I love your content but I feel like your criticism of zone2 in this instance (point 1) is a little misguided. Specifically the argument that there is no evidence for zone2 delivering greater mitochondrial biogenesis than other zones is something of a red herring or straw man fallacy. Let me explain. When looking at training we don’t look at zones (intensity) in isolation. We look at them in combination with duration. Perhaps there is someone out there claiming that zone2 intensity has specific benefits over other zones in terms of mitochondrial biogenesis but if so, I haven’t seen it. What I *have* seen is the claim that zone2 does deliver *some* useful level of mitochondrial biogenesis (even if less per minute than at other intensities) and (critically) that exercise at zone2 intensity can be continued for greater durations and with less fatigue. Ie the benefits come not from benefit-per-minute (strawman) but from overall benefit when volume is considered. You can see this in the classic Coggan chart of exercise zones - zone2 is clearly shown to have no greater deliver of adaptation in this area *per minute* than other higher zones. So the argument for zone2 does not depend upon an (apparently “strawman”) claim from Twitter that this video was seemingly a response to. As I say, love your channel, and your wider point that cycling training is not evidence-backed in many many areas is definitely valid. Thanks!
I agree that there are elements of strawman and red herring fallacies in the argument. The goal was indeed to challenge the notion of simply following 'expert' advice without question. In doing so, I might have inadvertently constructed a strawman. Your point about Zone 2 training is well taken. It's true that training effectiveness is not just about the intensity but also about the duration and how these two factors interact. It also underscores a nuanced view of training and highlights the importance of not getting fixated on one aspect of training (like mitochondrial biogenesis in this case) but considering the broader picture. I appreciate your support for the channel and the constructive feedback. It's essential to keep these conversations nuanced and grounded in certain principles. Thanks for contributing to this discussion.
"I have seen is the claim that zone2 does deliver some useful level of mitochondrial biogenesis (even if less per minute than at other intensities)" ok so what are the studies on this? A major point of this video is that claims are chucked around without ever citing a reference and they become lore because they are uttered by respected individuals like Inigo San Millan despite not because coaches have actually seen the evidence (published data). You've just done it again, said you've seen the evidence but not cited it. This is what Benjamin Bikman was on about.
