BROADCASTS.com

There\u2019s possibly nothing more ubiquitous in cycling than training zones. Trevor and I have lost count of the number of questions we\u2019ve received from Fast Talk listeners that begin with something along the lines of \u201cI was training in zone 4\u2026\u201d\n\nThe truth of the matter is that we don\u2019t know what that means when you tell us that. That\u2019s not because we don\u2019t know training science, but because \u201czone 4\u201d can mean a lot of different things.\n\nOne thing is certain: Training zones can have tremendous value. They provide guidance for training and a means of communicating with your coach or teammates.\n\nIf you\u2019re a fan of zones, this episode may also challenge you because zones have their limitations. They're not as clear cut as they seem. Which may be why we, and almost all of our guests today, resist even using the term \u201czones.\u201d What we hope to communicate is that there is no single zone model. That's because there is no perfect model. They all have flaws.\n\nWhat they are based on \u2013 FTP, VO2max, or power-duration \u2013 all have their issues. Nor can any model ever fully account for individual variation or even day-to-day variation within each athlete. As our guests will point out, they are rough and they have their limitations.\n\nThat being said, if you use a zone model based on your physiology and use it as a guide, not as dogma, it can be a valuable tool. So, today we'll dive into zones, or levels, or ranges, or whatever you want to call them, and talk about:\n- What exactly a zone model is, and whether it should be based on power or heart rate\n- The value of a zone system as a framework for training and, more importantly, communication\n- While there are many zone models based on heart rate, there are actually very few based on power. That\u2019s partially because Dr. Andy Coggan and Hunter Allen came up with a model that\u2019s been the standard. We\u2019ll talk about this model and why it was so important for each zone to have a name and not just a number.\n- Dr. Coggan\u2019s Classic zone model has seven zones. We\u2019ll talk about the issues with more or fewer zones, including Dr. Stephen Seiler\u2019s three-zone model, and whether or not it\u2019s based on physiology.\n- What a zone model should be based on \u2013 most systems create zones that are a percentage of VO2max or FTP or threshold. We\u2019ll talk about the pros and cons of each and how, ultimately, both have their limitations.\n- Other limitations with zones, including not understanding what \u201czone 2\u201d means and the fact that just because you\u2019re training in a particular zone doesn\u2019t mean you\u2019re doing the right training \u2013 there are other factors including volume.\n- Finally, we\u2019ll talk about the iLevels that are discussed in the third edition of Training and Racing with a Power Meter. iLevels are based on an athlete\u2019s individual profile, not just FTP, and address many of the shortcomings we\u2019ll discuss.\n\nOur primary guests today are renowned physiologists and coaches who need no introduction, who are the authors of the aforementioned book, Dr. Andy Coggan, Dr. Stephen McGregor, and a guest you\u2019ve heard from before on Fast Talk, Hunter Allen.\n\nWe also talk with local coach Colby Pearce to get his opinion about zones. As a top-level coach figuring out how to best direct his athletes, he had a lot of great insight about zones and their limits.We also talk with Dr. Stephen Seiler, one of the originators of the polarized training concept, to get his take on training zones and why he often promotes a three-zone model. You may be surprised by his answer.\n\nFinally, we'll touch base with Sebastian Weber with INSCYD and a coach to athletes like Tony Martin and Peter Sagan. We ask him his opinion on whether zones should be based on a percentage of VO2max or threshold, but it quickly turns into a more nuanced conversation about the dangers of blindly following zones.