. So, why do they spend so much time training in this zone? Is it simply a matter of tradition, or is there something more to it?
Perhaps the answer lies in the idea that pros need to accumulate a massive amount of training time to be successful, and zone 2 is simply the most sustainable way to do this. However, if this is the case, then why dont we see more amateurs adopting a similar approach? After all, shouldnt the principles of training be the same for all cyclists, regardless of level?
The more I think about it, the more I wonder if the emphasis on zone 2 training is actually holding back amateur cyclists. By focusing on high-intensity training, might we be able to achieve similar, if not better, results in a fraction of the time? Or are there other factors at play that make zone 2 training essential for pros, but not for amateurs?