Practiceby Lab 10 Get started ›
Crossfire

When two coaches say Zone 2, do they mean the same intensity?

What the experts say

Iñigo San MillánPhD · applied exercise physiologist, University of Colorado School of Medicine

Zone 2 sits AT the first threshold, and it is where you want most of your volume.

What it rests onHis own translation table: 'Moderate intensity domain: Zone 2, metabolic equilibrium: at LT1/VT1... This is the highest intensity at which the system is in true balance.' Zone 1 is below LT1, 'the system operates well within its capacity'. His Zones 3 to 4, which he calls metabolic drift, span from above LT1 up to CP, MLSS, FTP, VT2 or LT2, where blood lactate can look stable while 'the apparent stability of blood lactate masks a continuously deteriorating internal environment'.

Source: inigosanmillan.substack.com ↗
Stephen SeilerPhD · exercise physiologist · Professor, University of Agder

Zone 2 is the region BETWEEN the two thresholds, and it is the region to minimise.

What it rests onIn the three-zone research model he works in, Zone 1 is everything below LT1 and Zone 2 is the LT1 to LT2 band, the region his work identifies as the one athletes drift into and should not live in. His own published point is the general form of this problem: dozens of intensity scales define between three and ten zones, the same number means different intensities in different scales, and only the two turn points are physiologically anchored while the subdivisions between them are arbitrary.

Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ↗

Overview

Both are addressing endurance athletes and coaches. The collision is not about population at all, which is what makes it dangerous: it is purely lexical, and it survives every other way of telling two positions apart.

Where they agree

Almost total, once the words are translated. Both anchor training to LT1 rather than to percentages, both want the bulk of volume at or below it, both regard the region above LT1 as the place not to live, and San Millán cites Seiler's 2010 intensity-distribution paper approvingly for the 80 to 90 per cent figure. They are the same position in two vocabularies.

The one open difference is the unit: San Millán's 80 to 90 per cent has no stated denominator, and Seiler's canonical version is a proportion of sessions.

What would settle it

No new evidence would settle this. It is a naming collision, not a disagreement, and the fix is to name the thresholds (LT1, LT2, VT1, VT2, MLSS) rather than the zone numbers, and to say which scale is meant every time the word Zone appears. Left alone, a plan built from both of them tells you to spend most of your week in a zone and to avoid it.

Practice does not pick a winner here

You do, and your call is dated, kept, and yours to change. Follow the people you already trust and what they publish turns into a short daily practice.

Get started

Free to sign up and use. We do not ask for a card.