#41 - Zone 2 training: why all the talk? With Dr Andrew Coggan

[@mdbourne]

San Milan specifically has consistently said he recommends approx 80% of the time at Z2 and 20% and much higher intensity (depending on the athlete the % can change and where is the season the % can vastly change). He is super specific it is NOT all z2 all the time. How can a “scientist” come on a podcast and criticize any other scientist, without first even listening to what he actually says. This is ridiculous and embarrassing for both Coggan and the host. Doing literally 90 seconds of research and you would have clearly see your entire point was off base.

[@user-fy7ri8gu8l]

He literally admits near the end that he's only read other peoples summaries of San's musings on forums... lmao, typical boomer believes everything they see online so long as it agrees with what they already want to think.

[@dickieblench5001]

Exactly who are these clowns?

[@ASGundogs]

Enjoy listening to Andy but the whole podcast feels built on a lie. DrISM doesn't say don't go hard, just that it's better to separate the work into its component parts on a Z2 day and maybe finish off with the all out Z4/5 effort. And he basically laughed at Simon from GCN for doing all Z2 training for A CYCLOCROSS race 🤣 I have personally found ISM's ideas to be additive. They help me focus my intensity level during a 'Base phase Breakthrough' day. But soon those ISM day's transition into more race specific Tempo/Sweetspot and ultimately Threshold workouts. He clearly and repeatedly says "races aren't won in Z2". Andy seemed to brush over the juiciest info I was looking for- maybe on purpose because otherwise you could take 'all roads lead to Rome' to mean 'don't bother training, just ride your bike' and that's clearly not true either.

[@qilinwang5889]

Exactly what I thought. This guest is famous, but I can't believe he brush off so many things and WITHOUT listening to any of the podcasts done by Inigo.

[@superstrada6847]

Sometimes we believe what we are telling ourselves; Coggan appears to be at this point. Yes he is the father of Power as a training metric so he casually deflects or denies it's limitations. He seems to blow off physiology and historical research as though not valuable. He clearly is threatened by the likes of ISM and also the likes of Steven Seiler (didn't even mention him) and others (Allen) who clearly recognize the limitations of training by power. Coggan appears to be protecting his market place. Imho.

[@vantarpon6849]

Agree. He comes off as an academic protecting his turf. I find Seiler's discussion on training so much more easy to understand and to implement.

[@superstrada6847]

"The heart gets tired." This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. Coggan still trying to deflect the failure of his power zone model. He remains in denial as to cardiac drift . "The heart gets tired." If anything the heart works harder. I am a physiologist and cardiologist. This guy is hoping time stood still. Message to Dr Coggan: Training to power is no the answer to all things! Move on please. Funny if not sad.

[@gerrysecure5874]

Coggan was the first to write a book on training with power meters. Being the first doesn't necessarily make him right.

[@jeremyleake6868]

Well done on getting Andy on a podcast on this subject but I’m afraid that’s where the praise ends. The interview was so disappointing on a number of levels. Where to begin? First, you and Andy attack a straw man of 100% Z2 training. No top coach, medic or physiologist I’ve seen recommends that for performance (eg San Milan, Seiler, Attia etc). Seiler found top athletes trained 80% of their workouts less than LT1. Then the rest was hard or exceptionally hard. None of them I think would disagree with the importance of progressive overload. Andy talks as if he’s different on that - its not a differentiator. Second, its quite obvious that top endurance cyclists don’t train any old how - they have a long base period of low intensity then ramp up to race season. Try looking around at other endurance sports beyond cycling - eg running, rowing, cross-country skiing. All similar training distributions (in rowing they use the terms UT1 and UT2). Third, Andy dismisses the mental and systemic stress levels of training. It’s not all in the mind, though that is important in training. Constant triggering of the sympathetic nervous system is not productive. Seiler mentions this, as does Dr Andy Galpin - one of the best muscle experts in the world. My personal view is that it’s also much harder to prescribe the right dose of consistent overload in sweet spot than in lower intensity. Its very easy to go too hard on sweet spot (too much intensity or not enough rest) and the consequences of getting it wrong - for systemic or localised muscle stress - set you back more than doing low intensity. Fourth, you should have probed more Andy’s apparent dismissal of heart training for endurance sports like cycling. If I understood Andy correctly he was saying its all about muscle endurance. That is highly contentious when you hear cyclists and rowers have some of the biggest hearts in sports. You gave Andy a pass on all those things was was hugely disappointing. It’s not that Andy has some good points and might well be right on some of them, but frankly we wasn’t tested and I’m far from convinced by his performance. (Incidentally Seiler, Attia and San Milan and others would also not place too much weight on FTP, so that was a straw man too. San Milan says steady state efforts depend on length of time - as you can easily see from athletes’ power curves).

[@insideexercise]

Thanks for taking the time to send such a comprehensive comment. You make some interesting points. I can’t be expected to be an expert on every area that I interview people on so if I missed some points I think that’s understandable. I think Andy and I assume that the heart is playing a major role in VO2 max but not as much in performance. Intertwined of course. As I said in an earlier podcast, it was shown in 1988 that Tour de France cyclists V02 max does not change over a season although their muscle oxidative enzymes change by 200- 300%.

[@jeremyleake6868]

@@insideexercise Thanks for your response. One other thing to ask Andy next time he’s on is why he thinks nearly all the studies have focused on sweet spot and interval training. He seemed to be saying that is because it is effective. But the real answer ironically is one Andy criticised academics for on why they aren’t saying what they genuinely think - its because such training has immediate measurable effects (within 4-8 weeks) whereas long lower intensity training takes much longer to show benefits (say 3-12 months). Academics struggle to get a large number of subjects to commit to that length of study and they are under pressure to show results sooner. But the benefits of high intensity efforts diminish after the initial gains whereas the low intensity training will build your capacity over time. The non-linear diminishing gains in HIIT I think is the main reason why many cyclists who go down that route find themselves burning out over a period of a year or so, and why they have that stop-start aspect to their training.

[@insideexercise]

@@jeremyleake6868 Good points.

[@aarondcmedia9585]

Just responded to a comment above suggesting that Z2 is sold as "that training harder is bad for you. MAMILs jumped for joy". Good grief talk about strawman. NB: "Inside Exercises" response to this comment was, "Lol. Spot on". Here he claims to not be an expert on every area, but this is not requiring expertise, just to listen to what Z2 people are actually advocating.... Hear hear on the HR thing too. Just as much useful data can be gleaned from bpm / HRV throughout a training block and training session as any other metric IMO.

[@BBoor82]

That was awesome

[@wassim2pro]

Great interview. I used to do my intensity work on hit session at the end of the session that last sometime 3-4 hours thinking that if i do it in the beginning i will supresses fat oxidation for the rest of the ride that is supossed to be endurance pace which i tought would be bad not only for developping my endurance since we want to train our body to use more fats but also for the training day because i will be glycogen depleated faster now after this interview i guess i should do the intensity work first for more freshness and then add endurance hours but i noticed by doing this cardiac drift happen very fast because of the intensity and i have a much higher HR for the same Power then before the intensity done. So what is the best time to do your intensity in your ride? and when cardiac drift happen we have to reduce power we ride at right ? Also all roads lead to Rome but is'nt zone 2 still the best way and also less stresful for the body?

[@philadams9254]

Personally I always do intensity as its own session and never mix up endurance rides with any other efforts. If you want the best possible numbers, do the efforts first. If you want to train your ability to hit the high numbers while fatigued, do them at the end.

[@Gufolicious]

Probably when hills come up ;) i ride up all hills either in z4 (

[@dylansevitt]

This was a cool guest, I think the general idea that zone 2 is not evidence based like it's hyped up to be. Too many commenters here have drank the coolaide on zone 2 and are missing that single point.

[@goodyeoman4534]

Conversely, too many people seem to ignore the fact that Zone 2 / polarised / 80-20 training does not incorporates a decent chunk of speed work and intervals. The mental blocks on both sides of the debate is a bit weird.

[@alesipavec6587]

Pogačar and Roglič are Slovenian not Slovakian…rember, they have LOVE in their country name 😊

[@insideexercise]

Yes I think Andy was thinking of Peter Sagan.

[@philadams9254]

Andy is a *legend* ! Please do more discussions with him!

[@insideexercise]

Yes he’s awesome. I’ve had him on twice already. I’d love to have him on again but not sure what we’d talk about a third time. Any suggestions? Could be history of exercise metabolism actually. He wrote a chapter in that for my exercise metabolism book.

[@pstrzel]

Training with power turned me into a much better cyclist at 42 than I was at 24. Andy's insights were instrumental in my embracing of Sweet Spot training, which is doable for someone with a full-time job.

[@hikerJohn]

I'm trying to become that diesel engine @14:50 because I'm doing 12-16hr hikes doing a "marathon" every day while hiking the PCT. I would like to also be able to run a 10K but it's hard to train for both but I'm trying to figure that out but hiking/backpacking has the priority with some days burning 8,000 kcal going up and over mountain passes or bagging a peak and not being wiped out by it. When that hill is in front of you you have to go over it . . . usually in zone 3 and you get your zone 2 going down the other side. No coasting like with a bike as the downhills can be quite rocky and steep.

[@LenkaSaratoga]

Adirondacks high peaks hiker here. Ran 10k EASY. Zero training.

[@lukefarren3409]

Skeletal muscle mitochondrial density is the key factor in decreased lactate production and increased lactate removal via mitochondrial oxidation of pyruvate and NADH. The overall density of mitochondria in muscle tissue increases in response to aerobic workouts. More mitochondria means greater use of oxygen to produce more ATP and energy. This is why aerobic endurance training is so important & recommended by ISM and others, rather than the focus on training the body to burn fat over glycogen.

[@insideexercise]

Yes and lots of different types of endurance training results in the same increase in mitochondrial volume. And lots of different endurance training increases the ability to burn fat. See Lars Nybo pod episode.

[@goodyeoman4534]

Just to confirm, can mitochondria number be increased through CV training, or merely "thickened" ie increase its density. If so, would Zone 2 training work for that, or is high-intensity also needed?

[@woodwindstorm]

this sounds rather like a sentimental talk about the guy's life and his negative attitude towards current training methodologies than a meaninfgul lecture or transfer of information...

[@breathtakingevents9320]

Agree, Andy's escaped into the top paddock with the sheep. San Milan repeats ... he has been collecting blood, muscle biopsy data for 25/30 years from thousands of athletes and has absolutely dialled the required intensity, duration and volume to make the call on what works for elite level athletes and everyday good health and longevity.

[@PerryScanlon]

Edit: complicated correction. The Dudley rat study showed that cytochrome C production in slow twitch fibers peaked at a submaximal intensity (%VO2 was erroneously extrapolated from another study I believe). SIT is an exception, and the Gillen/Gibala experiment is fascinating. 2 papers in 2022 showed elite distance runners spending a lot of time below LT1. The minimum useful intensity for trained people seems to be around 60% of max HR in a lot of papers. So the science seems to suggest that Zone 2 has a lot of value.

[@insideexercise]

Did you listen to Michael Joyners podcast episode that was the week before this one? Very different discussion than Andy’s but also reckons all roads lead to Rome (although his example is Tokyo 😊). I feel it’s hard to argue with this interpretation.

[@PerryScanlon]

@@insideexercise that was 4 runners in 1964. A single athlete may not give reliable details as we know from all the doping scandals. Today the fastest endurance athletes do either pyramidal, polarized, or Norwegian.

[@nikgracanin6180]

@@PerryScanlonWhat is polarized other than doing a shitton of Z2?

[@PerryScanlon]

@@nikgracanin6180 Dr. Seiler says 80/20 by session, about 90/10 by time, without distinguishing between Z1 and Z2 in 5-zone model. The pros tend to do pyramidal or Norwegian in non-taper. Either way is a lot of time below LT1. Whether it's Z1 or Z2 (5-zone model) depends on definition but usually not below 60%MHR except Killian Jornet, fasted.

[@notreal-pl7mz]

(1) We tell ourselves a story, go and do a thing, look at the result and associate it with the story. (2) More intense workouts are more fun and tend to scupper recovery. This is why zone 2 works although it is boring. (3) Threshold gets a bad name because people fall into it from a HIT session that fails because they are not recovered enough for it. This is a hole digging session.

[@ericflanders9442]

Any thoughts about ANS activation relative to zone intensity? Feels like nervous system stress is a lost variable in “optimizing” training. Maybe not from a metabolic adaption standpoint but I’m terms of motivation and performance…

[@jono1457-qd9ft]

Oh no. We can't talk about that. That is not permitted.

[@LenkaSaratoga]

Excellent Content! Learning a lot. 💚👍 I subscribed. Greetings from New York State.

[@RXP91]

I think the reason ISM z2 definition is so in vogue is due to health. Training at higher intensities and competing in races isn't optimal for health.

[@simonstark5932]

Truly a very great talk! Thank you very much🥳🥳🥳

[@lg169]

really??? to maintain the same wattage for an hour or so during training doesn't make sense because "we don't ride bikes like that". I hop I misunderstood that comment because it is pretty dumb

[@toddapplegate3988]

Observation of endurance athletes says this low intensity training is valuable (But why?). I agree that z2 has become a religion for athletes and longevity. It obviously needs more science yet we can atleast say we cannot go hard everyday.

[@Kernoe]

Best!

[@gerrysecure5874]

I put more faith in a scientist/coach who successfully coaches one of the most successful cyclists than a somewhat theoretical scientist that just claims the other is wrong. Indurain trained 8 hrs a day at low intensity before he made world champion. Van def Poel trained 7 hrs a day for a year before going to threshold and won 10k speedscate olympics. So yes low intensity works, coggan should reevaluate his claims. Of course you can say its not the intensity its the volume that matters, but there is not much volume at high intensity. Also with coggans claim you don't need to train at fatmax to improve fatburn, one can also say you don't need to train at sweetspot/threshold to improve threshold, et voila we are polarized.

[@insideexercise]

Andy’s point wasn’t that zone 2 doesn’t work, it’s that everything works. Zone 2 isn’t special. It’s all a continuum. All exercise will increase your mitochondrial enzymes etc and your ability to perform. Eg HIIT training has similar effects in this regard as LSD. It’s the same thing as Michael Joyner said in the previous weeks podcast. All Roads lead to Rome or all Roads lead to Tokyo as Michael said.

[@michwoz]

@@insideexercise It is continuum but it is non-linear. Fatigue and regeneration requirements are not directly proportional to the intensity. Hence more intense plans need to limit the volume. In the end the ability to accumulate training stimulus (time under load) productively is simply higher below LT1.

[@insideexercise]

@@michwoz Yes that is true. Just like you can walk forever as it’s such low intensity. But it doesn’t mean it’s optimum and that is all you’d want to do. A mix is less boring too. It’s just that all roads lead to Rome so why are people so obsessed with zone 2? Like if deviate from it the world will come to an end.

[@michwoz]

​@@insideexercise Yes. Optimal may be different for different athletes considering circumstances and abilities. The thing is the most people doesn't seem to have capabilities to handle too much intensity for a long time. That's why polarized/pyramidal approaches are shown to be the best intensity distribution on population level. But again, this doesn't mean that some individuals won't thrive on threshold or hiit programs. Or mixture of many. In my opinion the best will be the one that particular athlete can follow reliably long term.

[@jamesrandles4725]

Van Der Poel did approx 90-95% ftp for several hours each day 5 days per week. He did several more hours of low intensity training on top, but Van Der Poels training schedule is quite a bad example of z2 training… it’s a better example of threshold or sweetspot training actually.

[@uMsubathi]

Like his training perspective

[@SkylerTanner]

Really enjoyed this!

[@Timo-qb1gf]

Sounds to me very much like a classical case of a person defending his own invention and ignoring the rest. And typical "scientific" saber rattling. It's not easy I give him that but as an engineer I know you should keep your mind open not get fixated on one idea. Unless your target is to sell a book and training plans based on it, obviously...

[@domdog111]

The saber rattling is what put me off also. I've found it to be a sign to take the speaker with a grain of salt. I emphasized more zone 2 this year. It's different how I am ramping up in different areas of my fitness. I think many paths to Rome may be somewhat true but it has decreased my concern with injury and add some great strategic advantages in forming a training plan for the year/season.

[@aarondcmedia9585]

Exactly. He's an arrogant prat.

[@David_Laye1999]

Excellent insight here

[@bjmaston]

This is basic human psychology. We see it with chocolate and wine, too. Once a year, newspapers run a front page splash explaining that the science tells us that eating chocolate and drinking wine is good for us. An authoritative figure said that chat laps are enough and that training harder is bad for you. MAMILs jumped for joy.

[@insideexercise]

Lol. Spot on.

[@bjmaston]

@@insideexercise Theres another angle to this. Some sections of road cycling are highly competitive. If you spread the meme that training outside Zone 2 is counterproductive, you discourage competitors from getting stronger.

[@aarondcmedia9585]

I don't see anyone advocating a predominance of Z2 training also advocating no intensity. What a strawman.

[@bjmaston]

​@@aarondcmedia9585 Anyone? Here's literally the first result from "zone 2 training" on KZbin: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4PPhGyQjbaEncU ...and the comments on that video are littered with sentiment like "it's so important to learn to train at slower paces" and "I found out i was running way too fast ".

[@aarondcmedia9585]

@@bjmaston good grief. That you get a heart for this kind of comment is mind boggling. Is Inside Exercise a conspiracy theorist as well?

[@pehu1322]

A great interview. Doctor Goggan gets to the point and provides clarity. "...on Average" - so Alois Mader said - comprehensive knowledge - Thank you very much !

[@ronredlin3355]

Nothing more than your guest throwing useless word salad all around trying to show how smart he is. Turned off at 35 mins…

[@paulksacco]

I am trying to help "coach" (I'm an ignorant grandfather) my grandson who is a wrestler. Can you point me to a resource?

[@jimvee4528]

I just re-listened to this. It's fine, and Coggan and McConnell are real experts. And I learned things from it, no doubt. But the whole hour and half discussion doesn't have a point unless it argues with a vague, ridiculous straw man argument like "is it true that rigid adherence to zone 2 is the only way to train regardless of your goals?" For instance, listen to the section on "what is Zone 2", Andy just rambles for a while. It's good stuff but he doesn't answer the question. Then he wanders off into a discussion about performance metrics, which is very insightful and helpful, but off topic. And that continues for the entire episode. You could listen to the Ben Levine podcast where Dr. Levine recommends a two to three workouts a week in Zone 2 in his "exercise prescription for life.". His definition of the recommended effort for those workouts is the same as San Millan's definition of Zone 2.

[@cipher.u.justice]

Not necessarily wrong but Andy has a lot of wires crossed here. Not just forgetting the 20 part of "80/20 z2 training" and the focus on volume and not time-crunched vs "100% z2 training" but the "FTP is Dead" thing he gets worked up over was Sufferfest, not Wahoo.

[@beeliseu]

Please make a podcast eira San Milan 😎

[@oliviaolivia7011]

after listing to few interviews with Dr Inigo San Milan , I can tell that no one understands human physiology and performance to such a degree as he does . His explanations are phenomenal ! Everyone else tries to make something up and this interview is a good example of it ! This is such a disappointing interview !

Thanks!!!

[@bernardomartinez5884]

Summary: "everyone else have no clue, and I´m the only one that knows what is doing"... Too much arrogance... with no backup (zero scientific papers referenced for example)...

[@dylansevitt]

I think it went over your head, his exact point is that there's a lack of evidence of zone 2 training being more predictive for performance, those pushing zone 2 are the ones who need to provide the evidence as they are making the positive claim in contention.

[@aabc84]

Should I slow down my speed to stay inside my training zone because I get cardiac drift of about 20 beats

[@insideexercise]

Based on what Andy said I would think no.

[@aabc84]

@@insideexercise well in that case then Andy is a complete imbecile who knows nothing

[@Beinhartwie1chopper]

Calcium Release

[@zptro6316]

what does "reversibility" mean in training?

[@SkylerTanner]

Use it or lose it.

[@goodyeoman4534]

It means run backwards

[@fat8646]

I think you should also get Bart Kay on your podcast. He have a similar view on this. He speaks a lot of the specificity of the training .

[@droid806]

"You will know them by their fruits" San Millan has supported many successful athletes in their careers, (e.g. the top cyclist in the world right now). I look forward to learning more about the results of Dr. Coggan work applied to top athletes.

[@Gufolicious]

You should listen more closely sir.

[@markmartin4793]

Well he's training his don 10hrs a week and it doesn't seem as if he killing everyone so 🤷🏽‍♂️

[@dickieblench5001]

44:55 Good luck with that

[@davos4268]

This is like the carnivore vegetarian debate. The more I listen to training experts the more confusing! My observation is that polarised training is great for high volume base training, using heart rate and power, And then specific event based training.

[@insideexercise]

I agree. It gets confusing. What I try to do is interview experts and respect their expertise so in doing so not push the discussion in any particular direction. They tend to have some agreements and some disagreements so hard to get a 100% take away message. But it depends on the individual, what they are training for (how serious and also which event(s), how much training they are doing, their genetics, their current fitness/stage of the season etc etc.

[@cracked229]

This isn't like the carnivore/vegetarian (assume you meant vegan) debate. Carnivores contribute to unnecessary animal abuse and cruelty while vegans seek to limit it. Full stop.

[@davos4268]

@@cracked229 you assumed wrongly

[@terrymorse]

Great discussion, thanks. Here's Andy's reply in 2005 to my question on why should we train at level 2: "1. It's fun. 2. It allows you to burn more calories, and thus eat more/be leaner. 3. It's a great way to work on your tan. 4. It helps condition ancillary/support muscles (having done a 120 mi district road race on a borrowed bike as only my 2nd or 3rd outdoor ride of the year, I can tell you that this is very important ). 5. You *might* be able to tolerate a greater overall "dose" of training if it is achieved via lower intensity+greater volume vs. higher intensity+lower volume. The one thing about training at level 2 is that it is so pleasurable (esp. at the low/middle end of the range) that it is easy to fall into the trap of not maintaining an overload situation. Consequently, people often ride and ride and ride and ride, and after a while simply don't get better (until, of course, the racing season starts)."

[@philadams9254]

I wouldn't use the word 'pleasurable' to be honest. If you are actually in the middle of the range, it starts to sting quite a bit after 45 minutes unless you coast every so often (which diminishes the training effect).

[@dickieblench5001]

This guy Andy knows nothing about zone 2

[@aarondcmedia9585]

@@philadams9254 middle of Z2 stings quite a bit after 45 minutes? Seriously? That seems a very specific amount of time. Perhaps you mean at a certain % of your typical Z2 training session? I find upper Z2 starts to sting a bit after 150 minutes. Zero coasting - I'm on a trainer.

[@dickieblench5001]

Terry that's a very basic understanding of what zone 2 does. You need to listen to Stephen Seiler and investigate his research

[@terrymorse]

LOL@@dickieblench5001

[@markmetternich7629]

The online interviews with Inigo San Milan explain everything! The top exercise scientist, who has spearheaded zone two.

[@TheMerckxProject]

I've never had any interest in measuring my training or performances in watts, and I personally think power meters have a major flaw in that they don't measure the resistance you are pushing against. (Your gear inches.) And if you have to pull data from two other sources (HR, lactate) to correlate it to anything, then it's not a reliable metric that you should dictate your training to. And of course, then there's the whole aero, CDA aspect. Which brings me to my response to all of it; the only metric that matters is the stop watch. And I'm really happy to see more and more people, including Dr. Coggan, who are starting to 'admit' this as well.

[@pauldavies5541]

Get yourself a power meter asap. I too was anti power meter for a long time. It’s raw instant feedback and the numbers don’t lie!

[@aarondcmedia9585]

"they don't measure the resistance you are pushing against" - that's exactly what they measure.

[@TheMerckxProject]

@@aarondcmedia9585 this is, unfortunately, completely wrong. They measure your output. The force you apply to the pedal stroke. There is absolutely nothing in the system that can calculate, record, track your gear inches, chain inefficiency, tire inefficiency, BB inefficiency....

[@aarondcmedia9585]

@@TheMerckxProject you wrote "they don't measure the resistance you are pushing against". That's exactly what they do. Let's put it as simply as we can: if there was no friction, no resistance at all, what would your power meter measure? 0 watts.

[@TheMerckxProject]

@@aarondcmedia9585 the torque measured by the strain gauges is a calculation, and not a direct measurement of the actual power. P=W/t, W=F*d

[@250txc]

I'm so glad I did the HR training with a real HR monitor about 30 yrs also, so all the old-new ideas expressed here are not confusing ...

[@250txc]

A video like this is almost more of a mind study \ exercise than something that is useful to most of us ..Not that it all can not be untrue but do we all need to understand Einsteins equations to live a productive \ happy life?