Original episode & show notes | Raw transcript
The central argument of the podcast is a critical re-evaluation of traditional, rigid training zones, such as the classic Coggan power levels or similar models based on percentages of Functional Threshold Power (FTP). The hosts, Kolie Moore and Rory Porteous, argue that while these models offer a common language, they are often fundamentally flawed and can be more detrimental than helpful for an athlete’s development.
Lack of a Duration Component: Traditional zones are one-dimensional; they define intensity (power) but completely ignore duration. This is a critical oversight because physiological adaptation is a product of both intensity and time.
Example: A model might define a “VO2 Max Zone,” but doing a one-minute effort within that zone provides a vastly different stimulus than a five-minute effort. The zone itself doesn’t account for the workload required to elicit adaptation, which is often simply “do more than last time.”
The 2x20 Rut: This flaw leads athletes into the trap of repeating the same workouts (e.g., 2x20 minutes at Sweet Spot) without progression, wondering why their fitness has stagnated.
Physiological Inaccuracy and Individual Variation: The models assume a universal physiological response to a given percentage of FTP, which is incorrect.
The “One-Size-Fits-All” Fallacy: Athletes with different physiological profiles (e.g., a sprinter with high anaerobic capacity vs. a time trialist) will experience and adapt to the same percentage-based intensity in completely different ways.
WKO iLevels: Even more advanced models like WKO’s “iLevels,” which attempt to customize zones above FTP, can be skewed by single outlier performances and fail to accurately represent an athlete’s true capabilities.
The “Harder is Better” Misconception: By presenting training as a series of tiered zones, these models inadvertently encourage athletes to ride at the very top end of a given range (e.g., “upper Zone 2”), believing it will yield a better adaptation.
Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Misuse: Many of these zones were originally intended to be descriptive—a way to analyze the intensity distribution of past rides. However, they have been widely adopted as prescriptive—a rigid set of rules for how to execute future workouts. This misuse strips training of nuance and feel.
Poor Naming and False Promises: Zone names often imply a specific physiological outcome that isn’t guaranteed.
“VO2 Max Zone”: Spending time in this zone doesn’t automatically mean you are optimally training your VO2 max system. The quality, duration, and progressive nature of the effort are what matter.
“Fat Burning Zone”: This concept is highly misleading, as the body’s fuel utilization is complex and training the ability to use fat is not achieved by simply riding at an intensity where fat is the predominant fuel source.
In essence, the podcast argues that a slavish devotion to these rigid zones prevents athletes from learning the crucial skill of training by feel (RPE), understanding their own bodies, and applying the fundamental principle of progressive overload in a two-dimensional way (intensity + duration). They encourage moving away from asking “What zone am I in?” to asking more practical questions: “Do I want to cause muscular fatigue today or not?” and “How will the fatigue from this ride affect my next workout?”