From my unscientific survey of cycling media, it looks like the Zone 2 training gospel is being debunked as quickly as it arrived.
I’m wondering how this affects the wahoo training plans? There’s a lot of inspiration ride zone 2 activities included in the plans (at least the ones I have followed) - are these a waste of valuable time for us normal people?
Happy to hear your thoughts, especially from Wahoo folks.
Reminds me of the famous running coach who said “running LSD (long slow distance) trains you to run long and slow.”
What is being debunked is the popular misunderstanding of Zone 2 training.
Tell me more, tell me more…
I’m not sure I believe you regarding Zone 2 being debunked. I’m still seeing a lot of support for it in the general media.
I’ve always been a believer that variety and balance are probably the most important factors. Essentially, if you go hard all the time, you’ll plateau and/or burn out. If you never go hard, then your body won’t be prepared for the hard efforts when you demand them.
These are very general points, however, the most successful plans find the tipping point in between the extremes. I’ve followed several different plans in Systm and I’ve been pretty satisfied with the balance of effort between hard interval sessions, long Zone 2 sessions, and recovery. In fact, I do NOT think the ones I’ve done overemphasize Zone 2 unless endurance is a major part of the objective.
Another important point is that I pay attention to how I feel and adjust my planned workouts accordingly. I’ll often push myself to get through a session even if I feel tired at the outset because I think that’s part of the process of improvement, however, I’m not afraid to dial down the effort if my fatigue is becoming persistent.
I have very limited time to train, so looking for bang to the buck as it were. If there is little benefit me doing a 40 min z2 inspiration ride, I’d rather skip it (and rather that the wahoo plan algorithm marks it as optional) and just do the high intensity ones.
Then keep z2 for when I can do multiple hours outdoors.
That’s social media for you. Headlines and “controversy” and “backlash” for clicks.
But there’s no real backlash against zone 2. If you watch GCN’s video from earlier this year where they interviewed coaches and riders about what training pro riders are doing, it’s really all the same training they’ve been doing for more than 50 years. There’s nothing really new.
If you want to improve, you have to ride a mix of workouts. You can’t only ride HIIT (you’ll burn out) and you can’t only ride zone 2 (you’ll lose your high end power). So every workout in Wahoo’s library has a place. It just depends on what you’re training for.
Zone 2 is great for building endurance without building fatigue, but it requires time. You also need to ride HIIT workouts and VO2 workouts and threshold workouts, etc, etc. to build your top end. But unless you’re just riding for the fun of riding (and there’s nothing wrong with that!) you need to ride a mix of workout types. 80/20 or something like that?
The “big new thing” not that long ago was replacing volume with HIIT for endurance. Not for pro riders, just for the time-limited cyclists juggling riding and work and life. But real endurance requires real volume. That’s what pro riders do. And they don’t only ride HIIT vo2 rides all the time. But us amateur riders don’t have that kind of time. So depending on your goals and how much time you have, you can fill your training plan with different types of workouts.
And if you only have 4-6 hours a week to ride you can’t ride HIIT every day. You need rest days and recovery weeks. As much as we would all love to ride Sufferfest videos every day, we need some good Z1 and Z2 videos to ride on the days in between.
I think what I’m hearing is that z2 works for pros with 20+ hours a week for training. Whereas for us normal folk even Wahoo’s high volume plan setting is “only” 6-8 hours a week.
If I create a wahoo training plan for 4dp tempo training about a third to a half of the time is z2 which does not seem optimal to a very non-pro like me.
My curiosity goes something like:
I might be wrong, but I’d be very surprised if any meaningful studies have been done at the amateur level. I have this recollection that in GCN’s interview with Iñigo San Millán it was covered that you only start to get the major benefits of Z2 training in activities over 90 mins in duration. I don’t know about you but if I’m riding for that long then I’m doing it outside (and can’t stick to Z2 due to the terrain where I live)!
I think this is likely the case, as well. Most meaningful studies are done on pro atheletes. There are so many variables when trying to study amateurs with limited time and so much going on in their personal lives including a wide variety of jobs, sleep, stress, nutrition, etc. And that’s beyond trying to eliminate gender, body type, age, and all the other individuality traits that can affect training response. Even pros show a variety of responses to similar training types. So, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to try to study specific training types on amateurs who live such disparate lives. For us non-pro types it’s mostly a lot of trial and error.
For myself, personally, I have tried a few different training plans over the year. I used to be strictly a distance runner for many years. I started with SUF around when I turned 44. I’m now pushing 50. When I started as a novice cyclist I was self-coached and mostly doing time trial efforts to train for triathlon. I had to fit cycling in around running and swimming, so when I joined SUF the HIIT training was great and hit all the weaknesses I didn’t realize I had (since I was so green at competitive cycling). But after 3 years my gains had plateau’d. I wasn’t running as much so I had more time for cycling. So I dedicated 8-12 hours per week and added a lot more Z2 and reduced the intensity down to 2-3 days per week instead of 3-4. When I did that I saw some huge gains and my endurance soared.
So, does that mean I found the key to big fitness gains? Maybe for myself. Or maybe it was just about timing. I was only a sample size of one, so I wouldn’t extrapolate any of that beyond my own fitness - and even then it may have been a case of the right training at the right time.
I really miss having Sir Neal and all the SUF coaches. Such a wealth of knowledge was lost when Wahoo cut them all loose. 
There’s a few older Z2 threads floating around in this forum.
Here’s a good one: Zone 2 deep dive
If you scroll to the bottom of a thread you’ll see some “Suggested” or “Related” threads that sometimes highlight similar information that’s already been discussed.
FWIW…
I had a fair few health issues November 24 through to May 2025 that pretty much limited me to z1/2 work. I am pretty sure Inigo said 40-45 minutes of Z2 was just about the lower limit for adaptations to occur so that was my guide. I probably rode 8-12 hours a week of z2. I can say that over this time and mainly towwards the end i may have done 4 z4/5 workouts.I have a high of 258 at 70 kilos and had, back in november, been hoping to hit it again for Alps in july 2025. Unfortunately my eFTP measured by intervals ICU dropped by 30 watts to 205 at 75 kilos. I suspect that was an underestinate . Still I wasnt in great shape. So, how did i do on those long 20km clims in the Alps? Strangely as well as in previous years when i was fitter/had a higher FTP. Average 190-210 w on long climbs in the first few days until fatigue kicked in ( i am 62y old) and watts dropped 15-20 or so. These average watts on climbs are little different to those on similar trips in the past. I had no top end, at all. I never once pushed my HR above 155 and often rode at 130bpm. I rest at 38 and have a high of 184. Do i have any take aways or peals of wisdom? No, not really. I am certainly not suggesting z2 is enough but i am genuinely surprised at how i coped with a relativelly low key training regime. I am off to Calpe end of november and intend to mix the training up. It will be interesting (for me at least ) to see what my numbers are then compared to the Alps.
Those are great numbers, i’d be happy with those and I’m a decade younger!
Edit: PS: what’s your Alps ride?
For the original z2 question, it looks like the answer is, “it depends”. But it sounds like it only makes sense - in terms of training efficiency - for longer rides. I’m very happy to put in a 2-3 hour Z2 ride outdoors when I can find the time. It doesn’t seem to make sense, however, to do multiple short wahoo inspiration z2 rides during the week, that doesn’t seem to be effective use of time.
Thanks!
Alps- usual suspects, Alp D’huez, Sarrenne, Glandon, Galibier, , Croix de Fer- those last 3 in one day. And a few more.
Z2 for me is sorted by D group rises in Zwift ir Netflix or laps of a large park.
First of all let us define Zone 2 training. When I refer to Zone 2 training I am referring to training around the point where conversation is possible, but difficult. This is not easy training.
Second, nobody respectable that I know is advocating only Zone 2 training. HIT training is important as VO2 Max is important.
Third, for those of you are that have specific goals, the reputable people also say that you need to focus your training around your event goals. The HIT/Zone 2 combination is only for general, or base training.
Fourth, nobody can do HIT training all the time, so the question becomes what is the best non-HIT training you can do, and in what proportion.
Fifth, the current controversy seems to revolve around the time crunched cyclist.
Before I go any further, do you agree with me so far?
Agree with all points apart from the first. Zone 2 is defined by heart rate %, based on up to date testing of one’s zones. Based on recent FF/HM testing my z2 HRM range is comfortable and can keep at that for hours, can easily hold a conversation (if there was anyone else to talk to!)
That is not how people who recommend Zone 2 training define it. Biologically there are only three zones based on the energy mechanisms: fat burning, glycogen, and stored ATP.
Those zones (5, 7, 9, etc.) came from coaches, not from scientists.