Well, I think the target audience for a lot of this media probably will benefit from doing a lot of low intensity, high volume training because they might not already do that. I also think telling people what they want to hear ("boost your fitness by doing something easy") is good for the sake of social media engagement, which generates a lot of revenue.
The target audience don't do high volume. High volume is a red flag to most pt:s (especially if they are crossfitters).
I feel like out of nowhere every last fitness influencer and running mom out there has started posting endlessly about Zone 2 training, it’s essentially the same level of obsession that more advanced runners have had with the double threshold method.
Is there some scientific study that’s recently come out that has people obsessed with this, or is it just the buzz phrase of the week? Easy aerobic/ “Zone 2” training has been a thing for as long as i’ve been a runner, it’s kind of basic knowledge that you should run most of your efforts at an easy pace with relaxed breathing and heart rate. If you run even 20 miles a week I’d think most people would figure this out themselves instead of Elite Runner Matt Choi needing to educate the masses.
I even see lots of people calling it “the zone 2 method” as if it’s some kind of new unique revolutionary training system when it’s quite literally “don’t run hard every day or you’ll burn out or get injured”
I haven't kept up with modern fitness trends, so I don't know what zone 2 in that. Are you talking about a 5 zone system? Others in this thread have mentioned 3 zone systems. And Fisky mentioned 108 to 150 range for him so that seems to imply a lower number of zones. "Zone 2 of 5" or "Zone 2 of 3" would clarify things.
I've only paid attention to one 5-zone system that was used by cross country skiers (and probably others) 25 years ago, at least that's when paid attention. In that system:
5: 95%−100%MHR
4: 90%−95%MHR
3: 83%−90%MHR
2: 70%−83%MHR
1: 60%−70%MHR
For a MHR of 181 (mine when I last paid attention), zone 2 would have been 127−150 bpm, which is a narrower range than Fisky mentioned. I actually train mostly in zone 1, which I consider easy aerobic. Unlike you calling zone 2 "easy aerobic".
Basically, this discussion doesn't make sense unless everyone agrees on what a "Zone 2" actually is. Since no one agrees, at least say what you mean by zone 2.
I feel like out of nowhere every last fitness influencer and running mom out there has started posting endlessly about Zone 2 training, it’s essentially the same level of obsession that more advanced runners have had with the double threshold method.
Is there some scientific study that’s recently come out that has people obsessed with this, or is it just the buzz phrase of the week? Easy aerobic/ “Zone 2” training has been a thing for as long as i’ve been a runner, it’s kind of basic knowledge that you should run most of your efforts at an easy pace with relaxed breathing and heart rate. If you run even 20 miles a week I’d think most people would figure this out themselves instead of Elite Runner Matt Choi needing to educate the masses.
I even see lots of people calling it “the zone 2 method” as if it’s some kind of new unique revolutionary training system when it’s quite literally “don’t run hard every day or you’ll burn out or get injured”
I haven't kept up with modern fitness trends, so I don't know what zone 2 in that. Are you talking about a 5 zone system? Others in this thread have mentioned 3 zone systems. And Fisky mentioned 108 to 150 range for him so that seems to imply a lower number of zones. "Zone 2 of 5" or "Zone 2 of 3" would clarify things.
I've only paid attention to one 5-zone system that was used by cross country skiers (and probably others) 25 years ago, at least that's when paid attention. In that system:
5: 95%−100%MHR
4: 90%−95%MHR
3: 83%−90%MHR
2: 70%−83%MHR
1: 60%−70%MHR
For a MHR of 181 (mine when I last paid attention), zone 2 would have been 127−150 bpm, which is a narrower range than Fisky mentioned. I actually train mostly in zone 1, which I consider easy aerobic. Unlike you calling zone 2 "easy aerobic".
Basically, this discussion doesn't make sense unless everyone agrees on what a "Zone 2" actually is. Since no one agrees, at least say what you mean by zone 2.
It seems like there may be a different distribution there from what I’m seeing all over social media.
Seems like people are trying to keep it in the 120-140 off of roughly 200 MHR range (usually 20-30 year old ‘influencers’ raving on about it)
Now i’m seeing the really annoying kind of content where some 3:10 marathon running gurus make fun of their friends strava posts for captioning it “easy run” when it’s actually in zone 3 or heaven forbid zone 4 because they are deeply self conscious and can’t prove their running expertise through times so they have to do it by over analyzing and dragging on their friends strava posts.
Short form media is a pure brain rot circlejerk even in the running sphere, the smart move is just to stop consuming short form running content and not give a crap about what the gym bro who started running 6 months ago has to say, but i’m CopperRunner, I don’t make smart moves, I make dumb ones and then moan about it on Letsrun.
I haven't kept up with modern fitness trends, so I don't know what zone 2 in that. Are you talking about a 5 zone system? Others in this thread have mentioned 3 zone systems. And Fisky mentioned 108 to 150 range for him so that seems to imply a lower number of zones. "Zone 2 of 5" or "Zone 2 of 3" would clarify things.
I've only paid attention to one 5-zone system that was used by cross country skiers (and probably others) 25 years ago, at least that's when paid attention. In that system:
5: 95%−100%MHR
4: 90%−95%MHR
3: 83%−90%MHR
2: 70%−83%MHR
1: 60%−70%MHR
For a MHR of 181 (mine when I last paid attention), zone 2 would have been 127−150 bpm, which is a narrower range than Fisky mentioned. I actually train mostly in zone 1, which I consider easy aerobic. Unlike you calling zone 2 "easy aerobic".
Basically, this discussion doesn't make sense unless everyone agrees on what a "Zone 2" actually is. Since no one agrees, at least say what you mean by zone 2.
It seems like there may be a different distribution there from what I’m seeing all over social media.
Seems like people are trying to keep it in the 120-140 off of roughly 200 MHR range (usually 20-30 year old ‘influencers’ raving on about it)
OK, that's 60%−70%MHR, which would be what I use as Zone 1. My zone 1 kind of makes more sense because easy aerobic is 1 instead of 2. What is zone 1 in their system? Lying on the couch? On the other hand Zone 3 in the system that I follow is tempo/threshold, so Zone 4 or 5 is rarely touched for my type of training. Zone 4 would be VO2max, Zone 5 all out (hill sprints for example).
Thinking about it some more, the zone 2 you are referring to is probably just going by 10% increments down from 100, so 50%−60%MHR is zone 1, 60%−70%MHR zone 2, etc. So they basically they skip the zone 1 unless talking about walk breaks or easy recovery jogs maybe?
Or maybe the zones are perceived exertion, where you are more likely to get into zones 4 and 5 in a 5-zone system. That way zone 3 would be "medium" effort instead of zone 3 "threshold/tempo" in the system that I use, which might be more like zone 4/5 in a perceived exertion system.
no one knows cacca about heart rate training for health, fitness or racing. that being said, if you read between the lines about what they are doing and trying to communicate, it does follow simple theory. the simple theory is that the far majority of running should be done at a very comfortable pace, effort, heart rate level. only 10-20% of weekly training should be "uncomfortable" to sustain. for the most part, give everyone kudos, and move on. zone 2 is basically running at a comfortable level
Recreational runners measuring blood lactate levels is ridiculous. I guess they go home and sleep in an altitude tent too (or do people not use those anymore?)
Hobby runner here who’s had training breakthroughs due to the lactate pro meter I bought with tax return money last year. Getting a lab test done to know my threshold and making sure I stay under it with the meter has kept me in the proper stimulus and allowed me to stack weeks feeling good vs overcooking things in the past as we hobby joggers so often do. Just because it’s a “new thing” doesn’t mean it’s all bad.
You couldn't figure that out by your pace? I get it, some people just LOVE gear and gadgets and loads of data they can pour over and navel gaze.
I see it as just another way to measure the same thing. In the end the only thing that matters is pace/time- and that's measured on the watch. If it takes blood samples to get you there, well.. have at it. I just look at my pace and my effort and adjust accordingly.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
It seems like there may be a different distribution there from what I’m seeing all over social media.
Seems like people are trying to keep it in the 120-140 off of roughly 200 MHR range (usually 20-30 year old ‘influencers’ raving on about it)
OK, that's 60%−70%MHR, which would be what I use as Zone 1. My zone 1 kind of makes more sense because easy aerobic is 1 instead of 2. What is zone 1 in their system? Lying on the couch? On the other hand Zone 3 in the system that I follow is tempo/threshold, so Zone 4 or 5 is rarely touched for my type of training. Zone 4 would be VO2max, Zone 5 all out (hill sprints for example).
Thinking about it some more, the zone 2 you are referring to is probably just going by 10% increments down from 100, so 50%−60%MHR is zone 1, 60%−70%MHR zone 2, etc. So they basically they skip the zone 1 unless talking about walk breaks or easy recovery jogs maybe?
Probably accurate, I see lots of posts saying things like “If you have to walk sometimes to stay in zone 2, do it! I take walk breaks all of the time during zone 2 training”
Hobby runner here who’s had training breakthroughs due to the lactate pro meter I bought with tax return money last year. Getting a lab test done to know my threshold and making sure I stay under it with the meter has kept me in the proper stimulus and allowed me to stack weeks feeling good vs overcooking things in the past as we hobby joggers so often do. Just because it’s a “new thing” doesn’t mean it’s all bad.
You couldn't figure that out by your pace? I get it, some people just LOVE gear and gadgets and loads of data they can pour over and navel gaze.
I see it as just another way to measure the same thing. In the end the only thing that matters is pace/time- and that's measured on the watch. If it takes blood samples to get you there, well.. have at it. I just look at my pace and my effort and adjust accordingly.
I've found that pace is extremely variable, espeically for someone like me who has a very underdeveloped aerobic system. I would do as you say, lock onto an "easy pace range" from calculators and the such and it left me injured and overcooked.
Using an effort based approach with HR/chest strap as my governor for easy runs and then lactate as my governor for workouts has allowed me to train and not strain as I so often did before.
For reference, the lab tests showed that my true threshold was near what I was doing for my "easy runs". I could talk a little bit and cope into thinking it was a conversational pace. At the end of the day, I am newer to endurance sport and you seem to not be. Just because you likely have years of aerobic development on me doesn't mean you need to comment against someone trying to develop that system properly and hopefully one day catch up!
No different than the running community taking about the “ Norwegian method” that type of training is 40 years old at least
Information goes in cycles.
Looks at the keto/atkins diet/low carb "comeback".
I've been preaching "Zone 2" training on my Youtube channel for the last 15 years (and it's rooted back in Lydiard's aerobic base building concepts from many, many decades ago).
Fitness influencers who just started running marathons like yesterday act like they've discovered this new Zone 2 training " fitness hack secret."
But that's how it is with information and social trends too. Look at how fashion/clothing style operates in cycles as well (things come back and are cool again decades later) - or an oldie music song is recycled/remixed/covered on TikTok and the Gen Z kids think it's this cool new jam by a new artist.
From what I have observed, most of the newer zone 2 discussions have derived, like an early poster mentioned, from the Peter Attia/Andrew Huberman crowd. In other words, from individuals who are more focused on optimizing health and longevity than pure running performance. Ideally the zone is categorized by keeping lactate under a certain level measured with a lactate meter, although perceived exertion can be a viable alternative. These individuals also stress the importance of maintaining both a high vo2 max and a high level of muscle mass for optimal metabolic health as one ages. Running influencers that talk about zone 2 are just grifting.
This post was edited 52 seconds after it was posted.
A non-runner friend of mine asked me about this last week, and I also saw some weenie narcissist drop that term in his day-in-the-life-of-a-winner short. It’s bizarre how this stuff can spread considering it’s just a marketing gimmick. Nobody seems to even know what it means, but it only took a little pushing from Garmin and the Huberman paid-promotion-podcast to get normies totally sold on it.
I feel like out of nowhere every last fitness influencer and running mom out there has started posting endlessly about Zone 2 training, it’s essentially the same level of obsession that more advanced runners have had with the double threshold method.
Is there some scientific study that’s recently come out that has people obsessed with this, or is it just the buzz phrase of the week? Easy aerobic/ “Zone 2” training has been a thing for as long as i’ve been a runner, it’s kind of basic knowledge that you should run most of your efforts at an easy pace with relaxed breathing and heart rate. If you run even 20 miles a week I’d think most people would figure this out themselves instead of Elite Runner Matt Choi needing to educate the masses.
I even see lots of people calling it “the zone 2 method” as if it’s some kind of new unique revolutionary training system when it’s quite literally “don’t run hard every day or you’ll burn out or get injured”
What you’re referring to is called confirmation bias.
No different than the running community taking about the “ Norwegian method” that type of training is 40 years old at least
Information goes in cycles.
Looks at the keto/atkins diet/low carb "comeback".
I've been preaching "Zone 2" training on my Youtube channel for the last 15 years (and it's rooted back in Lydiard's aerobic base building concepts from many, many decades ago).
Fitness influencers who just started running marathons like yesterday act like they've discovered this new Zone 2 training " fitness hack secret."
But that's how it is with information and social trends too. Look at how fashion/clothing style operates in cycles as well (things come back and are cool again decades later) - or an oldie music song is recycled/remixed/covered on TikTok and the Gen Z kids think it's this cool new jam by a new artist.
I suppose it's all part of the human condition.
Thanks for commenting Sage!
You’ve definitely played a large role in my whole running training/physiology journey starting back in early highschool so I really appreciate you chiming in.
This post was edited 38 seconds after it was posted.