Doesn’t change its correctness. The science is still true. If you only ever do high intensity or only every do low intensity you are leaving plenty of fitness on the table.
Remember when Lance beat cancer and he had no fitness and no contract? He had a lot of time on his hands and just aimlessly rode around for 6 hours a day with no structure. Then he was finishing high up as soon as he went back racing.
No structure does not say he only did high intensity or only low intensity. All 6 hours unstructured a day tells us, is that he was riding 42 hours a week
Nor, indeed, does it tell us exactly what drugs he was taking.
I have the time.
I have spoke to a few younger club members who race and are coached by the British youth track team etc, constantly telling me z2 with short hard efforts.
Where does the improvement and power come from with riding at z2 all the time?
Where does the improvement and power come from with riding at z2 all the time?
I'm not picking an argument here, I'm just curious about how this works ...Lots of cyclists cycle at zone 3 most of the time and then wonder why they are not improving as much as they could do, reason is they are not in the higher zones to improve power or the lower zones long enough to build base.
I'm not picking an argument here, I'm just curious about how this works ...
What's the problem with zone 3 in this case? It's aerobic so surely time spent in zone 3 during a long ride is not lost - is it not contributing your endurance training just as zone 2 time is? Is the issue with this theoretical cyclist not that they are riding in zone 3, but that they are not riding enough hours in whatever zone? Because their zone 3 rides are shorter duration harder rides than they would be if they chilled out and rode for longer in zone 2.
I don't have a direct interest in this in that I never have a training plan of any kind. I just like riding my bike, but I also really like stats. So I enjoy retrospective analysis, but don't prescribe how I should ride. So when I look at one of my long rides in retrospect I see generally a roughly even split between HR zones 2 and 3 with a bias to 3 with (much) more 4&5 if it was a (very) hilly ride, bias to 2 if it was flat. The ratios are generally dictated by the terrain and weather, and sometimes external events like train times. On the road I don't really have the mental discipline or desire to do anything other than ride my bike how I always ride, so if I wanted mostly zone 2 I'd have to plan a flat route.