Zone 2 training is often touted as the foundation of a training plan for endurance athletes, with proponents arguing that it allows for optimal aerobic development and increased fat metabolism. However, Id like to challenge this assumption and explore the physiological and performance implications of prioritizing Zone 2 training over other intensity zones.
Specifically, if an athletes primary goal is to improve their lactate threshold or increase their anaerobic capacity, does it make sense to focus the majority of their training in Zone 2, or would a more polarized approach - with a greater emphasis on high-intensity interval training and low-intensity recovery - be more effective?
Furthermore, how do individual differences in aerobic and anaerobic physiology, as well as varying levels of training experience, influence the optimal intensity distribution for endurance athletes?