Why is it that zone 1, often considered the foundation of endurance training, is frequently overlooked in favor of more intense intervals and high-cadence drills? It seems counterintuitive that cyclists would prioritize shorter, more anaerobic workouts when the majority of their racing and riding is spent at a lower intensity.
Is the emphasis on high-intensity interval training a result of the instant gratification it provides, or is there a deeper physiological reason why zone 1 is neglected? Does the perceived lack of bang for your buck in terms of caloric expenditure and cardiovascular stress contribute to its relative obscurity?
Furthermore, what role does the proliferation of power meters and training software play in the devaluation of zone 1? Has the ability to quantify and track every aspect of a ride led to a focus on the most easily measurable metrics, rather than the broader benefits of low-intensity training?
Can the neglect of zone 1 be attributed to a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose and benefits, or is it simply a case of cyclists and coaches prioritizing the wrong metrics?