Is it really too much to ask for some critical thinking when it comes to Zone 2 training, or are we just going to keep swallowing whatever dogma is fed to us by the likes of Joe Friel and his indoor training apologists?
Zone 2 training is supposed to be about building endurance, but how can you possibly do that when youre stuck in a sterile, climate-controlled environment with no wind, no hills, and no need to actually navigate real-world terrain? Indoors, youre not even working on your bike handling skills, let alone your ability to think on your feet and adapt to changing conditions.
And dont even get me started on the whole its more efficient argument. Efficient for what? Burning a certain number of calories per hour? Completing a certain number of virtual miles on Zwift? Newsflash: if youre only concerned with those metrics, then maybe you shouldnt be training at all.
Meanwhile, outdoors, youre getting a holistic workout that includes not just cardiovascular conditioning, but also strength training, flexibility, and coordination. Youre working on your pedaling technique, your cadence, and your ability to maintain a steady pace over varying terrain. And, oh yeah, youre also getting some actual sunlight and fresh air, which Im pretty sure is essential for human health.
But hey, maybe Im just old-fashioned. Maybe the future of cycling is all about sweaty basements and virtual reality headsets. If thats the case, then Ill gladly take my Lycra-clad self elsewhere. But if were actually serious about building real endurance and real cycling skills, then can we please start talking about the benefits of outdoor training in Zone 2?