Can we really say were training effectively in Zone 2 if our heart rates are vastly different on varying terrain, yet were somehow expected to maintain the same perceived exertion? Doesnt this approach essentially throw out the window the very concept of a Zone as weve come to understand it? Shouldnt we be adjusting our zone thresholds based on the specific demands of the terrain at hand, rather than trying to force our bodies into a predetermined zone on vastly different terrain types?
The conventional wisdom seems to be that as long as were falling within a certain HR range (55-60% of max HR for Zone 2, for example), we can claim to be training in that zone, regardless of whether were slogging up a Category 1 climb or cruising down a false flat. But is this really the case? Dont rolling hills, headwinds, and changes in elevation have a profound impact on the actual effort required to maintain a given pace? If so, shouldnt we be adjusting our zones accordingly?
Ive tried using the perceived exertion method to gauge my zone training, but Im finding it woefully inaccurate when faced with vastly different terrain types. For example, I can be churning along in a steady state on a flat road, feeling like Im cruising along in Zone 2, only to hit a short hill and suddenly find myself at a complete standstill with my heart rate spiking through the roof. And yet, according to the conventional wisdom, I should be able to recover quickly and get back into Zone 2, simply because my HR dipped below a certain threshold for a few minutes.
But what if Im actually getting dropped out of the group due to my sluggish recovery on the hills? What if my competitors are using terrain-specific zone training to their advantage, while Im stuck trying to force my body into an arbitrary zone that bears little resemblance to the actual demands of the course? Isnt it time we rethink the way we approach zone training, and start incorporating terrain-specific adjustments into our training plans?