For those who swear by Zone 2 training on flat roads as the holy grail for building endurance, what actual benefits does this type of training provide in terms of handling prolonged periods of steady effort, considering that most real-world cycling scenarios involve varied terrain and unpredictable conditions that require a rider to adapt and respond to changing circumstances?
Is it truly the case that spending hours upon hours cruising along at a moderate pace on pancake-flat roads is the most effective way to build the kind of stamina and resilience needed to tackle the demands of long-distance riding, or are there other factors at play that contribute to a riders ability to handle prolonged periods of steady effort, such as mental toughness, nutrition, and bike handling skills?
And for those who advocate for Zone 2 training on flat roads, how do you reconcile the fact that many professional cyclists who compete in events that require sustained periods of high-intensity effort, such as time trials and stage races, often incorporate a significant amount of high-intensity interval training and hill repeats into their training programs, which seems to run counter to the idea that steady-state Zone 2 training is the most effective way to build endurance?
Furthermore, what role does specificity of training play in this equation, and how do you ensure that the skills and adaptations developed through Zone 2 training on flat roads translate to the demands of real-world cycling, where riders are often faced with unpredictable terrain, weather conditions, and other variables that require them to think and react on their feet?
In short, while Zone 2 training on flat roads may be effective for building a certain type of endurance, is it truly the most effective way to prepare riders for the demands of long-distance cycling, or are there other factors at play that contribute to a riders ability to handle prolonged periods of steady effort?